1996-12-04December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
0003 9
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 4, 1996, at 9:00 A.M., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road~ Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Porrest
R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at 9:02 a.m.), Mr. Walter F.
Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m., by the
Chairman, Ms. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Ms. Ruth Douglas came forward to speak about the assessment of cars.
She bought a used car in August and had it evaluated through Consumer Reports
at $9500 (she paid only $9200). When she received her tax bill, she was
assessed for over $10,000. When she called to ask about that, she was told
her car is assessed as of January 1 whether she owned the car or not using the
NADA book value. She does not feel that is fair to the taxpayer, and feels
there should be some way to assess cars at least every six months. She
requested that this policy be reviewed and changed.
Ms. Humphris thanked Ms. Douglas for her comments. She did note that
there is a strict separation between this Board and the Finance Office when it
comes to assessments, and the Board is not to tamper with their procedures.
Mr. Tucker said the question raised is good since it is a question of fair-
ness, but it is also tied into what State law allows the County to do. Staff
can look into the request, but he believes it would take a change in State law
being made first.
Next to speak was Mr. Jim Kauffman who spoke about the GBB Report (Item
5.14 on the Consent Agenda). There are five options in the report; four of
the options recommend closing the Ivy Landfill and transferring municipal
solid waste to an appropriately sited and constructed Sub Title D cell.
Option 2 is called a fast-track option for closure, but there is a point of
confusion in the statement: "A decision to implement this option must be made
before December 31, 1996."
Mr. Kauffman said he was present at the public meeting where this report
was presented to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, and he asked them why
money was being spent to prepare this option if it was dead on arrival as
reported by The Daily Progress. The GBB consultants gave a clear answer to
the question saying they had used that date for illustrative purposes only.
It would take about two years to complete the closure once the decision is
made. Mr. Kauffman said he hopes the Board will consider that option as being
alive and well and give it all due respect and not dismiss it.
Ms. Patti Pullen was present to say she had talked with public officials
in both the City and the County about the landfill issue. She is present only
to state her opinion. A member of City Council said to her last week "I don't
know why you people moved out there." She said if it had not been for H.B.
1205 in 1993 this would not be an issue today because the landfill would have
had to close. The citizens did not know about the bill at the time. The
intention of the bill was that localities using unlined cells which did not
meet standards would have a chance to find a place to put their municipal
solid waste. It was not the intention for these municipalities to continue
landfilling indefinitely. She said it is not fair to blame the Planning
Commission or real estate agents because she thinks everybody who bought and
built in that area during the past few years were under the impression that
the Landfill was going to close. Legally it would have had to close if it had
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day M~t±ng)
(Page 2)
000 0
not been for H.B. 1205. She asked that the Board consider the ethics and the
morality of this bill and what it was intended for.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.7a on the Consent
Agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Item 5.1. Appropriation: Broadus Wood Elementary School, $100.00 (Form
#96042).
It was noted in the staff's report that Broadus Wood Elementary School
has received a donation in the amount of $100.00 to be used for purchase of
materials to build a composting facility which will be used by students
learning about recycling.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro-
priation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97
NUMBER: 96042
FLTND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATION FROM MURPJkY ELECTRICAL
PRODUCTS FOR BROADUS WOOD SCHOOL
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1220161101601300 INSTRUCTION2LL/RECREATION SUPPLIES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$100.00
$100.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200018100181109 DONATION $100.00
TOTAL $100.00
Item 5.2. Resolution to take roads in Forest Lakes North Subdivision
into the State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County's Engineering Department the following
resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes North Subdivision (SUB-
94-143) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
December 4, 1996, 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 Transporta-
tion to add the roads in Forest Lakes North Subdivision as de-
scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 4,
1996, 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 ease-
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day M~etirig)
(Page 3)
000321
ments 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:
(i)
Timberwood Parkway from Station 0+00, from end of
previous dedication, Station 54+15, 1022.56 lineal
feet to Station 10+22.56, rear pavement edge of cul-
de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 5/14/96 in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Box 1536, page 465, showing a right-of-
way width of 50 feet, with additional deed filed
5/14/96 in Deed Book 1536, page 477-8, length of 0.20
mile.
(2)
Timber Meadows from Station 0+17, right edge of pave-
ment of Timberwood Parkway, 818.97 lineal feet to
Station 8+35.97, rear pavement edge of cul-de-sac, as
shown on plat recorded 5/14/96 in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Box 1536, page 465, showing a right-of-way width of 50
feet, with additional deed filed 5/14/96 in Deed Book
1536, page 477-8, length of 0.16 mile.
