Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1997-11-05
November 5, 1997 (Reg~ular Meeting) (Page 1) 000084 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 5, 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. (arrived at 10:10 a.m.), Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at 9:06 a.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins (arrived at 9:06 a.m.) and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by the Chairman, Ms. Humphris. She said Mr. Marshall was ill this morning and would not be present. The Board will proceed without a quorum until time to take a vote. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Cynthia Duprey, a resident of the Samuel Miller District, said the Ivy landfill should be closed to trash burial. She noted that from the recent data collected by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, it is clear that burying trash is fiscally irresponsible. She asked if the Board had considered, as the Citizen's Task Force recommended, spreading trash disposal throughout the County. Mr. Jim Adams, a resident of Ivy, said residents of Ivy oppose SP-97-30 which requests approval for a cellular tower be located in Ivy. He said that such a tower would change the character of the area, which is primarily rural, agricultural and residential. Mr. Ed Strange, a resident of Ivy, said the County should quit burying trash at the Ivy landfill. Real estate assessments are declining in the area and the quality of life is reduced. He said there are other professionals who can take care of the trash, and that the Request for Proposal (RFP) which was issued will save money, as much as $5.00 per ton. The original plan was to blast for this new cell, but the blasting is within five feet of the water table. He added that a motorized jack hammer vibrates his house when in use at the landfill. Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation. Ms. Humphris presented a certificate of appreciation to Mr. William A. Finley, Jr., for his years of service on the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board. She said Mr. Finley served from the City of Charlottesville from 1986 until he moved from the City in 1990. In May, 1994, Mr. Finley returned to the PVCC Board as a representative from Albemarle County, and served until his retirement on May 13, 1997. He was most conscientious in attending regular board meetings and other functions of the Board, and faithfully served as a member of the Board's Finance and Building Committee. He advised PVCC well during the period of recent enrollment and facilities improvement. He also ably contributed to the guidance of PVCC during its search for its fourth president, and to the orientation of the president during her first year at PVCC. Ms. Cathy Bodkin could not be present but was recognized for her service on the Charlottesville/Albemarle Community Policy and Management Team from December 9, 1992, through June 30, 1997. She was an original member of the CPMT, appointed as the private service provider agency representative. As an original member, Cathy was instrumental in the planning and implementation of the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) in this community. Her knowledge and insight were valuable contributions to the development of a coordinated interagency service system for children and families. 000085 November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 2) Agenda Item No. 6. Presentation of Chesapeake Bay Partner Community Award. Mr. Michael Clower, Director of the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, and Mr. Scott Kudlas, presented the Board with the Chesapeake Bay Partner Community Award in appreciation of the County's achievement in implementing programs and activities that restore, protect and sustain local resources and the Chesapeake Bay. The Program was set up by the Governor to recognize local governments' contributions, and Albemarle County has an excellent local program to protect the environment through managing land use effectively, utilizing stream side buffers, and working with local citizens. Ms. Humphris read the award and recognized the staff of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, as well as County staff and citizens serving on the Development Area Initiatives Study for providing ways to make the best use of the County's development growth areas, so as not to move development out into the rural areas. Ms. Humphris recognized all of the County's long-standing initiatives for Reservoir protection which efforts are led now by the Water Resources Manager, David Hirschman. She said it was started by the citizens of Albemarle County twenty-five years ago. Reservoir protection was pushed and promoted by a number of citizen organizations such as, Citizens for Albemarle, the Piedmont Environmental Council, the Sierra Club, etc. This community has been very fortunate to have many citizens involved in this effort. Without them, and the engine they provide for the Board, these things would not have happened. She thanked all of those people, and then asked that all of the staff people and organization representatives involved, who were present this morning, stand and be recognized. Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve Items 7.1 through 7.6 and 7.8 and 7.9 (see separate vote taken on Item 7.7 under ~Other Transportation Matters"), and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Item 7.1. Resolution to abandon old section of Route 640 resulting from construction of Project #0640-002-134,C501. A letter dated October 7, 1997, was received from Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator, Virginia Department of Transportation, requesting the Board to adopt a resolution to abandon a section of Route 640 (Proj. 0640-002- 134,C501, Int. Route 640 and Route 231). He stated that this project was constructed in the early 1970's, and the section in question was never abandoned. A property owner has requested that he be allowed to purchase the triangular residue. The old section of Route 640 must be abandoned in order to sell that residue. VDOT supports the abandonment of Route 640 as shown on a sketch on file in the Clerk's Office. At the request of the Virginia Department of Transportation, the following Resolution of Abandonment was adopted by the recorded vote set out above: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, with a sketch dated October 15, 1997, depicting the abandonment required in the secondary system of highways as a result of the construction of project #0640-002-134,C501, which sketch is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the portion of the old road identified on the sketch as Section 1 to be abandoned is deemed to no longer serve public need; and WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as that portion of the old road identified to be abandoned; November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 3) O0008G NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors hereby abandons as part of the secondary system of highways that portion of Route 640 identified as Section 1, a distance of 0.10 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1-155, of the Code of Virginia; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Item 7.2. Resolution for the addition and abandonment required as a result of the construction of Project #0020-002-V21,C501 (Route 20). A letter dated October 20, 1997, was received from Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator, Virginia Department of Transportation, requesting the Board to adopt a resolution for the addition and abandonments as a result of the construction of Route 20 (Project #0020-002-V21,C501) . As requested by the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Board adopted the following Resolution requesting the addition and abandonments on Route 20, as follows: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, with a sketch dated October 2, 1997, depicting the additions, discontinuances and abandonments required in the secondary system of highways as a result of the construction of Project #0020-002-V21,PE101,CS01, which sketch is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the portions of old road identified to be abandoned are deemed to no longer serve public convenience warranting maintenance at public expense; and WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as those portions of old road identified to be abandoned and those segments no longer serve a public need; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways Section 4, a distance of 0.02 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1- 229, and transfer from the primary system Section 2, a distance of 0.09 miles pursuant to Section 33.1-155, to the secondary system, a total of 0.11 miles and to be renumbered; and AND RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors abandons as part of the primary system of highways those portions of road identified as Section 1 and Section 3, a total of 0.22 miles pursuant to Section 33.1-148; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Item 7.3. Resolution for "Child At Play" Signs on Powell Creek Drive in Forest Lakes South. It was noted in the staff's report that the residents of Forest Lakes South previously requested that the Board allow the developer to cul-de-sac Powell Creek Drive in Forest Lakes South. The Board voted not to cul-de-sac the road and requested that staff work with the residents of Forest Lakes, Forest Lakes South and Hollymead, to address the traffic concerns in the area. A Task Force composed of Board members, the Planning Commission representative for the Rivanna District, VDOT and representatives from Hollymead, Porest Lakes North and Forest Lakes South have been working diligently to resolve the traffic problem. One recommendation of the Task Force that could be acted on immediately is a ~Child at Play" sign on Powell Creek Drive in Forest Lakes South. The Board will need to adopt a resolution to this effect, and staff 000087 November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 4) will work with VDOT to determine the number of signs needed and their approximate location. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution requesting ~Child at Play" signs on Powell Creek Drive in Forest Lakes South: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, a task force of residents from Forest Lakes Subdivision (north and south) and Hollymead Subdivision have been working diligently with County staff and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to address traffic concerns in their neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the task force has recommended that ~Child At Play" signs could help to alleviate some of the concerns; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors hereby requests VDOT to install the necessary ~Child At Play" signs on Powell Creek Drive in Forest Lakes South and work with County staff to determine additional appropriate locations for such signage. Item 7.4. Resolution for "Child At Play" Signs on Lego Drive in Ashcroft Subdivision. It was noted in the staff's report that the Ashcroft Neighborhood Association has requested that VDOT install a ~Child at Play" sign(s) on Lego Drive (Route 1090) between Ridgeway Lane and the end of State maintenance. Although the speed limit is 25 miles per hour, this area has a lot of pedestrian traffic, in particular, children. The Board must adopt a resolution supporting the installation of a ~Child At Play" sign(s) on Lego Drive from Ridgeway Lane to the end of State maintenance. Staff will work with VDOT to determine the number of signs needed and their approximate location. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution requesting a "Child at Play" sign(s) on Lego Drive from Ridgeway Lane to the end of State maintenance: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Ashcroft Neighborhood Association is concerned about traffic in their neighborhood considering that the subdivision has a lot of pedestrian traffic, in particular children; and WHEREAS, the Association believes that ~Child At Play" signs could help to alleviate some of the concerns; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors hereby requests VDOT to install the necessary ~Child At Play" signs on Lego Drive (Route 1090) between Ridgeway Lane and the end of State maintenance in Ashcroft Subdivision, and to work with County staff to determine additional appropriate locations for such signage. Item 7.5. Resolution to accept Riggory Ridge Road in Riggory Ridge Subdivision (SUB-90-107) into the State Secondary System. Mr. Mark Henry, Senior Engineer, wrote, on October 13, 1997, that the road serving Riggory Ridge Subdivision is substantially complete and ready for VDOT acceptance. Please request the Board to Supervisors to adopt a resolution requesting acceptance of the road in the referenced subdivision. At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the following Resolution was adopted, by the recorded vote set out above: RESOLUTION November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 5) 000088 WHEREAS, the streets in Riggory Ridge Subdivision (SUB-90- 107) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 5, 1997, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road in Riggory Ridge Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 5, 1997, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: Riggory Ridge Road from Station 10+10, right edge of pavement of US 20 NB to Station 34+45, rear of cul- de-sac, 2435 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 2/28/92 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1207, page 70, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.46 mile. Total length - 0.46 mile. Item 7.6. Resolution to accept roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivision (SUB-95-121) into the State Secondary System. Mr. Mark Henry, Senior Engineer, wrote, on October 24, 1997, that the road serving Forest Lakes South Subdivision is substantially complete and ready for VDOT acceptance. Please request the Board to Supervisors to adopt a resolution requesting acceptance of the roads in the referenced subdivision. At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the following Resolution was adopted, by the recorded vote set out above: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes South Subdivision (SUB-95-121) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 5, 1997, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 5, 1997, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 6) 000089 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Pepperidge Court from Station 0+12, right edge of pavement of southbound State Route 1521 to Station 5+53, rear of cul-de-sac, 541 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 10/16/96 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1570, pages 350-357, with a right-of- way width of 40 feet, for a length of 0.10 mile. 2) Peppervine Court from Station 0+14, right edge of pavement of Pepperidge Court to Station 3+68.25, rear of cul-de-sac, 354.25 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 10/16/96 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1570, pages 350-357, with a right-of-way width of 40 feet, for a length of 0.07 mile. Total length - 0.17 mile. Item 7.7. VDOT Traffic Calming Policy, Staff report on. (Note: Later in this meeting, under ~0ther Transportation Matters' a resolution was adopted in support of this plan.) It was noted in the staff's report that the Virginia Department of Transportation approached the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for comments on the Draft Traffic Calming P©liQy. Traffic calming is defined by VDOT as a means of addressing residential traffic problems related to speeding. The aim of traffic calming is to reduce speeds through a variety of measures. Mr. Ben Cottrell of the Virginia Transportation Research Center headed a Task Force with representatives from other VDOT agencies throughout the State to write the Draft Traffic C~lming PQlicy. Ms. Angela Tucker was part of this Task Force. VDOT anticipates the policy to be adopted by December, 1997. They plan to initiate a pilot program in six counties throughout the State starting in January, 1998. This pilot program is anticipated to run for two years. VDOT will then evaluate the policy and make any changes necessary. Albemarle County has been mentioned as a possible participant in this pilot program. This report was provided for the Board's information only. The Board's endorsement of staff's comments is welcomed. Any additional comments the Board may provide will be forwarded to VDOT. Item 7.8. Resolution to Establish Advisory Board of Social Services. It was noted in the staff's report that during the transition this past year between Social Service Directors, County staff raised questions as to the composition and responsibilities of the Social Services Board. The County Attorney's Office has advised that it is not clear whether Albemarle County's Social Services Board was designated as an "administrative" or as an "advisory" board by the Board of Supervisors. No one really has a clear understanding of the differences between these two types of appointed boards, particularly as applied to a social services board under the County Executive form of government. As an administrative board it is directly involved and responsible for the day-to-day administration of the department, while as an advisory board plays a larger role in setting policy and monitoring the department of social services' programs. By definition, as an administrative board it is required to prepare and present a budget to the governing body and has responsibility for appointing and supervising the director. However, under the County OOO09O November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 7) Executive form of government, those two functions are the responsibility of the County Executive. Therefore, the social services board could not exercise these functions as an administrative board. Under an advisory structure, the social services board presents an annual report to the governing body and acts in an advisory capacity to the director appointed by the governing body. The Albemarle Social Services Board currently operates more in line with the advisory board guidelines. This issue was brought before the current Albemarle Social Services Board at its September meeting. The Board concurred with the recommendation to officially designate the Albemarle Board as a Social Services Advisory Board. Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution to Establish an Advisory Board of Social Services. By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH ADVISORY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES WHEREAS, Section 63.1-38 of the Virginia Code requires each county in the Commonwealth to establish a local board of social services; and WHEREAS, Sections 63.1-40 and 63.1-43.1 of the Virginia Code grant the governing body of each county the discretion either to establish an administrative board composed of residents of the county to serve as the local board, or to appoint the officer in charge of the department of social services to serve as the local board and establish an advisory board to advise such officer; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County has created a Social Service Board and appointed members thereto, but has not designated the Social Services Board as either administrative or advisory; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County finds that it is in the County's best interest to appoint the director of the Department of Social Services to serve as the local board and to establish an advisory board to advise the director. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, appoints the director of the Albemarle County Department of Social Services to serve as the local board pursuant to Virginia Code Section 63.1-40 and that the current members of the Social Services Board shall be hereby appointed to serve as the advisory board to the director for the remainder of their terms. Item 7.9. Appropriation: Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Grant, $44,000 (Form #97031). It was noted in the staff's report that the 1997-98 Unified Planning Work Program was prepared by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) . The program includes transportation studies and ongoing planning activities, including a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that lists road and transit improvements for the next three years and the twenty-year Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) which is updated every five years. Other activities address traffic congestion reduction, city-county bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and public-private transit development. The work to be performed by the County of Albemarle will be funded by a $35,200 Federal Grant, a $4400 State Grant, and a $4400 transfer from the Planning Department's approved budget. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #97031 in the amount of $44,000. By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 8) OOO091 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98 NUMBER: 97031 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR METROPOLITAN PLANNING GRANT OPERATIONS EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1120881301110000 1120881301350000 1120881301600100 1120881302110000 1120881302350000 1120881302600100 1120881309110000 1120881309350000 1120881309600100 WAGES PRINTING SUPPLIES WAGES PRINTING SUPPLIES WAGES PRINTING SUPPLIES DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT $3,500 00 100 00 400 00 17,500 00 500 00 2,OO0 00 18,000 00 500 00 1.500.00 $44,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2120824000240500 STATE GRANT $4,400.00 2120833000330001 FEDERAL GRANT 35,200.00 2120851000512004 LOCAL MATCH 4.400.00 TOTAL $44,000.00 Item 7.10. Letter dated October 29, 1997, from Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, regarding transportation matters discussed at the October 1, 1997, Board meeting, was received as follows: "We have the following comments regarding transportation matters that were discussed at the October 1 Board meeting. The Department's immediate response to protect life and property during emergency operations considers the following practices: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 o 8 o 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Use erosion controls where practical. Limit or don't run equipment in the stream. Store or locate fuels and lubricants away from the stream. Seed and stabilize as soon as possible. Clean out the area immediately beneath bridges and inside culverts. Material removed from the floodway must be placed in an upland site or used in the roadway prism. Traffic can be restored by using: fords, temporary pipes, bridges or causeways. Non-erodible material must be used in the restoration. A pipe can be replaced with a larger pipe, multiple pipes or other structure. A structure can be replaced with a similar structure having the same footprint. A roadway parallel to a stream can be replaced but the roadway must have the same preflood dimensions and must be constructed on non-erodible fill adjacent to the stream. A stream can be placed back into its previous identifiable channel only if it is related to restoring the road. Trees, brush and other debris can be removed from a structure or road. Stabilize washed out stream banks with non-erodible material only when it is associated with the road. During channel clean out activities, one should take into consideration what the stream would look like (i.e., width, depth, meanders) during normal, low-flow conditions. Georgetown Road (Route 654) will be overlaid with asphalt during 1998. No fencing can be installed along Rio Road (Route 631) east of the Rock Store until all utility adjustments are made. This November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 9) 000092 utility work will begin this fall and should be completed by early Spring 1998. The property frontage immediately east of the Rock Store can be fenced after the utility work is complete as the ultimate curb and gutter section is already in place. We will have to discuss the contractor's need to use the construction easements prior to installing any fence, temporary or permanent, along the rest of the frontage. We will discuss this issue with the contractor at a preconstruction meeting in early spring 1998. The bridges at Sugar Hollow, Route 614, are to be advertised for construction in mid-December 1997. This advertisement will run for a 30-day period, after which an award will be made to the successful bidder in January, 1998. We expect construction to tentatively start in March. We are reviewing the intersection of Routes 240/250 at the Mechums River Bridge for a caution light. We will advise the Board of the results of this review when complete. We have requested a speed limit study for Owensville Road (Route 678) from Route 250 to the Meriwether Lewis School. We will advise the Board of the results of this review when complete. The NO RIGHT TURN ON RED restriction at Rio Road (Route 631) and Route 29 will be reviewed for removal. We will advise the Board of the results of this review when complete. Please share this information with the Board members. If there are any questions, I will be prepared to discuss them at the next Board meeting." Item 7.11. FY 1997-98 Project Report from the Department of Engineering and Public Works, as of October 20, 1997, was received for information. Item 7.12. Report from Ms. Sherry Buttricki~dated October 15, 1997, from the Purchase of Development Rights (PDRs) Committee, was received for information. Item 7.13. September Financial Report, FY 1996-97 End-of-Year Preliminary Financial Report, had been deleted from the agenda after its publication. Item 7.14. Financial Condition Evaluation for Fiscal Years 1991-92 through 1997-98, was presented for information only. The staff's report noted that according to the County's Financial Management Policies, ~... the County will develop and annually update a financial trend monitoring system that will examine fiscal trends within the preceding five years. Where possible, trend indicators will be developed and tracked for specific elements of the County's financial policy." To fulfill this objective, this report presents a series of financial trend indicators that together present a picture of the County's financial condition. These indicators pull together information from budgetary and financial reports as well as economic and demographic data and relate to various important aspects of County finances: external revenues, expenditures, fund balances, liquidity, unfunded liabilities and business activity. Where possible, there indicators also address specific elements of the County's financial policies (see report which it is on file in the Clerk's Office). Item 7.15. First Quarter Report for JAUNT Services in Albemarle County, was received for information. Item 7.16. Copy of monthly Program and Bond Report for Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) for the month of September, 1997, was received for information. November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 10) 00009.3 Item 7.17. Copy of Virginia Cooperative Extension activities for July through September, 1997, for the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the counties in Planning District 10, was received for information. Item 7.18. Copy of draft dated October 20, 1997, of the Nomination of the Historic James River in Virginia for American Heritage River Designation, was received for information. Item 7.19. Copies of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for August 21 and September 11, 1997, were received for information. Item 7.20. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for September 22, 1997, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 8. Approval of Minutes: February 14, 1996; October 13 and October 15, 1997. Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of October 13, 1997, and found them to be in order. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of February 14, 1996, pages 1 to 15, and found them to be in order. Mr. Martin had read the minutes of October 15, 1997, and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 9a. Transportation Matters: Report on Route 250 West/ Canterbury Road Improvements at Bellair Subdivision Entrance. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's 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 that on September 16, 1997, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) conducted a public hearing at Jack Jouett Middle School concerning intersection improvements at Route 250 West and Canterbury Road. The staff's report sets out the details of this project's history. Staff feels the recommended improvements will best address a Complicated and long- standing traffic problem at this location. Staff does have questions regarding residue land and the possible impact of the improvements on the Route 250 West Corridor Study. There are two residue pieces, a private parcel residue and public right-of-way residue. Each residue piece separately cannot likely exist as a developable parcel under current zoning. If the two residue parcels were combined as one parcel, it is unknown whether the parcel would be developable and it would not seem to be a desirable building lot. It is would be preferable to have such a combined parcel transferred to the Homeowner's Association or combined with the existing residential lot to the west. VDOT and staff are unable to determine the potential impact the improvement will have on the recommendations of the Route 250 West Corridor Study as that study process is just beginning. Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT would like for the Board to endorse the proposed improvements for the Bellair entrance. If staff comments regarding the residue land can be appropriately addressed, staff supports VDOT's proposed improvements and recommends Board endorsement. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain how the configuration will change. Mr. Cilimberg demonstrated the changes on a wall map display. There will be a new location coming across from where Old Garth Road comes into Route 250, making what it is now an offset intersection into a crossing November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 11) 000094 intersection. This will leave part of the old right-of-way of Canterbury Drive and part of the O'Keefe property as residue. VDOT would be responsible for how the residue land is handled. Ms. Tucker said after completion of construction, future maintenance or construction needs would be examined to see if VD©T needs the right-of-way. If not, it would be offered for sale to the adjacent property owner, and then to interested parties, most likely the Homeowners' Association. MS. ~umphris asked how the adjacent property owner would access their property. Ms. Tucker replied that they had not fully researched the ownership of the right-of-way limits. VDOT feels that the right-of-way involves the median area, but the homeowners feel that it belongs to them. If it is a public right-of-way, VDOT will ask the Board for a discontinuance or abandonment of the right-of-way. It standard procedure to abandon an old alignment and formally add a new alignment. She knows the Homeowners' Association has some of the same concerns. They do plan to maintain the area and have covenants in place. Mr. Perkins asked if a traffic signal would be installed at that intersection. Ms. Tucker said "yes." Ms. Thomas said she received many communications of support from Bellair residents because it currently is a dangerous intersection. The main concern elsewhere is how the improvement fits into the Route 250 West Corridor Study, but she cannot think of a better solution. She has also been assured this would take effect long before the Corridor Study is completed. Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following resolution endorsing the improvements at the intersection of Route 250 West and Canterbury Road (Route 809), as recommended by VDOT. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Bellair Task Force was formed in the Summer of 1992 to address complicated and long-standing traffic problems at the intersection of Route 250 and Canterbury Road (Route 809); and WHEREAS, during the Fall of 1996, a proposal to realign Canterbury Road with Old Ivy Road (Route 601) and control traffic with a sign was presented at the 1997 Spring Primary Preallocation Hearing. Moving this connection will facilitate closing the existing entrances into Bellair and traffic will then enter and exit at the new intersection, with a new signal. The proposed improvement will place the majority of the turning movements into one location, controlling the turning movements on Route 250 into Bellair Subdivision and from Route 601 with a traffic signal. A right-turn lane will be constructed heading east on Route 250 and have a protected left-turn lane heading west on Route 250 for the movement onto Canterbury Road; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 1997, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) conducted a public hearing on these proposed improvements which were endorsed by those in attendance at the public; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby endorses the improvements as recommended by VDOT. Agenda Item No. 9b. Transportation Matters: Airport Road (Route 649)/Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Agreements. Mr. Tucker said that on February 7, 1996, the Board requested the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to provide in FY 1996 an allocation of $450,00© in Airport Access Road Funds to design and construct improvements to November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 12) 000095 Route 649. It pledged its efforts and resources from its Six-Year Secondary Road Fund to obtain necessary rights-of-way, easements and utility adjustments necessary to construct the improvements. The total project cost is estimated to be $4.170 million. To date, the CTB has allocated to the County a total of $900,000 from the Industrial, Airport and Rail Access Fund and $1,354,476 from Secondary Construction Funds for the project. The CTB has also planned the allocation of an additional $645,524 from Secondary Construction Funds, and $500,000 from the Revenue Sharing Program, pursuant to requests from the County, which will require an additional local match of $500,000. The Board previously authorized the advancement of this project and has already appropriated $300,000 of local funds as a match to the CTB's Industrial, Airport and Rail Access Fund allocations. Mr. Tucker said two agreements are before the Board for consideration today. The first agreement is between the County and VDOT, and its purpose is to identify funds for the project improvements and to establish the terms and conditions by which the County, or the County's designee, may administer the design and construction of the project. The second agreement is between the County and the Airport Authority, which desires to act as the County's designee for the project. The County-Authority agreement formalizes the Authority's role as the County's designee and, more significantly, passes through to the Authority the County's obligations and responsibilities arising from the County-VD©T agreement. The County will retain some oversight and involvement in the project. County staff, Airport Authority staff and VDOT have each reviewed the two proposed agreements. Mr. Tucker said the Authority also agrees in the County-Authority agreement to contribute a minimum of $1.2 million from Passenger Facility Charge revenues and the Commonwealth Airport Fund, which will be used exclusively for the construction of improvements to Bowen Loop Road and to Route 606 south of the intersection of Routes 606, 649 and Bowen Loop Road. These improvements are in addition to the $4.170 million estimated for the Route 649 project. Mr. Tucker said the County Attorney's Office has approved the agreements as to form and staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the ~Agreement to Fund and Improve Route 649, Albemarle County, Project 0649-002-158,C501" between the County and VDOT and, the corresponding pass- through agreement ~Agreement for the Development and Administration of Route 649 by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority, VDOT (649-002- 158,C501)" between the County and the Airport Authority. The pass-through agreement will not be executed until the agreement with VDOT has been executed. Ms. Humphris asked if the Board needed to approve the two agreements separately. Mr. Tucker replied that both could be approved in one vote. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the agreements as presented and to authorize the County Executive to execute the ~Agreement to Fund and Improve Route 649, Albemarle County, Project 0649-002- 158,C501" between the County and VDOT and the "Agreement for the Development and Administration of Route 649 by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority, VDOT (649-002-158,C501)" between the County and the Airport Authority, realizing this pass-through agreement cannot be executed until the County and VDOT agreement has been executed. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. None. Mr. Marshall. AGREEMENT TO FUND AND IMPROVE ROUTE 649 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PROJECT 0649-002-158, C501 This Agreement, entered into this __ day of 1997, between Albemarle County (hereafter "County") and the Virginia Departmeht of Transportation (hereafter "Department" or "VDOT" interchangeably) is to provide a means to fund improvements to Route 649, from Route 29 to the entrance to the Charlottesville-Albemarle County Airport (hereafter ~project" or "work" interchangeably) which is identified in the County's six year plan for improvements of its secondary system of state highways (hereafter "six year plan"), and to 000096 November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 13) provide the means by which the County may manage the design and construction of the project; and FUNDING Whereas, the project qualifies for funding under the Revenue Sharing Program,. § 33.1-75.1, Code of Virginia, and Industrial Airport and Rail Access Fund, § 33.1-221, Code of Virginia, and such funding may be used to fund improvements to qualifying transportation facilities, either entirely or as supplementary funding; and Whereas, the County has requested or plans to request funding under those programs and has allocated and intends to allocate secondary construction funds under the six year plan as depicted in the Funding Table below; and Whereas, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (hereafter "CTB") has approved the allocation of funds under the Industrial, Airport and Rail Access Fund, pursuant to the County's request, as shown in the Funding Table below; and Whereas, the Commonwealth Transportation Board may allocate funds under the Revenue Sharing Program pursuant to requests from the County, subject to available funding and proration based on the total amount of requests received from all counties in the year or years of application; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: The County agrees to allocate additional sums from its general fund, to increase the amounts allocated under the six year plan, or to seek supplemental funding from funds administered by the Department (subject to approval by the CTB) in the event the Total Projected Funding is less than the actual costs of the project's design and construction, including costs for engineering design services, project management, construction management and inspection, and environmental studies and mitigation. The County agrees to implement project accounting procedures acceptable to the Department that will identify the costs of the project by type of expenditure and the source of funds expended, including identification of costs ineligible for Department participation. The County agrees to bill the Department for the actual project costs based on progress billings determined by the percentage of the work complete and to defer any billing for work financed by amounts not allocated until such amounts have been allocated or the expenditure is otherwise approved for payment by the Resident Engineer. The County agrees to bear the cost of any project item or portion thereof that is deemed ineligible for Department participation, entirely with its funds separate and apart of the project funding identified herein, with such costs and project items generally defined as any item or scope of work greater than that which the Department would provide, or which is otherwise subject to restrictions regarding VDOT participation under CTB policies, or as more specifically determined by the Resident Engineer. Now therefore, in consideration of these things aforesaid, the following funding is identified, subject to CTB approval: November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 14) OOO09? Source of Funds and Fiscal Year or date of CTB Approval County VDOT/CTB Total FY 1996-97 (Allocated) NA $568,427 $568,427 FY 1997-98 (Planned) NA $370,000 $370,000 FY 1998-99 (Planned) NA $300,000 $300,000 FY 1999-00 (Planned NA $300,000 $300,000 FY 2000-01 (Planned) NA $310,000 $310,000 FY 2001-02 (Planned) NA $121,573 $121,573 FY 1995-96 (June 2, 1996) $150,000 $450,000 $600,000 FY 1996-97 (October 19, 1996) $150,000 $450,000 $600,000 FY 1998-99 (Planned) $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 PROJECT MANAGEMENT Whereas, the County and the Department desire to expedite the project and to allow the County to administer the project; The County agrees: To procure design or construction management services, or both, pursuant to the provisions of the Public Procurement Act and other applicable statutes and regulations. Except when right of way, required slope or drainage easements are acquired by the Department as provided in Paragraph B (4), to ensure that its designee acquires the necessary right of way and any required slope and/or drainage easements not covered by county proffers for this project at no cost to the Industrial, Airport and Rail Access Fund. The cost incurred in the acquisitions made pursuant to this paragraph shall be considered a part of eligible project cost if acquired with Secondary Construction Funds. Payment shall be in accordance with Paragraph B (2). 3 o To develop the construction plans, specifications, contract documents, and construction estimate, including the performance of any necessary environmental studies and mitigation, consistent with those standards and practices used by the Department, to the satisfaction of the Resident Engineer, and to obtain the Resident Engineer's approval of the contract documents and construction estimate prior to advertising the project for bids or otherwise beginning construction. 4 o To procure, if the work is to be performed under contract, the services of a qualified and financially capable contractor, pursuant to the provisions of the Public Procurement Act §11-35 et seq., and other applicable statutes and regulations, awarding the contract to a contractor, including subcontractors, not currently disqualified from participating in contracts administered by the Department. 5 o To obtain the Department's concurrence prior to awarding a contract for construction to assure that the amount awarded is consistent with the Department's practice of awarding contracts based on the amount bid in relation to the Department's official estimate of the work to be performed and to assure the contractor is not disqualified from participating in Department managed contracts. 6 o To make the work available to the Department for inspection at any time. 000098 November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 15) ......... ? ..~,~,.i..; 7 o TO provide all necessary construction inspection services and, prior to accepting the work, request the Department to make a final inspection of the work performed. 8 o To obtain the Department's concurrence to settle any claim, in the event of a contractor initiated claim, pursuant to the recommendation of the Resident Engineer. In the event of a dispute concerning such settlement, the decision shall be appealed to the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner, who shall review the circumstances of such claim and make final determination regarding settlement. In cases of appeal, the Commissioner's decision shall be final. The Department agrees: To cooperate reasonably with the County in the review of the project design, construction documents, and construction project estimates, approving same when, in the opinion of the Resident Engineer, they are consistent with the Department's standards and practices. To pay to the County, or its designee, the amount billed, within 30 days of receiving the County's billings, subject to available funds allocated to the project in accordance with the amounts set forth in the Funding Table or as revised by supplemental funding agreement or actual allocations in the county's six year plan of improvements to the secondary system of state highways. The Department agrees that the County may contract the services outlined in this agreement in their entirety, subject to the Eerms and conditions see forth herein, to the Charlottesville- Albemarle Coun£y Airpor5 Authority. At the written request of the County, 5o acquire the necessary right of way and any required slope and/or drainage easements not covered by County proffers for this project and not otherwise acquired as provided in Paragraph A (2). The cos£ incurred by the Department in an acquisition made pursuant to this paragraph shall be deducted from the Secondary Construction Funds allocated for this project. Prior no making a deduction from the fund, VDOT shall inform the County in writing of the amount ~o be deducted. THIS AGREEMENT, when properly executed, shall be binding upon both parties, their successors, and assigns. THIS AGREEMENT shall be canceled and the County and Authority shall have no further obligation ~o perform any provision hereof in the event that fun~s are not appropriated by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors or otherwise made available to support continuation of performance of the Project in a subsequent fiscal year. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these things aforesaid and the affidavit by the County, attached hereto and incorporated herein, granting authority to execute this agreemen5 on its behalf, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the authorized agents of the parties hereto set their hands, this day of ,1997. AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ~ ADMINISTRATION OF ROUTE 649 BY THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBENIARLE AIRPORT AUTHORITY VDOT (0649-002-158, C501) THIS AGREEMENT is made anJ executed in triplicate this 15th day of December, 1997, between the CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBENLARLE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter called the "Authority," and the ~OUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter called the "County." November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 16) 000099 WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County has entered into an agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the "Department" dated November 20, 1997 (the "County-Department Agreement"), in order to provide a means to fund improvements to Route 649, from Route 29 to the entrance to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, hereinafter called the "Project," and in order to allow the County to manage the design and construction of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has allocated to the County a total of $900,000 for the Project from the Industrial, Airport and Rail Access Fund; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has allocated $1,354,476 for the Project from Secondary Construction Funds, and has planned the allocation of $645,524 additional money from such Funds; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has planned the allocation of $500,000 from the Revenue Sharing Program, which will require a local match of $500,000, pursuant to requests from the County; and WHEREAS, the County has allocated $300,000 of its own funds so far as a match to the Commonwealth Transportation Board's Industrial, Airport and Rail Access Funds for the Project, which is identified in the County's Six Year Plan for improvements of its secondary system of State highways; and WHEREAS, in the County-Department Agreement, the Department consents to the County entering into an agreement with the Authority to perform any of the services outlined in that agreement which would otherwise be performed by the County, subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein; and WHEREAS, the County and the Authority desire to enter into an agreement which specifies the services and responsibilities to be undertaken by the Authority in connection with the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the County and the Authority agree as follows: The improvements referred to herein as the Project shall consist of (I) upgrading Route 649 between the terminus of the turn lane and signalization improvements to Route 29 and the entrance to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, to a four-lane divided road with a design speed of at least eighty kilometers per hour and with a functional class of urban major collector; (ii) constructing bike lanes and sidewalks; and, (iii) if funding is obtained from other sources, installing landscaping. 2 o The obligations of the County and the Authority under this Agreement are contingent upon sufficient and appropriate funding being appropriated and allocated for the Project. 3 o The specific plans for the Project shall be approved by the County and the Department. 4 o Provided that funding is allocated by the County, the Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, and any other public entity for the Project, the Authority shall consult with, and act as the agent of, the County in obtaining services for the performance of work for the Project, and specifically agrees to the following: Prior to performing any substantial work on the Project, have appropriate Authority agents and personnel, as determined by the County and the Department, attend a preliminary coordination meeting with the County and the Department. November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) ( Page 17 ) . ., :?,~ .~, ~. ....... , ...... O00iO0 bo Provide design construction management services, through contractors procured in accordance with procedures approved by the Virginia Public Procurement Act, applicable procurement statutes and regulations, and, prior to any such procurement, obtain approval of such procurements from the Department. Develop the construction plans, specifications, contract documents, and construction estimate, including the performance of any necessary environmental studies and mitigation, consistent with those standards and practices used by the Department, to the satisfaction of the County's Department of Engineering and Public Works and the Department Resident Engineer, and to obtain the County's and the Department Resident Engineer's approval of the contract documents and construction estimate prior to advertising the Project for bids and otherwise beginning construction. do Procure the services of a construction contractor, in accordance with lawful public procurement procedures of the Authority approved by the Department. The Authority shall obtain from the County its approval of the insurance requirements for such contract, which requirements are to be stated in all invitations to bid or requests for proposals. Prior to awarding a contract for construction, obtain the County's and the Department's concurrence on the following matters: (I) the amount awarded is consistent with the Department's practice of awarding contracts based on the amount bid in relation to the Department's official estimate of the work to be performed; (ii) the construction contractor is not disqualified from participating in County- or Department-managed contracts; and, (iii) the construction contractor is qualified and financially capable. eo To act as the County's agent in acquiring right-of- way and other real property necessary for the Project, except when the Department acquires the right-of-way and other real property necessary for the Project upon the request of the County; as applicable to such acquisition of rights-of-way and property for the Project, deliver all appraisals, negotiation reports and all other similar records to the County; and, obtain the prior approval of the County as to each agreement to acquire right-of-way or other, real property from a landowner. The Authority shall not be required or responsible for initiating or pursuing any eminent domain proceedings for such acquisitions. Make any construction work available to the County and to the Department for inspection at any time. go Provide all necessary construction inspection and testing services, including the maintenance of accurate records related thereto, in accordance with Department standards and specifications and, prior to accepting any work performed in connection with the Project, request the County's Department of Engineering and Public Works and the Department to make a final inspection of the work performed. Provide a method for dispute resolution for contractor-initiated claims which shall provide at least the following steps: (I) the Authority shall obtain the recommendation of the Department Resident Engineer; (ii) the Authority shall obtain the concurrence of the County and the Department with O00:tO November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 18) respect to any proposed settlement; and, (iii) in the event of a dispute concerning such settlement, the decision shall be appealed to the Commonwealth Transportation Commission to review the circumstances of such claim and make a final determination regarding settlement, which determination shall be final. Maintain accurate records of the Project and documentation of all expenditures, identifying eligible and ineligible costs associated with the Industrial, Airport and Rail Access Fund, and in- kind contributions, on which reimbursement will be based. Make all Project records available for inspection and/or audit by the County, the Department and other agencies, unless such records are confidential because of a statute, regulation, the attorney-client privilege or are attorney work product. Except as otherwise provided herein, all Project costs shall be paid by the Authority from allocated Project funds. Costs of Project items or portions thereof which are deemed ineligible for Department participation shall be paid by the Authority exclusively from Authority Funds separate and apart from the Project funding identified herein. "Costs of Project items or portions thereof which are deemed ineligible for Department participation" means any item or a scope of work greater than that which the Department would provide, or which is otherwise subject to restrictions regarding Department parnicipation under Commonwealth Transportation Board policies, or as more specifically determined by the Department Resident Engineer. "Authority Funds" as used in this Agreement, means and refers specifically to the Passenger Facility Charge or other funds approved or provided by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Virginia Department of Aviation for use on or in connection with the Project, but not to any revenues generated by the Authority through any lease, rent, fee or other charge collected, directly or indirectly, in connection with any aeronautical activity conducted at the Auth~rity's airport ("airport revenues"). In performing its obligations under this subsection, the Authority shall: (I) submit to the Department, with a copy to the County, no more frequently than monthly, a statement requesting payment for the actual Project costs based on progress billings determined by the percentage of the work completed, and if it would not affect the Authority's ability to obtain reimbursement, to defer any billing for work to be paid for by Project funds which have not yet been allocated or the expenditure is otherwise approved for payment by the Department Resident Engineer; and, (ii) the statement shall identify the costs of the Project by type of expenditure and the source of the funds expended, including identification of costs ineligible for Department participation. Reimburse the County one hundred percent (100%) of all expenses incurred by the County if expenditures incurred exceed the total amount allocated in the Six Year Improvement Program or funds actually available for the Project, but only if and to the extent that the Authority has funds available from state and Federal sources, and specifically excluding airport revenues as defined in subsection 4 j). November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 19) 000 02 Implement accounting procedures acceptable to the Department that will identify the costs of the Project by type of expenditure and the source of funds expended, including identification of costs ineligible for Department participation. If required by the Department, post a "notice of willingness to hold a public hearing" on the Project so that the County can conduct such a hearing, in accordance with Department and Federal Highway Administration requirements to the extent such requirements are applicable. no Submit any proposed change order to construction contracts for which reimbursement is requested to the County Engineer and the Department's Resident Engineer for approval prior to the authorization of the change order. As used in subsections I, j and 1 of this section 4, "eligible costs" means the costs recoverable under the Industrial, Airport and Rail Access Fund (e.g., items of construction and engineering which are essential to providing an adequate road facility to serve anticipated traffic, including the reasonable costs of preliminary engineering and surveying, the actual construction costs of the roadway built to Virginia Department of Transportation standards for accommodating the projected industrial traffic, and shoulders and ditches); ~ineligible costs" means the costs not recoverable under the Industrial, Airport and Rail Access Fund because the items of construction and engineering are determined not to be essential for providing an adequate facility to serve the anticipated traffic. 5 o The County will coordinate with, cooperate with, and assist the Authority in implementing the Project, and specifically agrees to: Respond in an expeditious manner to requests from the Authority for any review, consent, approval or other action required of the County by this Agreement. Provide the necessary coordination with the Department, and other appropriate State agencies; provide assistance and guidance to the Authority relative to environmental documentation and coordination as is appropriate. Co Designate the Authority as the recipient of all funds received from the Department for the Project. do Cooperate with the Authority and the Department in any audit of Project costs and records, and maintain accurate records in connection with the Project and allow the Authority access to all such records, unless such records are confidential because of privilege or are attorney work product. Take all actions required or which are reasonably necessary to obtain funding for the Project pursuant to the Industrial, Airport and Rail Access Fund, Revenue Sharing Program and the County's Capital Improvement Program in the Department's Six Year Improvement Program. fo Acquire right-of-way and other property necessary for the Project, including acquisition through eminent domain if necessary. November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 20) ~ 000 .03 The parties acknowledge that all applicable Federal, state and local laws, ordinances and/or regulations shall apply to all work performed on the Project including consultant services contracts and construction contracts. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating any personal liability on the part of any officer, employee, or agent of the parties, nor shall it be construed as giving any rights or benefits to anyone other than the parties hereto. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, and their respective successors and assigns. Upon the execution of this Agreement by both parties and upon notification by the County that the Department approvals have been received, the Authority will be authorized to commence with the Project. 10. The Authority will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, national origin or other non-merit factors provided they are qualified and meet physical requirements established for the positions. 11. None of the funds, materials, property or services contributed by the County or the Authority under this Agreement shall be used in the performance of this Agreement for any partisan political activity, or to further the election or defeat of any candidate for public office. 12. No officer, member, or employee of the Authority who exercises any functions or responsibilities in the review or approval of the undertaking or carrying out of this Project, shall participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects his personal interest or have any personal or pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. 13. The Authority shall contribute a minimum of $1,200,000 if funds are available from Passenger Facility Charge revenues and the Commonwealth Airport Fund. This contribution shall be in a form and made at such time as acceptable to the Department and the County. These funds shall be utilized exclusively for the construction of improvements to Bowen Loop Road and to Route.606 south of the intersection of Routes 649, 606 and Bowen Loop Road. 14. In the event that funds are not appropriated either by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors or the Airport Authority Board from sources approved by the Federal Aviation Administration or by the Virginia Aviation Board, other than airport revenues as defined in subsection 4(j), or otherwise made available to support commencement and/or completion of [he Project in any subsequent fiscal year, then this Agreement shall be canceled and the County and the Authority shall have no further obligation to perform any provision hereof. 15. This Agreement may be modified only by mutual written agreement of the Authority and the County. IN WITNESS W~EREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Signed: Robert.-W. Tucker, Jr, County Executive WITNESS: Ella W. Car~y County Clerk November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 21) . .~. APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: Larry W-, Davis County Attorney WITNESS: Barbara Hutchinson CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE AIRPORT AUTHORITY BY: William J. Kehoe TITLE: Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: K~ll~y Authority Legal Counsel 000 .04 Mr. Perkins asked about the status of the design of the road. Mr. Tucker replied that there it is a schematic design now; the final design will be done after the agreements are signed. The Airport Authority has a consultant on retainer, and he has done some preliminary work. There will be hearings soon regarding the alignment. Agenda Item No. 9c. Transportation Matters: Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) Year 2015. Presentation by Hannah Twaddell from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Ms. Twaddell said the CATS plan is a summary of the major goais and objectives developed by the City and County that have regional impact. The CATS plan is required in order to secure Federal money. Many of the items in the CATS plan are not strictly transportation projects but are associated land use proposals. The projects in the plan were developed from three major strategy areas: develop roadway, rail and air infrastructures that provide connections among the communities; build a comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and, establish a foundation of infrastructure, programs and policies to reduce dependence on the automobile. The comments from the Albemarle County Planning Commission related mostly to concerns about spot improvements and studies for three rural roads in western Albemarle with concerns that these roads not be widened or straightened. The MPO Policy Board will review the CATS plan next Monday, November 10, and set a public hearing for December 8, at which time they may adopt the plan if not too many changes are needed. City Council will hold its own public hearing on the plan on November 17. She said the MPO would appreciate receiving the Board's comments on the plan. Ms. Humphris said she had received additional letters about the three rural roads in which concerns were expressed that these roads would be straightened and widened, which would make them more dangerous. She asked why the Route 29 Western Bypass is in the report with no footnote about the Board's April 9 resolution dropping support for the Route 29 Bypass. Mr. Bowerman said he had the same question. Ms. Twaddell said on Page 38 of the Plan the current status of the Bypass project is listed, and there is a paragraph there about including the history of what has happened. It does refer to the MPO Policy Board's resolution. It does not refer to Albemarle County's resolution from last spring and that should be added. Ms. Humphris said she believes the Board's resolution of April 9 is a major item and needs to be included in that history. Ms. Thomas noted that she has heard some concerns about the Eastern Corridor and the Eastern Connector Major Investment Study, because there are lines that delineate the area that the study is to encompass, and the concern whether having those lines pre-judges the study. The study should be a way of looking at alternatives, not a faster way to put asphalt on the ground. Mr. Cilimberg said the eastern area has no particular line, it could be shown in the plan as just a general area under study. It is a study of all possible transportation alternatives to deal with traffic. It does not mean just lines and improvements, new roads, etc. Ms. Humphris said there is pressure from developers who think a line on the plan means a road will be in that place. Mr. Cilimberg said the only eastern road that is definite is the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. George Larie, who served on the CATS committee, asked whether the Board would approve the CATS plan. Ms. Humphris replied that the Board will O00 tO November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 22) only comment; the MPO will take the vote since the City, County and VDOT have to vote. The Board may offer a resolution. Mr. Larie commented that as a member of the committee, he raised the point that this Board was not supportive of the Route 29 Western Bypass. He was told that since the Bypass was approved by the CTB in 1990, it had to be part of the CATS plan. It was not a discussable issue for the committee. It seem that even though there is a footnote in the report which flays this Board passed a unanimous resolution withdrawing support of the Bypafis, there is a real conflict. Ms. Humphris said she understood what Mr. Larie was saying. If the Board intends to take a vote, it should include the caveat that it is done without support of the Route 29 Western bypass. Ms. Thomas said the CATS plan was put together by a very hard-working committee and staff. Ms. Humphris asked if the Board wanted to pass this forward to the MPO or pass it forward with a motion to have assurance that the Board's position in opposition to the Route 29 Western Bypass is officially included. Mr. Bowerman said he would prefer the latter option and then offered motion to adopt a resolution in support of the draft Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study (CATS) 2015 Plan with the caveat that the Albemarle Board of Supervisors stands by its April 9, 1997, resolution in opposition to the (Route 29) Western Bypass. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. None. Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 9d. Other Transportation Matters. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 9:53 a.m. and returned at 9:54 a.m.) Ms. Humphris asked Ms. Tucker to comment on Walter Eades' letter requesting that Route 605 (Durret[ Ridge Road), be paved. Ms. Tucker replied that the'road was put into the Six-Year Road Plan in 1996, with no funding or priority listing. The current advertisement date for Route 605 is 2002; however, in the current Six-Year Road Plan, there are two gravel road projects slated to be done before this road, which have only partial rights-of-way. It is possible to move Route 605 up by two years without impacting road projects which have only partial rights-of-way available. This road's right-of-way is available. There are also other roads ahead of this one that do have rights-of-way available, so the Board will have to be careful on how it prioritizes this request. Ms. Humphris asked if VDOT has communicated with Mr. Eades. Ms. Tucker said she had spoken with Mr. Eades. She told him this item would be discussed and she would follow up with him. Mr. Perkins asked where the road is located. Ms. Tucker said you follow Route 604 over to Route 743 north of Advance Mills. It will be necessary to consider roads in Greene County's plan as well, as the last 0.2 mile of the road runs through Greene. Mr. Martin asked if the only adjustment is that there are two roads ahead of it on the Six-Year Road Plan that do not have the rights-of-way. Ms. Tucker agreed, and said the adjustment would move the road project from 2002 to as early as 1999. In 1998, VDOT will be improving Route 759, which is a road that runs in Boyd's Tavern from Route 616 around to the Fluvanna County line and Routes 637 and 688, which all have rights-of-way available. Mr. Tucker noted that staff will be working on the Six-Year Road Plan again in two weeks. Mr. Martin wanted to be sure this adjustment would not lead other citizens to think they could request the same thing. Ms. Tucker said this would only involve 0.8 of a mile, and that there would be relatively Iow construction costs involved. November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 23) 000106 Mr. Martin noted that students at Albemarle High School have requested that a crosswalk be painted on Lamb's Road between the high school and the Lamb's Road Baptist Church. Ms. Tucker replied that a crosswalk is planned in that location. VDOT has been concerned about the lack of a sidewalk on the church property, but agreed such a crossing will focus foot traffic in one area. Mr..Bowerman asked where the foot traffic is going. Ms. Tucker responded that students walk to overflow parking at the church. Ms. Thomas said her constituents have brought to her attention that there is speeding in several areas: Dick Woods Road, Buckingham Circle and Morgantown Road. She said that "child at play" signs would not help in the Morgantown Road area since it is an area with an aging population. Ms. Thomas said that large trucks are leaving 1-64 near Ivy to get to the Ivy Depot only to find that there is a very difficult turn on Route 637. She suggested that signs be installed to warn truckers not to take that route. Ms. Tucker said she will examine this issue and report back to the Board. Mr. Bowerman said he wished to discuss Consent Agenda Item No. 7.7, the VDOT Traffic Calming Policy. He noted that staff felt the recommended policy of 25 miles per hour is too restrictive and asked that the Board adopt something which states that the County would like to be one of the pilot areas for traffic calming, but that the 25 miles per hour is too restrictive. Ms. Tucker replied that a formal resolution asking to be part of the program would help. Mr. Tucker said the Board could, at this meeting, adopt a resolution in support of the traffic calming policy. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt a resolution asking that Albemarle County be considered as one of the pilot areas under the new VDOT Traffic Calming Policy, but to state that the Board feels the 25 miles per hour speed limit is too restrictive. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, MS. Humphris and Mr. Martin. None. Mr. Marshall. Ms. Tucker said the State Traffic Engineer had not yet informed her as to whether or not they had selected any counties to be in the pilot program. She added that the City Traffic Engineer has said that the City of Charlottesville is also doing this and motorists do not appreciate having to change speed limits each time they cross City and County lines. Mr. Bowerman said the policy is a critical element to infill development. (Note: At 10:10 a.m., Mr. Marshall arrived at the meeting.) Ms. Humphris asked about the patching of Georgetown Road, which is scheduled for 1998. The current bumps in the road are serving well to slow down traffic. Ms. Tucker said she reviewed the situation on Georgetown Road after it was brought to her attention at a Board meeting. She believes that training of transportation employees took place in that area, and those employees had damaged the road by setting the screed too low (screed is the part of the machine that pushes the material out and lays it flat). Ms. Humphris mentioned that a dead animal had been painted over when the road was striped. Ms. Humphris asked if there are to be street lights installed on Hydraulic Road between Commonwealth Drive and Georgetown Road. Mr. Bill Mawyer said there are a series of street light projects scheduled along Hydraulic Road. They have been designed by Virginia Power, submitted to and tentatively approved by VDOT, and now County Engineering is waiting for final approval. Engineering will request that this Board approve the lights after furnishing costs, etc. He hopes that information will be ready soon so the projects can proceed in the Spring. He added that staff is looking into installing a sidewalk along Hydraulic Road. Staff met with the neighbors last week about that sidewalk. 000 ,07 November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 24) Ms. Humphris said some citizens reported to her a drainage problem because of a road that flooded their yard. She gave Ms. Tucker the address in writing. Mr. Marshall said he has the same concerns as always about Route 20 near Monticello High School. Ms. Tucker said that this area was mentioned at the Primary Road Preallocation Hearing last Spring. NOT DOCKETED: Ms. Humphris said the Board was running a few minutes ahead of schedule. She said Mr. Dave Flynn was present and had a message he would like to present to the Board. Mr. Flynn congratulated the Board, the Chamber of Commerce and the ~Vote Yes" people on getting the meals tax passed, although he opposed it. He asked that the Board respect the people who did vote against it, and the many who did not even bother to go to the polls by remembering that the margin of victory for the tax was a slim one, and the number of people voting was a small number. Agenda Item No. 10. PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Deed of Easement by and between the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville for the installation of a permanent natural gas line in the public right-of-way along Greenfields Court off Berkmar Drive in Albemarle County, Virginia. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 27, 1997). Mr. Tucker said Section 15.1-262 requires the Board of Supervisors to hold a public hearing prior to conveying any interest in County-owned property, including easements. The City of Charlottesvil!e's Gas Division has requested an easement for the proposed natural gas lines to be installed in Greenfields Court off Berkmar Drive. The Engineering and Public Works Department has reviewed the Deed of Easement provided by the City and has approved the location of the gas lines. Staff recommends that the Board grant the easement and authorize the County Executive to execute the Deed of Easement on behalf of the County. Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing. There being no member of the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to grant the easement and to authorize the County Executive to execute the Deed of Easement (set out in full below) on behalf of the County. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. DEED OF EASEMENT THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, made and entered into on this 5th day of November, 1997, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the GRANTOR does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY to the GR3~NTEE, subject to the reservations hereinafter set forth, the permanent easement of right of way to construct, maintain, operate, alter, repair, inspect, protect, remove, and replace certain natural gas line improvements, upon and across the public right-of-way known as Greenfields Court in Albemarle County, Virginia, and more particularly described as follows: Permanent natural gas line easement in the public right-of- way known as Greenfields Court, located off Berkmar Drive in Albemarle County, Virginia, as shown on the attached plat of 000 1.0 November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 25) the City of Charlottesville Gas Division, dated June 4, 1997, and identified as "A Fifteen-Foot Wide Easement for a 2" P.E. Gas Line within the Public Rights of Way known as Greenfields Court". The GRANTEE reserves unto itself, its successors and assigns, all of the aforementioned rights until such time as the Virginia Department of Transportation has issued a permit to the GRANTEE subject to the following two conditions which shall also be covenants running with the land: 1. That the above described improvements of the GRANTEE may continue to occupy such street or highway in the existing condition and location. 2. The GRANTEE shall at all times indemnify and save harmless the County of Albemarle, its employees, agents, and officers from any claim whatsoever arising from GRANTEE'S exercise of rights or privileges stated herein. 3. In the event GRANTOR shall hereafter require, for its purposes, that GRANTEE alter, change, adjust, or relocate the above-mentioned improvements, across or under such street or highway, the non betterment cost only of such alteration, change, adjustment, or relocation will be the responsibility of the GRANTEE. This deed is exempt from state recordation taxes imposed by Virginia Code §§ 58.1-801 and 58.1-802, pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 58.1-811(A) (3) and 58.1-811(C) (3). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused its name to be signed hereto and its seal to be affixed and attested by its appropriate officers, all after due authorization, on the day and year first above written. (Note: The Board being ahead of schedule, and with no public comments to be taken on SP-97-30 this date, the Board skipped ahead to Agenda Item No. 14.) Agenda Item No. 14. SP-97-30. U.S. Cellular Tower (Ivy) (Sign #69). Request to construct cellular telecommunications tower on 2 ac znd LI. TM 58, P 37G. Located on S side of Morgantown Rd (Rt 738). (Deferred from October 15, 1997.) Mr. Davis said the public hearing on this matter had been held, and the petition deferred so staff could present a written record as required by the Federal Telecommunications Act. That written record is a prerequisite before the Board can take action. That work has been'completed. If the Board wishes to deny the request today, he has provided a resolution to be used for that purpose, with references to the written record giving reasons for that denial. Ms. Humphris asked about the height of the tower, because of a typographical error in the record. Mr. Davis said it was 140 feet. Ms. Thomas said she was prepared to move for approval of the resolution, but first noted a typographical error in the third line on the last page, where the word "sights" should read "sites" She said she opposes towers that break the visual continuity and the ridge line continuity when alternatives exist that would provide adequate service and which do not protrude with industrial disdain into the rural character of the area, or else minimally add to a present structure. This tower does not do any of those good things, and does all of the bad things. She then offered motion to adopt the following resolution denying the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 26) 000. .,0 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, United States Cellular Corporation (~U.S. Cellular") is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide cellular telephone service in Albemarle County and is an established provider of such service in the County; and WHEREAS, U.S. Cellular filed an application for a special use permit (~SP-97-30") which would authorize it to erect a wireless telecommunications facility in Albemarle County on that property identified as an Tax Map 58, Parcel 37G, which is located on the south side of Route 738 approximately 1.1 miles west of Route 250 (the ~property"); and WHEREAS, the property is a two-acre parcel zoned Light Industrial ("LI"); the LI zoning district regulations authorize telecommunications towers by special use permit; and WHEREAS, if approved, the special use permit would authorize U.S. Cellular to erect and maintain a 140 foot self- supporting lattice tower (the "tower") and related facilities to provide improved cellular telephone service in the Ivy area of Albemarle County, parts of which do not have coverage or have a weak signal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on SP-97-30 on July 22, 1997, whereafter it made a recommendation on SP-97-30 to the Board; WHEREAS, the Board conducted a duly noticed public hearing on SP-97-30 on September 17, 1997, at which time oral and written evidence was presented, both in support of and in opposition to SP-97-30; and WHEREAS, having considered the written and oral evidence presented at the September 17, 1997, public hearing and other evidence which is part of the written record for SP-97-30, the Board has determined that it is unable to make all of the findings which must be made pursuant to section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to approve SP-97-30, and that this decision complies with the applicable requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT IS RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, based upon the written record, hereby denies U.S. Cellular's application for SP-97-30 for the reasons set forth below: 1. The erection of a 140-foot tall tower on the property will change the character of the district, which is primarily rural agricultural and residential. The proposed tower would be 140 feet in height and be of a lattice type construction. (Record, 55) It would be located approximately 18 feet from the closest property line and, without a waiver granted pursuant to section 4.3.10.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, would not comply with the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. (Record, 2) This is the only location on the property acceptable to the property owner; a greater setback would require U.S. Cellular to find another site. (Record, 18) U.S. Cellular described the district as primarily agricultural, with commercial uses as well. (Record, 29) Other members of the public described the district as agricultural and residential. (Record, 34, 45) Although the property is within an industrial park, the comprehensive plan identifies the entire Ivy area as Rural. (Record, 3) The industrial park itself does not negatively impact the character of the district except for a slight increase in truck traffic. (Record, 34) The industrial park was developed on the condition that the industrial buildings would be hidden from view by placing them at the rear of the property and by preserving a wooded buffer area, and on November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 27) OOO11O the condition that no building would be visible above the tree line and not visible from adjacent property. (Record, 34) The nearest rural property is 300 feet from the site of the proposed tower. (Record, 5) Approximately 29 residences are within 2,000 feet (0.4 miles) of the proposed tower. (Record, 1) No similar sized towers exist in the district. (Record, 6) Although the tower site is well-screened (Record, 55), the proposed tower itself would extend approximately 60 to 80 feet above the tree line. (Record, 3) Thus, it would be visible and dominate the skyline of many residences and properties in the district. (Record, 34, 36, 45) The proposed tower also would be in the direct line of sight on the drive west from Ivy on Morgantown Road. (Record, 36) The proposed tower would also be visible from the nearby Mount Calvary Baptist Church, long recognized as a historic site. (Record, 13, 30) The proposed tower would be a new stand-alone facility in the district and would result in a change in the appearance of the district because no towers currently exist in this district. (Record, 3, 6) The industrial silhouette of the proposed tower would change the residential and agricultural character of the Ivy district. (Record, 35, 36) 2. The proposed tower will not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance because it does not facilitate the creation of an attractive and harmonious community, as provided in section 1.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed tower would be a new stand-alone facility in the district and would result in a change in the appearance of the district because no towers currently exist in this district. (Record, 3, 6) The industrial silhouette of the proposed tower would change the residential and agricultural character of the Ivy district. (Record, 35, 36) Although the proposed tower is related to a public service -- wireless telecommunications service -- the Board concludes that in this case the factors articulated in section 1.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance (attractive and harmonious community) outweigh those set forth in sections 1.4.4 and 1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance (public services). 3. The proposed tower will not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance because it is not consistent with section 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, which states in part that ~development is not to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which are to be devoted to preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, water supply protection, and conservation of natural, scenic and historical resources." The Comprehensive Plan identifies the entire Ivy area as Rural. (Record, 3) The proposed tower would not conserve scenic and historic resources because it would, among other things, obstruct the mountain views of many Ivy properties (Record, 45) and would be visible from the nearby Mount Calvary Baptist Church, long recognized as a historic site. (Record, 13, 30) 4. The Board finds that there is an existing reasonable use of the property on which the tower is located, which is developed with industrial uses. (Record, 55) 5. The Board has considered the applicable provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and finds that the denial of SP-97-30 is in compliance with the requirements of the Act, based upon the following findings: a. The Zoning Ordinance does not unreasonably discriminate against wireless telecommunications providers of functionally equivalent services. The final report of the wireless telecommunications task force concluded that cellular service and personal communications service ("PCS") are functionally equivalent. The Zoning Ordinance does not discriminate between the two wireless telecommunications services. See, for example, section 27.2.2.8 of the Zoning Ordinance, which authorizes, among other uses in the Light 000111 November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 28) Industry (~LI') zoning district, "unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances." This language, which appears in the regulations for other zoning districts also, has been construed to include the facilities for both cellular service and PCS. b. The Zoning Ordinance does not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications service. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance establishes a ban or policy that has the effect of prohibiting wireless telecommunications service in Albemarle County. Applications for special use permits are decided on a case-by-case basis, and in reviewing such applications, the Board considers the factors relevant to the approval of a special use permit provided in section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Since 1990, the Board has acted on 15 applications for special use permits for wireless telecommunications facilities, and has approved 11 of them. There was no evidence presented that denial of SP-97-30 would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal telecommunications services. Finally, a written statement from a member of the public with experience in the field of telecommunications identified three alternative sites on existing Virginia Power or American Electric Power transmission towers and the level of service that would be provided from two of the three sites would be at least as adequate as the proposed tower. (Record, 44) The statement explained that any remaining service holes could be filled in with an antenna array on 360's Camp Holiday Trails monopole. (Record, 44) c. The Board acted on U.S. Cellular's application for SP-97-30 within a reasonable period of time. The application for SP-97-30 was submitted on May 19, 1997. The Planning Commission conducted its public hearing and made its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on July 22, 1997, well within the ninety day period provided by section 31.2.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board's decision on SP-97-30 is well within the twelve month period to act on the application, as provided in section 15.1-491(g) of the Code of Virginia. d. The Board does not base its decision to deny SP-97-30 on health or environmental effects. U.S. Cellular did not present evidence that the wireless telecommunications facility would satisfy FCC standards. However, the staff report states: "In order to operate this facility the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety." (Record, 4) Although one speaker expressed concern about possible harmful effects of wireless telecommunications facilities on infants and the proximity of a day-care facility to the proposed tower site (Record, 35), the Board does not base its decision on this expression of concern. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this decision is based on the written record of the proceedings of U.S. Cellular's application for SP-97-30 and related waiver request, which record is identified as the ~Record of the Proceedings of the Application of U.S. Cellular Corporation for a Special Use Permit for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility" which is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. (Note: See paragraph following Agenda Item No. 11 where Steve Blaine, representing U. S. Cellular, appears at the meeting and makes statement for the record.) Agenda Item No. 11. Annual Presentation by Dr. Deborah DiCroce, President, Piedmont Virginia Community College. Dr. DiCroce presented the Piedmont Virginia Community College Profile in Albemarle County. She acknowledged the County appointees to the College Board: Claude Jackson, Joe Henley, Phil Sparks and Charles Gross. They are November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 29) celebrating the college's 25th anniversary, which is a major milestone, because the community college concept is still relatively young. The first community colleges were legislated in Virginia in 1966. They are using the occasion to reflect on the past years and project for the next 25 years. Looking back, they have a solid foundation and record in college transfers. Their program is regularly recognized nationally. For an institution of their size, 7000 students, to have the national reputation they do, is something everyone should be proud of. Regarding work force development, the area's economic future is only as strong as its work force's education. They annually train 5000 employees over and above regular college credit work for 100+ employers. Dr. DiCroce then provided many statistics about the first 25 years of PVCC. In 1972-73, they enrolled 682 students. Last year, they enrolled 6791 students. In the college's 25 years, their total enrollment has been 73,250 students, and they have awarded 5139 degrees, certificates and diplomas. Higher educational institutions in the South are regionally accredited and reaffirmed every 10 years. This is usually dreaded by college presidents. PVCC is up for review now and is doing it in a non-traditional way. The College is going to submit a proposal to self-study strategically, making their ~Agenda for Change" the focus of this review, and asking tough fundamental questions. They will be employing bench marking to the industry standard with other institutions to develop "best practices", and will be speaking with four-year institutions and employers to determine their future needs. The College has recently received a grant from the National Science Foundation for a three-year project that will impact on all Virginia community colleges. Dr. DiCroce said their second focus is the Humanities and Social Sciences Building, which will be open next year. It is 90 percent completed, and they are currently working on better outside lighting, but they cannot use State money for that. The building will provide 36,500 additional square feet of new space. Their third area of focus is technology itself, and here, they grapple with staying ahead of the future in terms of computer hardware and software. However, they also need to help the community adjust in an age that has become increasingly technological. Their fourth focus is the private development effort, which is key to diversifying their funding base. Funding is a challenge for all institutions of higher education. The issue is primarily rooted in an adequate base of operating funds. PVCC considers the State the primary public investor, the localities the second public investor, and business, industry and alumni as private investors. The College itself has a responsibility as a fellow investor to be efficient and productive in using its resources. They are trying to build a base of private supplemental support to what the State and localities invest. They are not looking to release the State from its obligation as primary investor, but private support is needed as well. Piedmont's budget is currently around $9.0 million, so another $100,000 per year would make a large difference. Regarding how they go about investing, they have close to $1.0 million in the educational foundation and that investing is done through the University of Virginia as a piece of their partnership. Dr. DiCroce said the fifth area of focus is their physical infrastructure. Besides the Humanities Building, they hope to renovate their existing facility. They will approach the General Assembly for $1.8 million for renovations; they need to update the facility for the Twenty-First century, which will involve some major retrofitting. Finally, in terms of their overall focus, they are continuing to embrace community outreach and partnership. They are asking questions about what the College's role is in various issues, such as welfare reform or regional economic development, and in positioning the community to compete in a public funding environment. Dr. DiCroce then highlighted their relationship with the County in 1996-97, with statistics contained in the Profile. Last year, 2424 Albemarle County residents attended Piedmont accounting for almost 36 percent of the total enrollment and three percent of the County's population, which is a good penetration rate. 1997-98 will be a proud beginning of the College's next November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 30) quarter of a century. She concluded by thanking the Board for their current and past support. Ms. Humphris thanked Dr. DiCroce for her report, and asked how PVCC found peer institutions. Ms. DiCroce replied that PVCC is neither a big school nor a small school, so it is a challenge to think beyond themselves and think like a large college. (Note: Ms. Humphris called for a recess at 10:50 a.m. The Board reconvened at 11:05 a.m.) NOT DOCKETED: Mr. Steve Blaine said he had missed the vote on SP-97-30, U.S. Cellular Tower (Agenda Item No. 14), and wished to have the record show that he did have something to submit for the record. She asked if he would like to say that into the record. The Board is not having any further public hearing or discussion of the request. The Board was simply waiting for the legal verbiage needed in order to take its final vote. Mr. Blaine said if the decision today was not to hear any additional comments from the applicant, he wants the record to reflect that. If the Board was willing to hear additional comments from the applicant, he was prepared to make a statement. Ms. Humphris said it was the decision of the Board when it dealt with the request that the public hearing was concluded and it was merely waiting for a resolution to be prepared so it could vote. Agenda Item No. 12. Annual Report of JAUNT, Presentation by Ms. Donna Shaunnesy. Ms. Shaunnesy thanked the Board for its support. Last year, Albemarle County residents took over 64,000 trips on JAUNT; many of them being people with disabilities who could not otherwise get to work. One problem that had been faced was turning down people because of lack of capacity or lack of ability to recognize reaching capacity. They made changes to solve that problem, and have not had to turn anyone down since last December. Their on-time performance has increased substantially, with 97 percent of their trips being on time. They have focused on using technology, most of their scheduling is done by computer rather than by hand. In their view, Albemarle has the most potential for efficiency, since there are a' lot of people spread out over a large area with a lot of demand for service. JAUNT has been forcing a lot more people to ride together. They are now doing round-trip service from Crozet three times a day, which is always full, a daily trip or two to Covesville, and three days a week on a fixed-route to the Scottsville/Esmont area. Ms. Shaunnesy said another efficiency effort this year was passenger education; they have been being stricter in dealing with passengers. For example, nursing homes have been getting more dependent on JAUNT for the things they should be doing so they have been pulling back from that level of service. Some people need door-to-door service, and JAUNT is happy to do it for those who need it, but their primary function is as basic transportation for those who have no other alternative, not an escort service. This if the first year the average time per passenger has gone down. Ms. Shaunnesy said JAUNT just received a welfare reform grant through the Department of Social Services; they were one of only three programs in the State to be fully funded. The program only runs through the end of June although they have high hopes the General Assembly will continue the funding. This will allow service to be provided not only in the daytime, but also provide night and weekend service. Regarding the Big Blue Service, the route has not yet caught on; it carries about six people per day now. Traditional transit wisdom says that it takes at least six months for a new route to catch on. They will have a public hearing next week to make the service more accessible, particularly for those who work a little later in the day and at the University of Virginia. They recently completed a customer satisfaction survey; the responses were very favorable. Mr. Marshall asked if JAUNT goes Ehro~gh the Westhaven development in the City. Ms. Shaunnesy said it did not. They did not want to compete with other transit systems, so they are not picking up people who could ride the city bus system. If people are outside of the Charlottesville service area, 000 :1.4 November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 31) JAUNT can help after the new grant goes into effect. People will need to be referred by Social Services. Ms. Thomas said that door-to-door service is very helpful for those people who need special assistance. Perhaps JABA should look into this. Ms. Shaunnesy said that if someone cannot get to the curb, JAUNT will still go to the door. They are currently looking at a two-tier certification process so that people could be approved for curb-to-curb service and for door-to-door service. Mr. Bowerman applauded JAUNT for grouping people in rural areas together without diminishing service. Ms. Humphris added that education helps people understand the service and the way it operates. Ms. Shaunnesy said some of the trips are subcontracted to Yellow Transportation, and their drivers have gone through the same training, but having the meter running helps people understand how much the trips cost. Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation by Ms. Nancy O'Brien, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) . Ms. Humphris said Ms. 0'Brien had brought along with her today a device for demonstration for people who might have a hearing difficulty. She suggested that each of the Board members try the device to see how effective it is. Item 13a. Presentation of TJPDC Annual Report and Work Plan. Ms. O'Brien said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission worked with the County on the Route 29 North Corridor Study and developed a non- traditional approach to traffic management which was then presented to VDOT. The build-out report they completed has been used by the Albemarle County Planning Commission in its work of reconsidering the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. They worked with the Watershed Management Official on the Rivanna Explorer Day, prepared a report on the Rivanna River, assisted with establishing a Drug Court through the Criminal Justice Board, financed one small business in the County and educated others. In transportation, they worked with RideShare and staff to develop park and ride routes, worked with JAUNT and the Charlottesville Transit System (CTS), worked with the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study (CATS) Committee, and worked through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) on a Neighborhood Mobility Index study with the Institute of Sustainability at the University of Virginia. They administer the Regional Home Program (Ms. O'Brien distributed a report on that program). The Planning District Commission also provides staff to work with the Regional Disability Services Board. Item 13b. Resolution restating Board's support of Thomas Jefferson Venture Regional (TJV) Strategic Plan. Ms. O'Brien said the original resolution had been revised to include the programs involved and to make it conform with State guidelines. Participation can begin on either December 1, 1997, or May 1, 1998, and this decision must be discussed with the Venture group. She hopes they decide on May 1 as the deadline to give additional time to work on the resolution. She said it would be helpful if this Board passed this resolution, but that a revised resolution will likely be presented in the Spring. Mr. Davis said the rules are changing as the Strategic Plan proceeds. He said the Board needs to focus on how the application is submitted, and feels the December 1 date is too soon. Ms. O'Brien agreed and added that the TJV said they did not get enough information and ruled that Albemarle County did not adequately participate. Ms. Humphris suggested the Board wait for Ms. O'Brien to advise them as to the appropriate time to approve the resolution. Item 13c. Resolution in support of Revised HOME Agreement. Ms. O'Brien presented a revision of the original agreement noting that the duties of a managing body have been assigned to the Planning District November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 32) Commission, and that a list showing various types of housing have been included. There is a provision to change the managing body, the contract period was extended for five years, and a withdrawal clause was also added. Mr. Davis noted there is a possibility that if the County receives funds through the consortium, it may not be able to receive other funds for AHIP, which are substantially larger. To protect the County's financial interests, he recommended a shorter period for the termination clause, perhaps making it a 30-day limit instead of a 90-day limit. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 11:34 a.m., and returned at 11:36 Ms. O'Brien said the State has HOME money and the region has HOME money. Virginia Mountain Housing has found it aggravating that the consortium has access to State HOME money, as well as HOME money by-right through the consortium. Until six months ago, there was only one consortium in the state; now there are two, so it may become more of an issue. The State has not allowed indoor plumbing money to be used on projects within the City. Staff has managed to convince the State that although their plan says to encourage regional approaches, the actual process has, at times, conflicted with that directive. She said it would be helpful to have a letter from this Board in support of that position as this year's management plan will be discussed soon. If that does become a problem it is a problem for everyone except the City, and the consortium will fall apart, as it is not in anyone's interest to get this money if they cannot also get the State money. Mr. Davis noted that in FY 1997 the County received $440,000 in State money and $91,000 in consortium money. Mr. Bowerman asked if this could be handled legislatively. Ms. O'Brien said that it is a regulatory issue within the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) . Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Davis what to do to avoid this problem. Mr. Davis replied that the current agreement requires a 90-day notice. The County could minimize the risk if a decision is made after March 30 to shorten the termination clause to 30 days. The County would have until the end of May to decide whether to terminate participation for the next year. Ms. O'Brien said that would only give her 30 days to replace lost revenues. Mr. Davis responded that the consequence to the County for not shortening the termination clause would be to lose $440,000. Ms. Thomas asked what happens if a County does not participate. Ms. O'Brien said if one county drops out, the consortium is ended because only the minimum threshold number is participating now. She felt that all counties would drop out if they lost State monies. Mr. Tucker said if the determination is made at staff level, it might help to talk to those people to explain the problem. Ms. O'Brien said the consortium money is more flexible than indoor plumbing money, as well. Mr. Martin asked if there could be a compromise to have a 45-day termination clause. Ms. O'Brien replied that the Board should do what they are comfortable with. Mr. Davis responded that he did not think the exact time period would make that much of a difference. Ms. Humphris said the Board has the option of: 1) getting together with other members of the consortium to speak with staff members to discuss the problem; or, 2) have a 30-day termination clause. Ms. O'Brien said the Planning District Commission may do the first option next week. Mr. Davis said that since this agreement has lapsed, it may be better to just go ahead and add the 30-day termination clause. There is no requirement to have a shorter termination clause, but it gives everyone more flexibility to drop out if the decisions made are not acceptable to everyone. Ms. O'Brien said if the justification is that it jeopardizes funding, that is one thing. However, she is concerned that a county could drop out on a whim, to which Ms. Thomas agreed. If one county drops out, the whole thing collapses and everyone loses money. She suggested that Mr. Davis add "30 days from (date) .... " Ms. O'Brien said he could just add the words "... if it jeopardizes funding." Mr. Davis said the 30-day period due to funding jeopardy could begin at any date, and the 90-day termination clause would remain for other reasons for withdrawing. He said this would all need to be put in final form with a signature page. O00116 November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 33) Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to authorize the County Executive to sign the consortium agreement after a clause has been drafted by Ms. O'Brien, and reviewed by the County Attorney, providing a 30- day written notice if a county wishes to drop out because funding may be jeopardized. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: Debris (CDD) . Ivy Landfill, Construction Demolition Mr. Tucker noted that at the Board's meeting on October 8, Ms. Thomas requested that staff place on today's agenda a discussion regarding the transfer of CDD from the Ivy Landfill. Earlier, the Board received a copy of a report from GBB Consultants who prepared an economic analysis on the CDD waste options to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA). That economic model provided various scenarios for CDD management that considered continued burial of CDD at the Ivy Landfill, as well as transferring it to a private landfill outside of Albemarle County. That goal of the RSWA, through this process and considering these scenarios, has been to maintain an adequate environmental contingency fund for use in the future should remediation be necessary for the Ivy Landfill area. These options basically indicate that continued burial of CDD at the Ivy Landfill would provide the greatest environmental contingency fund for future use. Transferring the CDD to a private landfill would, more than likely, require local subsidy from the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle to maintain an adequate level of funding for an environmental contingency fund. Mr. Tucker said memoranda from the Ivy Steering Committee and RWSA concerning CDD were attached to the staff's report the Board received. These provide various options for dealing with the CDD. Ms. Thomas noted that the Board had chosen Option 7A which called for closing of the landfill to burial of municipal solid waste and continuing burial of construction demolition debris. She has been impressed with a number of things since that decision was made. She noted that some financial changes have taken place if the Board wants to remains fiscally responsible over the long-term and also environmentally responsible. One of the reasons 7A could be selected was due to the unique arrangement RSWA developed with the Department of Environment Quality (DEQ) to do its own capping. It is possible for there to be financial changes that change that picture. There is the underlying assumption that the RSWA will be able to support itself and everything dealing with solid waste, all through tipping fees. Ms. Thomas said the Solid Waste Task Force noted that this is an odd way to run things, as it means that you want to get more and more waste in order to increase fees. The Task Force suggested that there should be another way to obtain these funds. There are alternatives to burying the construction debris and the RSWA has obtained some bids to do so. The amount of construction debris coming into the landfill is falling and the construction industry has not responded at all to moral suasion to divide up its debris into different categories, because it would increase their own manpower costs. If, however, the tipping fees were not in place and the debris shipped out, there could be a very significant price differential if the construction folks divided up their debris. In this situation, they would not have to build more cells, and the construction industry would have incentives to divide up the debris on-site. Ms. Thomas stated that she had developed a tipping fee schedule, but did not feel it should be discussed at this time. If there is no tipping fee in place, and tax dollars support what the RSWA does, like other counties do, and it is planned for, a contract could be put in place to determine how much of the share the taxpayers have to pay. Mr. Bowerman asked for clarification as to how tipping'fees are relevant if CDD disposal is discontinued and tax dollars pay for the costs of running the landfill. Ms. Thomas replied that if construction sites divide up their trash, different kinds of trash will cost different amounts to process. The company that refused to do so and emptied everything at Ivy would then be charged more money. Forty dollars per ton is what it costs for them to haul the trash to Henrico themselves. Mr. Bowerman said this meant that there November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 34) 000117 would have to be incentives for the contractor to bury only inert material; the rest would either be recycled or sent to Richmond. He then asked if there was a way to make it work without public tax support. Ms. Thomas replied that there would not be enough revenue to do the community activities the Board wants. Mr. Bowerman asked if the contractor had CDD and contracted with a carrier, would the County be out of the picture. Ms. Thomas said "no", the cost would be $40 to haul; he would rather take it to the Ivy Landfill and let the County take it to Richmond. The incentive is that it would be too expensive for him to haul it to Richmond himself. Mr. Bowerman replied that this would still allow CDD to go into the landfill. Ms. Thomas stated that totally inert CDD is fine, it is the other CDD: asbestos, roofing materials, etc., that require the lining. Mr. Tucker said he did not know if a construction company separating its own trash would cover the cost without any further subsidy. The only way to find this out would be to try a pilot program. Mr. Bowerman said the County could implement what Ms. Thomas was suggesting and still need to subsidize it, to which Mr. Tucker agreed. Mr. Bowerman asked what the public benefit was with this project, whether it was revenue or something else. Mr. Tucker replied that this debris would still need to be brought to Ivy to get that tip fee for the environmental contingency fund. It may all be shipped out, but there is just no other place for the debris to come in order to be transferred out, unless a private hauler decides to set up a transfer station. Mr. Martin commented that the County could possibly be setting itself up to be gouged when, years from now, a hauler decides to double its fees. Mr. Tucker replied that MSW did address this. Additionally, even if they started shipping the CDD out, they would still have the right to store it there later. Mr. Art Petrini noted that Ms. Thomas' suggestion is in the GBB report, known as Option 2-B (adjusted). Option 1-B (adjusted) is transferring to a private landfill using existing equipment. If they do that and hold the tip fee where it is now, there would be a revenue deficit. So, 1-B (adjusted) says that the tip fee would have to be increased from $26.00 to $39.25 to continue to fund all activities, including the environmental contingency fund. He said that Ms. Thomas' suggestion assumes the tip fee would not have to be increased because construction workers would separate their own debris. However, the decrease in revenue from the lower tip fee is not proportional to the expenses. They still need staffing, for instance, so it is not knoWn what subsidy would be required. To address Mr. Bowerman's suggestion, if there was no CDD coming to the landfill, they would be out approximately $340,000 per year, because they are managing the CDD and receiving some revenue that exceeds expenses. If they do not have any CDD, they have zero revenue, and the City and County would have to come up with the funds. Option 7-A is both environmentally and financially responsible; if this is not going to be passed, RSWA needs to know right now so they can start over with another option. Mr. Tucker said this is a budget issue if the Board is willing to consider a subsidy. Unfortunately, because of timing, it could not be dealt with until March or April. That then runs into the problem of timing with RSWA in terms of going forward with the next cell. Ms. Thomas noted that if the CDD goes away altogether, if divided up between the City and County, the cost would come to $3.00 per person that would go toward supporting trash removal. She thinks this is worth pursuing because there is no guarantee that there will be enough CDD to fund expenses. Mr. Martin said the Board went through a long study, public comments and joint meetings with the City in order to reach its decision. The decision was made, and nothing has changed to make it a bad decision. He asked why the Board should change courses just as they are at the point of implementing the previous decision. Ms. Thomas responded that the reality of what a CDD cell is has become clearer to people. It had been pictured as benign and a good business decision. She thinks it can be handled in a benign manner, but that is certainly not a widely-held position among residents. It means that debris is being buried which may be detrimental in the future. The market is changing, with small decreases in constrUction debris coming into the landfill. This may mean that there is leakage of CDD going to other places. November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 35) O00J .$ Mr. Petrini replied that the drop in tonnage was a budget drop based on last year's projections. The lower level of tonnage of CDD is reflected in the GBB report, so those figures are accurate. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Ivy Landfill Steering Committee felt the only solution was to completely get out of the CDD business, or if this was just an economic solution to maximize the public amount of subsidy. He asked what issues were left unresolved with her proposal in terms of the Steering Committee versus the public as a whole. Ms. Thomas said the decision should be made for the public as a whole, but there are a variety of opinions as to what is satisfactory. Some would be satisfied if nothing was being buried, but others do not want any more trucks on the roads; some will not want soccer fields. No matter the decision, the Ivy people will continue to express their concerns. Mr. Tucker stated that, because of the timing of the cell, RSWA needs a decision. The dilemma is that the Board cannot make a funding decision today; that would need to be done at budget time, but RSWA needs a decision now. Ms. Humphris added that the City has already placed tax dollars into this. Mr. Petrini replied that if the Board changes its decision, 7-A is out the window and the whole process has to start over again. Mr. Martin said there it is no way he would participate in any vote to change anything today. The Board must do what is in the best interests of all of Albemarle County, and he has not heard any reason why the Board should change the decision. He would need to hear from Mr. Tucker or RSWA as to their recommendations for what is in the best interests of Albemarle County, and he is not hearing any of that. Mr. Tucker agreed with Mr. Martin that the Board went through the process and made a decision. The Board agreed to ship the MSW, but if changing the process on CDD is going to happen, it will require additional funds that are not available. Ms. Thomas said if the Board does not at least pause in the process now, they would never be able to have a discussion about whether this was the right decision for what is in the best interests of the whole County. Mr. Martin replied that they had paused and decided carefully when they made the original decision. Now, he is being asked to make a snap decision. Ms. Thomas said if the Board is going to consider her plan, it must do so now; it cannot bring it up again five years from now. Mr. Tucker replied that there is a time limit. Phase one of cell four will be finished in 2.5 years, so it can be looked at again later. The Board would have the opportunity to take another look at this after phase one is completed. Ms. Thomas responded that she did not remember what phase one was. Mr. Petrini replied that the phases indicate a certain volume of CDD tonnage. In phase one, the revenue equals or exceeds the cost, so it can be finished on a neutral financial basis. In two and one-half years, they could close Cell 4 and recover all costs. Ms. Thomas said one concern is that once you get started with burying CDD, it will just go on and on. Ms. Humphris stated that two and one-half Years would give the Board plenty of time to consider all of their options, and the Board could immediately begin to gather the information they need while proceeding with Option 7-A. Mr. Martin said at the Board's last meeting, he had asked that staff look at the possibility of parking garbage trucks in the rural areas under certain conditions and was told that would be too much work for staff. Now, staff is being asked to do ~a hell of a lot more." The Board should do what is in the best interests of the County. He is not an expert in this issue and wants to rely on the experts to tell him what is the right thing to do. Ms. Humphris replied that she wants to know as much as she can, since there is now a window of opportunity. Mr. Tucker said the first step is a political one to see if the City is willing to join, since they would have to be a partner in this. Ms. Thomas replied that this was the reason for the Solid Waste Task Force. Ms, Humphris asked how this could be brought to the City. November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 36) 000119 Mr. Bowerman said this was simply a method of implementation. There might be some alternatives within 7-A that RSWA could recommend. Ms. Thomas said the market and knowledge are changing in this area, and that the two and one-half year time span would give more time for further investigation, as long as the Board recognizes that they are making a two and one-half year decision, not a 90-year decision. Mr. Petrini stated that this means the cell would be built and, per the GBB report, charge $26.00, which would be incrementally increased. In that time, they will investigate other options. If Option 1-B (adjusted), which is essentially Ms. Thomas' suggestion, is implementable, the tip fee would have to increase to nearly $40.00 or a subsidy would have to be found. Mr. Marshall stated that he does not know why the Board would want to lower the fee and get out of the business. Mr. Tucker said that is another alternative. Ms. Thomas replied that Mr. Marshall is interested in the cost of housing. Mr. Marshall said that is true but he is not willing to put money in the developers' pockets. He wants affordable housing in Albemarle County, but this it is not the way to get it. The taxpayers have enough burdens. He thinks the vote yesterday proved that the people of this State are tired of taxes. Mr. Ed Strange wished to make comments. The Board did not allow him to do so. Ms. Humphris stated the Board would go forward with Mr. Petrini's recommendations. (The Board reaffirmed its support of the recommendations as outlined in the consultant's report for Option 7A. The Board indicated a willingness to reconsider the transfer of CDD after two and one-half years which is the time period Mr. Art Petrini indicated would take for the first phase of the next CDD cell.) Agenda Item No. 16. Cancel BOard of Supervisors' meeting of November 19, 1997. Ms. Humphris said there were no public hearings scheduled to be heard that night. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to cancel the Board of Supervisors' meeting on November 19, 1997. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 19. Executive Session: Legal Matters and Appointments to Boards and Commissions. At 12:50 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and commissions and a personnel matter regarding a specific employee; and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion, probable litigation regarding public safety incidents, and a service agreement, and, pursuant to subsection (3) to consider disposition or acquisition of real estate. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 20. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session. At 4:13 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the 000:1.20 November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 37) motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments. Mr. Bowerman nominated the following persons for appointments to boards and commissions: Reappoint Mr. William J. Kehoe as the joint County/City appointee to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Authority for a new term to begin on December 2, 1997, and expire on December 1, 2000; Reappoint Mr. Michael R. Matthews, Jr. to the Joint Airport Commission, for a new term to begin on December 2, 1997, and expire on December 1, 2000; Reappoint Mr. William J. Kehoe to the Joint Airport Commission for a new term to begin on December 2, 1997, and expire on December 1, 2000; Reappoint Mr. Burton M. Webb to the BOCA Code Board of Appeals for a new term to begin on November 22, 1997, and expire on November 21, 2002; Reappoint Mr. JOnathan D. Earl to the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) for a new term which began on October 5, 1997, and will expire on October 4, 1999; Reappoint Mr. Richard E. Huff, II, to the Thomas JeffersOn Emergency Medical Services Council (EMS) for a new term which will begin on January 1, 1998, and expire on December 31, 2000; Reappoint Mr. Burton M. Webb to the Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals for a new term which will begin on November 22, 1997, and expire on November 21, 2002; Reappoint Mr. Tom Trevillian to the Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals for a new term which will begin on November 22, 1997, and expire on November 21, 2002; Reappoint Mr. Howard Allen, Ms. Elva Holland and Mr. Leigh V. Middleditch, Jr. to the Housing Committee for new terms which will begin on January 1, 1998, and expire on December 31, 2000. Appoint Ms. Betty A. Via to the Housing Committee for a term which will begin on January 1, 1998, and expire on December 31, 1998. Reappoint Ms. Roxanne W. White to the JAUNT Board for a new term which began on October 1, 1997, and will expire on September 30, 2000; Reappoint Ms. Lisa Keyes Glass and Mr. Jerry E. Jones to the Jordan Development Corporation for new terms which began August 14, 1997, and will expire on August 13, 1998; Reappoint Messrs. Fred W. Shields, Jr., Dan M. Maupin and Montie Pace to the Land Use Classification Appeals Board for new terms which began September 2, 1997, and which will expire September 1, 1999; Reappoint Mr. Samuel A. (Pete) Anderson to the Albemarle County Planning Commission as the non-voting University of Virginia representative for a new term to begin on January 1, 1998, and expire on December 31, 1998; Reappoint Mr. Daniel Montgomery to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority for a new term which will begin on December 14, 1997, and expire on December 13, 2000; Reappoint Mr. Ed Strange to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee for a new term which will begin on January 1, 1998, and expire on December 31, 1999; and November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 38) 0005.2 . Appoint Mr. David Bowerman as a member of the Development Areas Initiative Committee (DAIS). Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. Ms. Humphris said a letter had been received from Ms. Theresa Tapscott, Executive Director, Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), stating that AHIP, Inc. wishes to have its president designated to serve as the AHIP representative on both the Albemarle County Housing Committee and the Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund Board of Directors. She requested that Mr. Nicholas E. Munger be appointed to these two positions effective immediately. Mr. Tucker said the Board would need to amend the Housing Committee's by-laws or committee representation to include AHIP, Inc.'s president. Ms. Thomas said AHIP already has a representative on the Housing Committee. If someone wanted to resign, that would be a way to get the president as a Committee member. She thinks one representative from AHIP should be sufficient. Mr. Tucker said staff can look into this further. Ms. Thomas noted that the Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund Board of Directors bylaws might need to be looked at also. Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker said the Board needs to make a motion to move forward with the public hearing on the meals tax. The intent had been to implement the tax in January or February. Mr. Melvin Breeden suggested that January 1, 1998, would be adequate time for smaller restaurants to prepare. Mr. Tucker asked about necessary training to determine what is and is not eligible for the meals tax. Mr. Davis noted that the Board cannot adopt the ordinance until December 10, 1997. Mr. Breeden replied that would still provide enough time. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adopt a resolution of intent to implement the meals tax passed by the voters at four percent and that the Board would determine the date to enforce it at a public hearing on December 10, 1997, with a proposed implementation date of January 1, 1998. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. Mr. Tucker noted that staff would like to change its Christmas Eve holiday this year (December 23) to the day following Christmas (December 26) in order to have a five-day weekend holiday. He asked that the Board allow emergency service departments to have some flexibility in working out their work schedules. He then distributed to the Board a copy of the Governor's memorandum as the Governor had given State employees additional time off. The consensus of the Board was to allow the switch in days. Mr. Tucker asked the Board if they wished to make any additional changes to the holiday schedule. There were no further changes. Ms. Thomas asked how GE Fanuc is doing with hiring people who already live in the region. Mr. Tucker replied that staff it is still working with them, and they indicate that they will try to get something for the Board. Ms. Thomas noted that this was a contractual agreement, not just a casual remark, and the Board wants the report. Mr. Tucker said he will contact GE Fanuc for an update. Ms. Thomas mentioned that she had asked Board members to solicit volunteers to work at the voting precincts, and the volunteers did an November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 39) excellent job. She asked the Board members to give her the names of these people so she could send them a letter of appreciation. Ms. Humphris noted that projections show that the County's water demand might exceed supplies as early as the year 2003. It is, therefore, increasingly important that the County manage its water sources. Ms. Humphris mentioned that City Council has passed a resolution in opposition to the repeal of the car tax and Mayor Kay Slaughter has asked the County to join the City in this. She noted that the County has opposed the repeal for years, since the County obtains a large amount of revenue through that tax. When the Board meets with its legislators on December 4, 1997, it needs to express its position. Ms. Thomas said now that elections are over, the Board should feel free to express its concerns about losing this revenue. Mr. Tucker suggested that Ms. Thomas express the Board's concerns through her appearance at the Virginia Association of Counties Finance Steering Committee and that the Board members discuss their concerns with legislators. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the legislators be asked to make any change perpetually revenue neutral, as the car tax is a source of revenue in good times and bad for counties. Mr. Perkins suggested the Board write the Governor-elect stating this opinion. Ms. Thomas expressed concern that if the words "revenue neutral" are used, the counties not getting as much revenue from the personal property tax today will have their citizens' tax moneys sent to the counties getting more money from the personal property tax today. Although Albemarle County has a fairly high personal property tax rate, the citizens of Albemarle would have their State tax money sent to Fairfax County. While ~revenue neutral" is a good term, the Board would need to be more specific in what it is looking for. Revenue neutral would not be revenue neutral for Albemarle County. Mr. Bowerman said he believes this Board would need an opportunity to comment on the bill proposed. Ms. Humphris said this would probably be a major topic of discussion at the VACO conference next week. This is a very serious situation in which the Board finds itself. She understands why the voters voted for it, but she does not believe the citizens understand the implications of that vote. Regarding AHIP's request for its president to serve on the Housing Committee, Mr. Tucker said he was informed that P_HIP is not asking for two representatives to serve on the Committee. AHIP wants its president to serve and replace the current individual, when that term expires. Motion was then offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to appoint Mr. Nicholas E. Munger, to the Housing Committee, with said term to begin on December 31, 1997 and expire on December 31, 2000. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. (Note: At 4:40 p.m., the Board moved into Room 235 to hold a joint meeting with the School Board.) Agenda Item No. 21. Joint Meeting with School Board. School Board Members Present: Mr. John Baker, Mr. Madison Cummings, Jr., Ms. Susan Gallion, Mr. Jeffrey Joseph, Mr. Steve Koleszar, Ms. Karen Powell and Mr. Charles Ward. Officers Present: Dr. Kevin Castner, Division Superintendent, Mr. Frank Morgan and Mr. Mark Trank. 000 .2.3 November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 40) Item 2la. At 4:45 p.m., Ms. Karen Powell called the School Board to order. Ms. Humphris noted that with both Boards now in order, the meeting could proceed. Item 2lb. Presentation: FY 1997-98 Revised and FY 1998-99 Projected General Fund Revenues. Mr. Melvin Breeden said the November revenue projection for the next fiscal year is the first step in the annual budget process for both Operating and Capital budgets. Revised revenue estimates are provided by the Department of Finance in late October after the second cycle real estate and personal property tax bills have been mailed. Based on actual billing numbers, these revenue estimates reflect more current information than was available for the projections made in March of 1997. Mr. Breeden said a copy of the Revised Preliminary Estimates for FY 1997-98, and the Projected FY 1998-99 General Fund revenues had been mailed with the agenda packet for this meeting. For the current fiscal year, overall revenues are projected to be approximately $1.8 million less than projected due to a significant drop in the estimated rate of increase in personal property tax revenues. Fiscal year personal property revenues were budgeted at $20.6 million with a revised FY 1997-98 assessment of $18.7 million, a drop of almost $1.9 million in the current fiscal year. For FY 1998-99, the drop in projected personal property revenues is compounded by the FY 1997-98 reduction, as evidenced by the variance between the personal property tax revenues projected in March, 1997 and those projected in November, 1997. The March, 1997 projection of $23.5 million was based on a continued 13 percent trend in personal property increases, a rate of increase that has been fairly consistent over the past five years. The November projected revenues of $20.4 million are based on an 8.6 percent rate of increase. The lower rate of increase in the current year, in addition to the lower rate of increase projected for next year, results in a $3.1 million decrease in personal property revenues over what was projected in March, 1997. The variance between the FY 1997-98 budgeted and the FY 1998-99 projected personal property tax revenues shows an actual decrease of $268,020. Mr. Breeden said the drop in the rate of increase for personal property revenues is due to a slower growth in both vehicle value and sales. The rate of increase in the number of new vehicles purchased has leveled off, as has the purchase of used vehicles. Also, the sales price of new vehicles has not increased as much as had been projected. Dealers report that some sticker prices are level or below last year's prices. This lower rate of increase in both vehicle sales and value is not isolated to Albemarle County, but it is being experienced by other localities throughout the State. Mr. Breeden said in addition to the significant drop in personal property taxes, both mobile home revenues and machinery and tools revenues have been revised downward in the current year, also due to a slow down in the rate of purchases and the declining values of older mobile homes and equipment. Interest revenues are also projected to decline by approximately $250,000 over the FY 1997-98 budgeted amount, since these revenues are based on the actual amount of revenues collected. Mr. Breeden said most of the other General Fund revenues are near target. Real estate values have been rather flat or even decreased over the last few years, and since the County does not have a reassessment go into effect next year, real estate revenues will increase only by that amount caused by the addition of new construction, which normally amounts to $750,000 in new revenue. In the current year, personal property and real estate revenues represent about 87 percent of total General Fund revenues, so there it is nowhere to make up the difference. The revenue picture for next year is not looking good. Current projections show that next year's revenue will be about $3.2 million less than what was originally projected eight months ago. He then offered to answer questions. Item 21c. Memorandum of Understanding/Allocation of Revenues. Ms. Roxanne White said a report and a draft Memorandum of Understanding were prepared in response to questions generated by the School Board. Their questions concerned the County's Financial Policy which speaks to developing a Memorandum of Understanding on the annual allocation of revenues. 