Total Length - 0.36 mile.
Item 5.3. Voluntary Early Retirement Request for County Deputy Sheriff.
It was noted in the staff's report that Albemarle County Personal Policy
§ P-63 provides for voluntary early requirement for County employees who have
been employed by the County for ten of the last 13 years and who are at least
50 years of age and currently employed. Staff has received a request from an
employee who has been employed with the County for 26 years. The employee has
requested that he be allowed to take early retirement retroactive to November
1, 1996. The associated employee costs in this year's budget total $2,954.00
and would be taken from the Board's contingency line item. Staff recommends
approval of the request.
By the recorded vote set out above, the request was approved as re-
quested, with the budgetary implications being absorbed within the Board's
contingency line item for the current fiscal year.
Item 5.4. Request to Extend Sheriff's Salary Stipend.
It was noted in the staff's report that on June 13, 1995, the Board of
Supervisors, at Sheriff's Hawkins' request, approved a locally-funded two-
percent stipend on the Sheriff's salary to replace a shortfall in the state-
approved salaries of all other constitutional officers. This increase from
the State was to have occurred in December, 1995. At that time, other
constitutional officers and their deputies received a 4.35 percent increase
with only the Sheriff receiving a 2.25 percent salary increase. The Board's
action, however, only authorized this salary supplement through June 30, 1996,
as it was tied to the budget year. Sheriff Hawkins has requested that the
supplement be extended from July i through November 30, 1996, to mirror the
increase given other constitutional officers by the State. Due to an error on
the part of staff, the supplement was not terminated on June 30, 1996.
Sheriff Hawkins is asking that the stipend be terminated on November 30, 1996.
On December 1, 1996, the Sheriff will receive an increase from the State per
General Assembly approval. The amount necessary to cover this request would
be $466.00 plus benefits.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board~approved extending the
stipend for the Sheriff to cover the period to end November 30, 1996, with the
funds to come from the Sheriff's budget as approved in the current budget
year.
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
000222
Item 5.5. Adopt Resolution accepting property donation for Ivy Creek
Natural Area and authorize County Executive to execute deed.
It was noted in the staff's report that in June of 1996, Dr. Martin
Betts, a property owner in Squirrel Ridge Subdivision, contacted the Parks and
Recreation Director, Mr. Pat Mullaney, and expressed an interest in donating a
quarter-acre portion of his property to the Ivy Creek Natural Area. This
portion of the Betts' property is separated from the remainder of his prop-
erty, which contains his residence, by Hydraulic Road. The property is
surrounded by the Ivy Creek Natural Area and Hydraulic Road and has always
been treated as part of the Natural Area.
Mr. Mullaney discussed the proposed donation with City staff and
representatives of the Ivy Creek Foundation. All parties are in agreement
that the donation should be accepted. In offering the donation, Dr. and Ms.
Betts have asked that the City and County be responsible for the cost of a
professional appraisal, as well as a survey and the cost of legal fees, and
deed transfer. Due to the limited value of the donation, County staff has
worked to minimize associated costs. The County Attorney's Office has
determined that a survey will not be necessary and Dr. and Ms. Betts have
agreed to accept the County Assessor's appraisal of $5,000.00 for the dona-
tion.
Dr. and Ms. Betts would like to have this transaction completed prior to
the end of this calendar year for tax purposes. The County Attorney's Office
has prepared a resolution and deed. The deed has been reviewed and approved
by the City Attorney's Office and the matter will be on City Council's agenda
for action on December 2.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following
resolution accepting the gift of property from the Betts, and, also authorized
the County Executive to act on its behalf to execute the Deed.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottes-
ville are the owners of record of certain property identified as
the Ivy Creek Natural Area in the County of Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, the property is managed by the Ivy Creek Foundation
for the benefit of the public for open space, passive recreation
and related purposes;
WHEREAS, Martin B. Betts, D.V.M., and Anna R. Betts are the
owners of record of a small parcel approximately one-quarter acre
in size adjacent to the Ivy Creek Natural Area, and the parcel is
currently used as if it were in fact part of the Ivy Creek Natural
Area; and
WHEREAS, Dr. and Ms. Betts would like to donate this parcel
to the County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville to be
utilized as and become part of the Ivy Creek Natural Area; and
WHEREAS, Dr. and Ms. Betts no longer have any need for the
property, and the property will be used for public purposes as
part of the Ivy Creek Natural Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby accepts the
donation of the above-described property for the purposes de-
scribed herein and authorizes the County Executive to act on its
behalf to execute the Deed attached hereto and to be recorded
herewith.
Item 5.6. Authorize County Executive to Execute an Amended Agreement
for the Development and Administration of the Trees for the Route 29 North
Project.
It was noted in the staff's report that on September 11, 1996, the Board
authorized the execution of an agreement between the Virginia Department of
Transportation, Albemarle County, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of
Commerce, and the North Charlottesville Business Council, which provides for
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
000323
installation and maintenance of trees to be planted in the median of U.S.
Route 29 North between Hydraulic Road and the South Fork of the Rivanna River.
Since that time, an amendment has been requested by the Chamber and the North
Charlottesville Business Council which would allow for a good faith negotia-
tion at the end of the three-year planting period concerning the on-going
maintenance of all plantings proposed within the project. This amendment
allows some flexibility for providing the maintenance not contemplated under
the earlier agreement. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County
Executive to execute the amended agreement so that the project may move
forward as proposed.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the County
Executive to execute the following amended agreement:
AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
~Trees for 29"
By the County of Albemarle
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered in triplicate as of this
__ day of , __, between the COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter called the
"Department", the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter called the ~County", and
the CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE and the CHAR-
LOTTESVILLE BUSINESS COUNCIL, a Council of the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, hereinafter collectively called the
~Chamber".
WHEREAS, the Department has adopted a Six Year Improvement
Program for Fiscal Year 1996-97 through Fiscal Year 2001-2002 for
streets and highways, which includes an allocation of funds for
landscaping; also known as "Trees for 29" Phases I, II, & III;
identified in the Six Year Improvement Program as Projects 6029-
002-119, PE-104 (VDOT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING CHARGE), 6029-002-
119, PE-105 (COUNTY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING CHARGE), 6029-002-119,
L-801, (PHASE I), 6029-002-119, L-802 (PHASE II), and 6029-002-
119, L-803 (PHASE III), and Federal Projects STP-029-7(002), STP-
0290-7(003), N}{-5104(133), STP-029-7( ), and NH-029-7( ), and
referred hereafter as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost is $180,000.00 for Phases I, II,
and III combined, which include furnishing, installing and main-
taining for the first three (3) years, trees to be planted in the
median of U.S. Highway 29 between Hydraulic Road'and the South
Fork of the Rivanna River.
WHEREAS, the Department has allocated $144,000.00 in funding
which will be matched with $18,000.00 by the County and $18,000.00
by the Chamber.
WHEREAS, the Department, the County, and the Chamber desire
to construct the Project as expeditiously as possible the County
agrees to have the project implemented within 48 months from the
date funds are made available for each phase of the project,
subject to the progress of the overall road construction projects
in the affected area.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and
mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
The Department, the County, and the Chamber agree to partic-
ipate in the actual costs of this project understanding that
the Department's, County's, and the Chamber's participation
in the actual costs incurred in the installation, and the
initial three year maintenance, will be eighty percent
(80%), ten percent (10%), and ten percent (10%) respec-
tively, and subject to the funding caps in sections 2(I),
4e, and 8 of this Agreement. The Schematic landscape plan,
dated 6/12/96, outlining phases I, II, and III of this
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
000324
project is attached hereto as Attachment A and is made a
part hereof.
2 o
The County shall consult with, and act as agent of, the
Department and the Chamber in the design, bidding and man-
agement of the construction phases of the Project, specifi-
cally including the following:
a0
Prepare, using County staff, plans, specifications and
all other documents necessary to put out for competi-
tive bids, and award, contracts for installation and
initial maintenance under the terms of the three year
establishment period; as well as use its staff to
supervise and inspect the performance of the success-
ful contractor(s), in accordance with Department and
Federal Highway Administration procedures and poli-
cies, including settlement of any claims and disputes
arising from the Project.
Submit each phase of the work to the Department for
review and approval as the project develops; allow
Department personnel to inspect all phases of the
project at all times.
Plans for the Project may be prepared in accordance
with the County standards and format, provided the
standards are approved by the Department.
Procure a contractor for each of the three phases of
the Project, in conformance with applicable provisions
of the Virginia Public Procurement Act and the Depart-
ment's Road and Bridge Specifications. Submit the
construction bids to the Department for review and
approval prior to the award of the construction con-
tract in the name of the County. The County will
advise the Department of the approximate difference
between the Contractor's total bid and the Engineers
estimate, as well as a recommendation as to award of
contract. The Department will notify the County, in
writing, of the Department's approval or disapproval
withing twenty (20) days after notification by the
County of the above mentioned construction bids. The
approval will become part of the contact. In accor-
dance with Section 11-52 of the Code of Virginia, no
public disclosure is to be made of the engineer's
estimate.
eo
Submit any contract change orders to Department's
Resident Engineer for approval.
fo
Maintain accurate records of the Project and documen-
tation of all expenditures on which reimbursement will
be based. Make Project documentation available for
inspection and/or audit by the Department or the
Federal government at any time.