000 .24 November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 41) Ms. White said the purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding is to establish a procedure for allocating to the County of Albemarle and to the Albemarle County School Board the estimated General Fund revenues available in a given fiscal year. The three major points of the proposed policy are: Revenue Allocation Agreement. Beginning with FY '98 Operating and Capital budgets, 70.55 percent of local taxes, net of Revenue-Sharing requirements and the three percent increase in Tourism Fund revenues, will be allocated to the School Board to fund the local share of the School Board's operating budget, local debt service costs and pay-as-you-go capital improvements. The remaining 29.45 percent of local tax revenues will be allocated to General Government. End of the Year Revenues. Excess local tax revenues will be shared at the end of the year in the same proportion as the estimated revenues after the County's Fund Balance Reserve policy has been fulfilled. School Board Responsibility. If the School Board requires additional funds over the agreed upon allocation, it must, subsequent to a public hearing, adopt a formal resolution requesting that the Board of Supervisors approve a tax rate increase for specific School Board programs or incentives. Ms. White stated that the Meals Tax was not included in the revenues, so the figures are not entirely accurate, although the percentages are. She mentioned that a major question is about the difference between this policy and a 60-40 split. Under the old system, these committed expenditures would be subtracted from total revenue and the School Division given a 60 percent split which is about an $815,000 increase. Under the new system, the 70.55 percent portion of net revenues would give from $70,000 to $85,000 more than the School Division would get under the 60-40 split. Ms. White said she has been asked how this change will impact the School Division over the next four years. She explained that in a worst-case scenario with no more borrowing in the next four years of any kind, the the Operating budget for the School Division would increase because the Debt Service Reserve would go down. That also assumes the Capital Improvement moneys, which have been used for maintenance and computers in the School Division, would remain flat; that would increase the operational increase for the School Division by about $500,000. She said they are trying to give the School Division the flexibility to move funds from operations or capital projects, and to understand the relationship between the two. As the amount of the VPSA bonds increases, then the Debt Service Reserve also has to increase. Ms. White said as far as end-of-year excess revenues are concerned, for the years 1991 through 1996, the average variance between what was budgeted and what was collected in local tax revenues was about $1.5 million. The Financial Policies recommend that the County maintain a Fund Balance that is approximately ten percent of the total budget. In order to do that, as the budget increases each year, the Fund Balance must be replenished in order to keep up with the ten percent requirement. Ms. White said the third part of the Memorandum of Understanding sets out that the School Board would have to determine what tax rate would be needed in order to fund specific Capital or Operating needs above the allocation. The School Board would hold a public hearing on that potential tax rate increase and then adopt a formal resolution requesting the Board to Supervisors to increase the tax rate for those specific educational operational or capital needs. If approved by the Board of Supervisors, the School Division would receive one hundred percent of that tax increase. Ms. White said that concluded her presentation. Ms. Humphris asked if any member had questions for Ms. White. Ms. Powell asked if the Capital Improvements Program and Debt Service payments are both rolled into that percentage, why the School Board has not revisited its CIP when it finds itself in need of additional dollars for operational needs. It has always been a policy of General Government that it makes the decision on Capital Improvement needs, and the CIP does not come back to the School Board to be adjusted. Dr. Castner said Ms. Powell is November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 42) 000'125 saying that if capital is reduced it could lead to more operating expenses. It is not something that has been part of any significant discussion since he has been in Albemarle. He asked if that option has always been available. Mr. Zimmerman said the option has always been available if the School Board requested it. Ms. Gallion said it had never been presented to the School Board in this way. Ms. Powell said after the School Board finishes work on its Operating budget and finds it needs dollars to deal with certain situations, it has not gone back to adjust the CIP. Mr. Tucker replied that this new proposal will give more flexibility to the School Board. Before, Local Government has been expected to cover those costs when it could. Mr. Baker said the School Board has been perfectly happy to have that arrangement. Ms. Gallion said she thinks the School Board had this discussion last year and it was mentioned that the School Board could not do that. Dr. Castner stated that at the time the Board deals with the budget in February for the next fiscal year, many contracts have already been let, so the School Board could not necessarily influence a decision for the next fiscal year, but it could possibly affect the following fiscal year. He said it was stated that the School Board would not be in a position to get the money to help that year's operation expenses. Now, discussing this concept in November, there is a different window of opportunity to change things. Mr. A1 Reaser replied that it is a very complex question. For example, looking at next year, the CIP has a $650,000 cash contribution from Local Government. The School Board has budgeted $600,000 of that to buy technology, so that would be the money the School Board could chose not to use. If it chose not to use the money for Capital projects, it would be one-time money, because if it rolled into the Operating budget for recurring costs, then it becomes an entirely different question. The projects for which bond moneys are being borrowed now in the total of roughly $20.0 million will not have the first major payments due on them until a year from now. Projects have to be delayed for three or four years in order to impact finances in a significant manner. There is always the option of just not proceeding with a project. MS. White said the CIP Technical Committee is probably going to recommend that the high school addition be pushed out further into the future because of Debt Service payments. Part of this recommended new process will make that a decision of the School Board rather than a decision of the CIP Technical Committee. Mr. Koleszar asked what ~Debt Reserve" means. Ms. White replied that in order not to have to come up with an additional $2.0 million in one year, the Board has been putting aside money in a reserve fund for the last three years for this purpose. They were also able to reduce the Debt Service Reserve a little because they saved about $4.0 million over the twenty-year period on the $20.0 million high school bond. That is the difference between having a bond at seven percent interest and having the bond come in with an interest rate of five and one-half percent. Mr. Tucker noted that the County does not, contrary to popular opinion, spend everything it gets. He mentioned that there also is a Debt Reserve for the'Jail expansion project. Mr. Joseph asked which tax rate the School Board is empowered to determine. Ms. White replied that it would be the real estate tax rate. The School Board would determine how much money they needed over and above the allocation, and then would determine what amount of increase would be needed to raise that much revenue. Mr. Joseph then asked how this would work in the second year after that decision were made. Ms. White replied that the shared percentages change after the tax rate change. Mr. Ward noted that the names of both staffs were listed on the report and asked if they had both worked or[ this idea. Mr. Tucker replied that County staff had been looking at this idea, which it is being used by other counties, developed an initial draf~ and then met with the School Board's staff. Mr. Ward asked wheEher this was a joint recommendation of both staffs. Mr. Tucker replied that both staffs had recommended this as a concept, but there is no actual proposal on the table. The School Board may decided to change it or go with something completely different. Mr. Ward asked whether Dr. Castner was recommending that the School Board adopt this proposal. He said he finds it particularly intriguing. Dr. Castner replied that this is the beginning of the discussion, but there are things he would have written differently. This is not an issue between him November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 43) and Mr. Tucker. It is an issue between the Supervisors and the School Board. He thinks the School Board needs tc take it as a working document and flush out its strengths and weaknesses. He thinks this it is a good starting point. In talking about these issues durJ. ng budget times, to find a way to address some of these issues together, would be a positive thing. Mr. Baker asked about the comparison between this proposal and the 60-40 split. He said it is a theoretical split because as an a practical matter, the School Division has always been given more than 60 percent. Mr. Tucker replied that the 60-40 sPlit has been used in building the budgets. The 60-40 split normally refers just to local revenues. Mr. Baker asked if it is a condition of the memorandum that the 70.55 percent be applied and the responsibility for the CIP be given to the School Board, or is that negotiable.. Mr. Tucker replied that expenditures have to be reduced somewhere. Either the School Board would have the authority to do it or the Technical Committee would have to do it. The School Board has not had the ability or been afforded the opportunity to make that decision in the past, but this proposal would give the School Board that ability to make the decision. If the revenue is not available, somebody has to make the reduction. Ms. Gallion said what she heard Mr. Reaser say is that if the School Board does not reduce the capital, it will not receive any effects in year one because of the way projects are let. Ms. White replied that if no borrowing occurs next year, $100,000 can be saved in the Debt Reserve account. The maintenance money, or '~pay-as an-you-go" money, is an increase of $150,000. That could be level-funded, so that would give an additional $450,000. The School Board would have the option to do that. With the way revenues are, the CIP Technical Committee would probably have to go back and look to see what can be cut from the CIP budget which includes School projects. Ms. Powell said the 70.55 percentage is coming from what the current percentage is and she asked if there would not be a significant jump in Debt Service because of the new high school. Mr. Tucker replied that is what the Debt Service Reserve is for. Ms. Powell asked if the Debt Reserve is planned every year to save money'for those types of big projects. Ms. White said that is correct. Ms. Powell said that would then become the responsibility of the School Board, so it is just shifting everything from the Board of Supervisors relating to schools to the School Board. Then if more money were needed, the School Board would have to make a request of the Board of Supervisors for a changelin the tax rate. It is still a request to the Board of Supervisors, so she dogs not see a big difference between the status quo and this proposal. Either way, the School Board is only requesting more money, they have no independent power to tax. Over the last few years, they have been submitting lists of unfunded priorities for more funding, which is similar to this proposal. Ms. Thomas asked how the amount of money the Schools receive from the State plays into this, because at the time the School Board works on its budget, it does not always know what it will get from the State. Dr. Castner replied that the composite index caused the money they received from the State to lessen. In two weeks, the new composite index will come out, and they will discover how much money they will receive. Mr. Frank Morgan stated that is was similar to the car tax discussed in that there is a shortfall which is getting greater each year as less money co~nes from the State. Ms. Thomas stated that, to cut to the bottom line, this does not make that situation any worse. Mr. Morgan said that there is a loose relationship. For instance, they used CIP pay-as-you-go money last year for technology. That enabled them to take full advantage of the State matching funds. Mr. Baker asked if it were correct that the memorandum and the 70.55 percent figure exempts Federal and State funds from the calculations. So, whatever the amount of StaEe funding, it does not affect local funding. He also asked about requests to increase taxes for a specific project. When that specific need is met, does the School Division revert back to the previous funding? Ms. White replied that State and Federal funds are not used as part of the 70.55 percent, just local tax revenue. Mr. Bowerman replied that the way he envisioned it, the School Board could recommend a tax decrease after they no longer needed the funding. November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 44) Mr. Koleszar stated he saw an Obligation to only ask for whatever revenue was needed, so when they no longer need the excess, they would request the tax rate be changed back. Mr. Baker asked whether the School Board would request a specific amount of money, or a specific tax rate. Ms. White replied that they would request a tax rate by determining what rate was needed to raise a certain amount of money. Mr. Baker said since they had not previously been in the business of setting tax rates, he would prefer that the School Board request a certain amount of money, and let the Board of Supervisors determine how to raise it. Ms. Humphris agreed that he probably would prefer that, but this allows the School Board to hear from the community about the impact of their decisions. Ms. Powell asked if the School Division started receiving additional dollars from the State, whether they would give back some of the local dollars. Mr. Bowerman replied that, if the composite index changes and they receive more funding, they initially get the 70.55 percent in the budget allocation. If the School Board found it had additional revenue it could not use, then that allocation could change. Mr. Koleszar said he feels that if they received extra money from the State, they would decide if they needed the extra money for programs, and if they did not need it, they would ask for a lower tax rate. Ms. Powell asked about the methodology. Dr. Castner pointed out that the preliminary report they presented to the Board a week or so ago on a ~maintenance of effort" concept was showing a 12.8 percent increase or an amount of $5.9 million. The School Board can defend it. He thinks the School Board taking accountability is a good thing. As much as he agrees that it is a positive thing for the School Board to make their case for the tax increase, he still has a few cautions about the memorandum. Blending the operational and the capital debt service is assuming that growth is solely that of the School Board. Growth is a community issue. The School Board has no control over growth. The School Board has to keep talking about ways to work together. He believes the Supervisors have done a great job in the capital program, but he also thinks the Schools are an asset of this community. So, in transferring what has been a shared function, he does not want to lose the type of support the Supervisors have given in the past on issues over which the School Board has no control. The School Board also has no control over the ability of the citizens not to pay if this responsibility is passed to the School Board. Dr. Castner said the other issue is with the fixed rate of 70.55 percent. This current year 70.55 percent is not even ~in the ballpark." The School Board will either need an increase or have to make cuts. It also means the School Board might have to be out in the public justifying its needs. He said the last time the number was greater than 70.55 percent was when Sutherland Middle School was opened. Monticello High School is much more complex than Sutherland, and adding 300+ additional students to the system and the SOA issue for the six- and seven-period day, makes it a ~mother-lode~ year. Dr. Castner said it was mentioned that there are similar arrangements in other localities. He said Mr. Tucker and his staff are far more knowledgeable about what is happening with Memoranda of Understanding in other school systems than he would be. He pointed out that Henrico County does this and their tax rate is $0.96/$100 which is 55 percent higher than Albemarle's. In Chesterfield County, their rate is $1.06/$100 or 76 percent higher; in Richmond City, it is $1.44/$100. While this proposal might work in those communities, he does not know if it would work in Albemarle. He does n0t know at this point if it is something that needs to be looked into. The good thing about this proposal is that this is a necessary discussion. He thinks the people in this room have to rely on staff for information before making a decision, so that makes this the perfect year to go through this process. (Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 5:51 p.m.) Mr. Morgan said this does warrant discussion by the School Board, but he believes the advice of a financial consultant of some type is needed to advise them. Mr. Baker agreed and asked what the time line was for the School Board to consider this. Ms. Powell asked what other information the School Board members need. She noted that she had received information from Ms. White giving a breakdown Approved by the o rd of County ~ervisors 000 .28 November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) (Page 45) of the School System's Operating budget, Debt Service and Capital Outlays. Looking at the methodology, she did not see any continuity as to whether or not they included capital costs or debt services; most did not mention that. Ms. Thomas said a significant increase in capital expenditures means a significant increase in operational expenses, whereas this is being presented as having the ability to do one "or" the other. In fact, it is almost always going to be one "and" the other. Ms. Powell said with commonality on salaries and benefits, and with the School Board developing its budget first, how would the School Board come out at a public hearing and bear the burden of asking for a tax increase in order to raise the salaries of teachers, administrators and classified employees? She feels that would put the whole burden on the School Board. It needs to have some further thought. Mr. Tucker suggested reading all of the text with the report. He said that Chesterfield, Richmond and Virginia Beach are the three communities that have a similar agreement or proposal where operating expenses and debt service are included. Dr. Castner said School staff works with County staff regarding what the cost-of-living increase should be, so the fact that everyone is on the same page at the beginning could perhaps be made part of this document. Mr. Tucker said that agreement is always done very early in the process because the budget is built from that premise. It does not mean that at times it is not changed. Mr. Baker asked if there was a recommendation as to when this discussion should be completed. Mr. Tucker stated that they would have to move forward with the budget preparations soon, and it would be preferable to have an agreement on this memorandum within the next month or so. Mr. Koleszar noted that there is another joint meeting on December 3, 1997. He suggested that there be a time line on how the Boards approach this. Dr. Castner stated that, because the School Division finishes its budget first, they would need these figures by the middle of December. Ms. Powell said this was a difficult budget year with costs from the opening of Monticello High School that would not be carried into the next year. Item 21d. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Thomas stated that she appreciated how much the members of the School Board had helped in campaigning for the Meals Tax. Mr. Cummings said he would like to express appreciation to the members of the community who also participated. Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Chai~an