Submit to the Department's Resident Engineer, no more
frequently than monthly, a statement requesting reim-
bursement for the Project's cost. The final billing
shall be made on the basis of final actual costs,
reconciling any difference with previously billed
amounts.
Require the contractor to indemnify and save harmless
the Department in addition to other entities in accor-
dance with section 107.13, of the January, 1994 Road
and Bridge Specifications, Virginia Department of
Transportation.
Provide funding for the project in an amount not to
exceed $18,000.00, subject to sections 3, 4e, 8, and
15 of this Agreement.
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
000325
3 o
The County and the Chamber jointly agree to reimburse the
Department in equal portions all expenses that may be in-
curred in excess of the total amount allocated in the Six
Year Improvement Program.
The Department will coordinate with, cooperate with, and
assist the County and Chamber in implementing the Project,
and specifically agrees to:
so
Review each phase of the Project and respond in an
expeditious manner the requests from the County,
including all requests outlined under section 7 of
this agreement.
Prepare the appropriate environmental document as
required by applicable state and Federal laws and
regulations, and carry out all functions necessary to
clear the project environmentally.
Reimburse the County for Project expenditures for the
previous month or for the final billing, within thirty
(30) days of receiving an acceptable statement from
the County. The reimbursement amount will be based on
the Project Work-sheet (Summary of Estimated Costs)
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Audit all Project costs and records as required by the
Federal Highway Administration.
eo
Provide funding for the Project pursuant to the De-
partment's Six Year Improvement Program. The maximum
amount of funds available for this Project is
$144,000.00.
Provide temporary construction signage and safety
equipment as deemed necessary by the Department within
48 hours of notice by the County for use during plant-
ing and maintenance operations for each of the project
phases.
5o
At the terminus of the three year establishment period, the
Department, the County, and the Chamber, agree to enter into
good faith negotiations concerning the ongoing maintenance
of all plantings proposed within the limits and scope of the
project.
The County and the Chamber agree that if the Department
deems that the condition of the plantings pose an immediate
traffic or safety hazard at any time, the Department may
take appropriate action including, if necessary, the removal
of the plantings creating the traffic or safety hazard.
Concern for the condition of the plantings during the three
year establishment period which do not pose an immediate
traffic or safety hazard, shall be given in writing to the
County such that corrective action can be taken.
7o
The County, the Chamber, and the Department agree on the
following claims process:
So
The County will furnish the Department a copy of all
Notices of Intent to file a claim and a copy of any
claim that is submitted after the completion and
acceptance of the contract.
bo
The Department shall have access to all of the
County's papers pertaining to the claim upon request
and during normal business hours, and such access
shall not be deemed to waive the work product or
attorney-client privilege, this being a joint effort
of four signatories.
Co
The Department shall, within thirty (30) days of
receipt of the claim transmit its position on the
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
000526
claim to the County via the Department's Culpeper
District Office. This is not meant to foreclose face
to face meetings or discussions concerning the claim.
The Department's Chief Engineer will determine whether
the claim is valid and determine which part of parts
have merit. He shall communicate his proposed posi-
tion to the County in sufficient time to allow at
least twenty (20) days review by the County before the
County must communicate its decision to the contrac-
tor. The County may accept, reject, or call for a
meeting. In any event, notification of acceptance,
rejection, or request for a meeting should be made
within ten (10) days of the County's receipt of the
Chief Engineer's determination.
eo
If the determination of the Chief Engineer is accepted
by the County, it shall notify the contractor accord-
ingly. If the contractor declines to accept the
determination, then he may seek appearance before the
Commissioner.
fo
In the event the County ultimately rejects the deter-
mination of the Chief Engineer, which rejection shall
be in writing, the County shall notify the contractor
that the claim is denied. The contractor may elect to
seek an appearance before the Department's Commis-
sioner.
In the event the contractor seeks an appearance before
the Commissioner, the County shall participate in such
appearance. The Commissioner shall communicate his
proposed position to the County within thirty (30)
days of the appearance. The County must notify the
Commissioner, in writing, within ten (10) days of
receipt of its acceptance of the determination, or
request a meeting between the County Executive and the
Commissioner. If a meeting is requested, that meeting
should be held within the above ten (10) day period.
The request for a meeting shall specify the points of
disagreement and reasons therefore.
Subsequent to this meeting, the County shall notify
the contractor of its decision. If accepted by the
Commissioner, payment to the contractor, if any, will
be processed as a change order.
If the contractor brings suit on the construction
contract claim, the County and the State agree to
mutually defend the suit.
j o
The County reserves the right to settle or terminate
said suit, subject to Section 2.1-127 of the Code of
Virginia.
The Chamber shall provide funding for the project in an
amount not to exceed $18,000.00, subject to section 3 of
this Agreement. The County shall establish an escrow ac-
count authorizing the County to withdraw funds from the
account. Within seven (7) days of receipt written notice
from the County of the County's intent to award a contract
for work to be performed for a project phase, the Chamber
shall deposit in the escrow account the amount specified by
the County in the Notice. The amount specified shall be the
Chamber's share for that phase of the project, and shall
approximate the amounts shown on the Summary of Estimated
Costs. Any interest accrued in the escrow account will be
returned to the Chamber.
The County agrees to comply with Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Virginia Fair Employment Act,
Sections 2.1-374 through 2.1-376 of the Code of Virginia
(1950) as amended.
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
000B27
10.
The County agrees to comply with all Federal, state and
local regulations and statutes when work is performed on the
Project with municipal forces or its agents at project
expense.
11.
The County agrees that prison labor will not be used for any
purpose whatsoever on this Project.
12.
Nothing herein shall be construed as creating any personal
liability on the part of any officer, employee, or agent of
the parties, nor shall be it construed as giving any rights
or benefits to anyone other than the parties hereto.
13.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, and
their respective successors and assigns.
14.
This Agreement may be modified with the mutual consent of
the Department, the County, and the Chamber.
15.
In the event that funds 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, then this Agreement
must be canceled and the County, the Chamber, and the De-
partment shall have no further obligation to perform any
provision of this Agreement.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS
Project
Total
Description
Share
VDOT County Chamber
Share Share Share
Phase I
Project 6029-002-119, L-801
$66,500
(Hydraulic to Rio)
$53,200 $6,650 $6,650
Phase II
Project 6029-002-119, L-802
$72,500
(Rio to Hilton Hts)
$58,000 $7,250 $7,250
Phase III
Project 6029-002-119, L-803
$41,000
(Hilton Hts to South Fork
Rivanna River)
$32,800 $4,100 $4,100
Grand Total $144,000 $18,000 $18,000
$180,000
Item 5.7. Resolution approving Harrisoriburg Redevelopment and Housing
Authority Issuance of Bonds for the Fore Property/Mallside Apartments Bond.
It was noted in the staff's report that on September 11, 1996, the Board
of Supervisors adopted a resolution inviting the Harrisonburg Redevelopment
and Housing Authority to approve the issuance of $8.5 million in revenue bonds
to finance the construction of a multi-family housing project to be located in
Albemarle County. The Harrisonburg Authority has now given its initial
approval on the issuance of the bonds and has expressed its intent to issue a
final bond resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds. The City of
Harrisonburg adopted a resolution giving its approval to the issuance of the
bonds. To qualify the bonds for tax favorable tax status pursuant to the
Internal Revenue Code, Albemarle County must adopt a resolution approving the
issuance of the bonds by the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
The adoption of the resolution is not an endorsement of the bonds and does not
obligate Albemarle County in any way. The purpose of the project is to
provide affordable housing to persons and families of low- to moderate-income.
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
000328
TO enable this project to proceed under the proposed bond financing,
staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution Approving
the Issuance by the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority of not to
Exceed $8,500,000 of Revenue Bonds (Mallside Forest Apartment Project) 1997
Series A to Finance the Construction of a Multi-family Housing Project Located
in Albemarle County, Virginia, was adopted:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE
HARRISONBURG REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF NOT TO EXCEED $8,500,000 OF REVEAUJE BONDS (MALLSIDE
FOREST APARTMENT PROJECT) 1997 SERIES A TO FINANCE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A MI/LTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
LOCATED IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, on September 11, 1996, after a public hearing for
which notice was published in accordance with the Virginia Housing
Authorities Law, Chapter 1, Title 36, Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended (the ~Act"), the Board of County Supervisors adopted a
Resolution which among other things, invited the Harrisonburg
Redevelopment and Housing Authority (the ~Harrisonburg Authority")
to hold a public hearing and the adoption of resolutions by it for
the issuance of $8,500,000 of Revenue Bonds (Mallside Forest
Apartment Project) 1997 Series A (the "Bonds") to finance the
construction of a multi-family housing project to be located in
Albemarle County, Virginia (the ~Project"), to be owned by a
limited partnership (the "Developer") to be formed by Fore Prop-
erty Company; and
WHEREAS, the Harrisonburg Authority has conducted a hearing
on the issuance of the Bonds, has adopted a resolution giving its
initial approval of the issuance of the Bonds and has expressed
its intent to issue a final Bond Resolution authorizing the
issuance of the Bonds and the execution of appropriate bond
documents relating thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors:
The Board approves the acquisition, construction and
equipping of the Project and further approves the
issuance of the Bonds by the Harrisonburg Authority
for the benefit of the Developer, to the extent of and
as required by Section 147(f) (2) of the Internal
Revenue Code, to permit the Harrisonburg Authority to
assist in the financing of the Project.
This Resolution shall not be deemed to be an endorse-
ment of said Bonds or the creditworthiness of the
Harrisonburg Authority, of the Developer, or of any
other person or entity. The Bonds shall provide that
the County shall not be obligated to pay said bonds,
or interest thereon, or any costs incident thereto,
and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power
of the Commonwealth, the County or the Harrisonburg
Authority, shall be pledged thereto.
Item 5.7a. Authorize position expansion request, Addressing Technician.
It was noted in the staff's report that funding for the Addressing
Technician position was requested in July, 1996 using carry-over funds within
the budget of the Department of Planning and Community Development. The
position was approved by the Board on October 2, 1996, and advertised as a
part-time/temporary position at $7.50 per hour for up to 30 hours per week
through June, 1997.
After obtaining operational control of the Building Locator System (for
the support of the Enhanced 911) in September and October of 1996, the work
load associated with the Addressing Technician position has increased signifi-
cantly. Subsequently, staff reevaluated the work load and identified the need
to readvertise the position as a full time/temporary position (40 hours per
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
week) for six months with the understanding that the work load will need to be
reevaluated after that period to determine any additional funding for the
position. The Human Resources Department has classified the position at Pay
Grade 5 with a minimum hourly rate of $7.74 ($16,099 salary/S3,120 benefits)
and a maximum hourly rate of $9.28 ($19,302 salary/S3,860 benefits) for a full
year. Filling the position at a rate higher than the minimum would depend on
predetermined qualification criteria. The Department of Planning and Commu-
nity Development has $6,300 available with which to fund this position. An
additional $3,310 to $5,281 (depending on entry level at Pay Grade 5) would be
required from Enhanced 911 revenue to cover the remaining expenses for the
approved six months.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved using available
911 surcharge funds to supplement the costs associated with staffing a full-
time/ temporary Addressing Technician position for six months with a review of
the position to occur during the next fiscal year's budget process.
(Ms. Thomas asked for an explanation of this request. Mr. Tucker said
the County has now taken over the review and correction of addressing prob-
lems. Before this time, the County could do nothing because the system was
the property of the consultants. That is no longer the case. Corrections are
now being made by in-house staff and it will take additional time.)
Item 5.8. Letter dated November 19, 1996, from Mr. H. W. Mills,
Assistant Resident Engineer, to Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk, re: Transportation
Issues discussed at the October 16, 1996, Board meeting, was received as
information as follows:
"November 19, 1996
Re: Issues From Board of Supervisors' Meeting
With reference to Ms. Angela Tucker's letter of October 16, 1996,
we would like to offer comments on a couple of the concerns.
The ~Puppy Tracks" have been placed in the intersection of
Route 29 and Route 649.
* Route 682 Project. A meeting was held with the Department
of Soil & Water Conservation on October 16, 1996. This
review was conducted by the representative from Soil & Water
Conservation along with a VDOT Environmentalist. There was
a request made to install additional sediment traps and to
extend filter barriers in various locations. There was also
need to seed and mulch at one end of the project.
The items listed in the report were confirmed as repaired or
completed by October 25, 1996. The other items listed in the
October 16, 1996, letter that concerns traffic are still being
reviewed.
An additional request was made to our Traffic Engineer
regarding the ~No Right Turn on Red" sign as suggested at
the November 6, 1996 Board meeting."
Item 5.9. Copy of notice of Location and Design Public Hearing on the
proposed replacement of two bridges on Route 614 over the Moormans River and
construction of necessary roadway approaches (Proj: 0614-7710-B02, 0614-7710-
C01, Desc: Replacement of Bridge and Approaches over the Moormans River at
0.39 and 1.35 Miles West of Route 674, Albemarle County), was received as
information. A public hearing has been scheduled for December 4, 1996,
between 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. at the White Hall Ruritan Building.
Item 5.10. Historic Preservation Committee Status Report on Proposed
Historic Preservation Plan and Ordinance,' received for information as follows:
It was noted in the staff's report that in May, 1995 the Board appointed
a Historic Preservation Committee to prepare a historic preservation plan,
including recommendations regarding a regulatory ordinance. The committee has
been meeting at least twice monthly since then to deal with complex issues and
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
000330
a broad range of views. In July of 1996, the committee distributed the first
draft of a proposed Historic Preservation Plan and Historic Overlay District
Ordinance to approximately 90 organizations and individuals for review and
comment.
More than 25 individuals and organizations have provided comments on the
draft documents, most of which were thoughtful and useful to the committee's
effort to produce a balanced product. The committee continues to meet
regularly to evaluate these responses for incorporation into a refined version
of the proposed documents. They have met with individuals and organizations
for constructive discussions, and these mutually beneficial exchanges will
continue. To broaden and deepen public understanding of the issues, the
committee also has prepared a brochure which briefly summarizes the proposed
plan and illustrates key elements of the proposed ordinance in a question and
answer format.
After distributing the brochure and preparing a final draft of the
proposed plan and ordinance, the committee intends to hold a public informa-
tion session. At this meeting the committee will explain to the public any
changes to the proposed plan and ordinance, answer questions, and solicit
additional comments. The goal of this meeting is to elicit wide public
support prior to presenting the committee's recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors for its disposition.
Staff supports the committee in its effort to educate the public and
elicit support for the plan and ordinance prior to making its presentation to
the Board. The committee's current work should simplify future review of the
preservation plan. The committee anticipates that it will need at least two
months before it is ready to present its recommendations to the Board. After
the plan is presented to the Board, it will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission for incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan. The Committee wOUld
appreciate the Board's support in its plan to hold a public information
session before presenting its final recommendations to the Board.
Item 5.11. Copy of memorandum dated November 11, 1996, from Ms. Alyson
Sappington, Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, to the
James River Watershed Coalition and other interested parties, re: James River
Tributary Strategy Proposal, received for information.
Item 5.12. Copy of letter dated November 9, 1996, from Ms. Amelia G.
McCulley, Director of Building Code and Zoning Services, to Ms. Mary Stuart
McNeely Lynn and Mr. Hunter E. Craig, re: Official Determination of Number of
Parcels, Tax Map 76D, Parcel 8, Bellair Subdivision,, was received as informa-
tion.
Item 5.13. September, 1996 Financial Report, was received for informa-
tion.
Item 5.14. Memorandum dated November 27, 1996, from Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., County Executive, enclosing report prepared by GBB Solid Waste
Management Consultants entitled "Strategic Review and Directional Analysis,
Municipal Solid Waste Options" was received for information.
Ms. Humphris asked if a date had been set for the joint public hearing.
Mr. Tucker said it can be discussed at the end of today's meeting. The Board
will have to select several dates that can be sent to City Council for their
acceptance. The meeting has to be coordinated also with the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority Board.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: July 19, AugUst 2, October 4
and December 13, 1995; May 15, September 11, September 16 and November 13,
1996.
Ms. Thomas had read December 13, 1995, and September 11, 1996. She
noted three typographical errors in the September 11 minutes.
Mr. Bowerman had read July 19, 1995, pages 10 (Item %12) to the end, and
noted four typographical errors.
000331
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Marshall had read October 4, 1995, pages 1 - 22 (Item ~12) and noted
one typographical error
Ms. Humphris had read August 2, 1995, page 1 13 (Item #9) and noted
two typographical errors. She had also read September 16, 1996, and noted one
typographical error.
Mr. Perkins had read August 2, 1995, pages 13 (Item ~9) to the end and
found two typographical errors. He had also read May 15, 1996, and found one
typographical error.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to
approve those minutes which had been read. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters.
Mr. Bill Mills from the Virginia Department of Transportation was
present. He said that Ms. Angela Tucker and the baby are doing fine. She
will not return to work until February 19, 1997.
Mr. Mills said the sign at Route 29 and Rio Road for a right turn on red
has been erected. The turn is available only during limited hours. Hopefully
the southbound lane of Route 29 from the South Fork Rivanna River to Wal-Mart
will be open by Monday depending on the weather.
Mr. Mills said there will be a public hearing on the Route 614 project
this afternoon from 4:30 p.m. until 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Martin thanked Mr. Mills for the "puppy tracks" on Proffit Road at
Route 29, for the sign change at Rio Road/Route 29, and for getting that
southbound lane of Route 29 open. If the southbound lane to Wal-Mart can be
open by next Monday that will be excellent.
Mr. Mills said there are some other transportation matters which are
still outstanding and are being reviewed. One of those is Greenbrier Drive at
the Route 29 northbound lane, and the playground signage out at Yancey Mills.
Mr. Bowerman said there has been a lot of traffic counting on Rio Road
between Route 29 and Greenbrier Drive. He asked the reason for this. Mr.
Mills said this is the time of the year the counts are normally done. Some of
the counts were questioned and are being done a second time. It is just a
basic count which should be finished in March or April.
Mr. Bowerman said the neighborhoods in the Rio Road area have asked for
another count at Old Brook Road and Rio Road in terms of a study for signal-
ization at that point. They asked that the count be done during the months of
December or January because that is a time when the schools are open, and when
they experience a lot of difficulties because of the short daylight hours.
The first study was done in the Fall when there was more daylight. They asked
that their request be relayed to the Highway Department. Mr. Bowerman asked
that consideration be given to the request to initiate another study of that
intersection.
Ms. Humphris asked the current status of the Hydraulic Road/Georgetown
Road intersection project. She said a concrete curb and sidewalk have been
installed on the southwest corner, and she asked if that traffic island will
be removed. Mr. Mills said VDOT hopes to remove the existing island next year
after applying an overlay to Hydraulic Road so as to make that a five-lane
cross-section. At that time, they expect to also install a crosswalk.
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Ms. Thomas said she has a request from a Ms. McClammer who lives on a
road with seven families on it, and they are concerned about the road (Route
683). Ms. Thomas said Ms. McClammer frequently calls her to complain that
nothing has been done for the road. Mr. Mills said he knows of the concerns,
and will have staff look at it again.
Ms. Humphris said Mr. Klegg who lives at the T-intersection of
Georgetown/ Barracks Road has had a problem with cars turning east coming into
his yard. She had asked Ms. Angela Tucker what can be done to protect his
property since he is not permitted to plant anything and destroy the visual
aspects. Now there are tall stakes in the ground and even though these will
visually show traffic where the yard is, she thought Mr. Klegg wanted actual,
physical protection to keep the vehicles from coming into his yard and doing
damage to his family members. Mr. Mills said VI)OT wanted to try this approach
first. They feel that looking at the backside of a guardrail would not be a
pleasant view either.
Mr. Marshall expressed thanks to Mr. Mills for the deceleration lane
VDOT is in the processing of installing on Route 20 South between the 1-64
exit and Piedmont Virginia Community College.
Mr. Marshall mentioned that Monticello High'School is scheduled to open
in the Fall of 1998. He has been asking for over a year to have Route 20
South four-laned to the vicinity where the new road into the high school will
be built. He is concerned about the safety of the school children and the
school buses. He is hopeful that Route 20 South can be widened and the curve
removed where the new road will join Route 29, and that it be done before the
high school oPens.
Mr. Mills said VDOT has added that project to the list for improvements
so money can be allocated to the project. He suggested that when the Board
members attend the Primary Road Allocation Hearing next Spring, that this road
be added to the County's priority list.
Mr. Marshall said he thought the road was added last year. Mr. Tucker
said it will have to be requested each year.
Mr. Perkins asked that VDOT look at the speed limit on Route 240 from
Route 250 at the Mechum River into Crozet. The road is curvy and there are
some reduced speed limits along the road, but development has occurred along
this section of road. He is wondering if it is time to lower the speed limit.
Agenda Item No. 8. Work Session: FY 1997-98 through FY 2001-2002
Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
Ms. White said General Government, School Division and Stormwater are
the three funds in the CIP. General Government is about $13.5 million, the
School Division is at almost $49.0 million, and Stormwater is at $330,000 for
a total CIP Five-Year Plan of $62.6 million. The School Division CIP is about
78 percent of the total CIP.
Revenue~ for General Government, about 84 percent of $13.5 million is.
funded from current funds from the General Fund. Eighty-seven percent of
School Division revenues ($48.7 million) are from Virginia Public School
Authority (VPSA) bonds. Stormwater revenues are 100 percent from local
revenues transferred from the General Fund.
The breakdown for the General Fund CIP shows: Public Safety at 27.4
percent; Highways and Transportation at 26.0 percent; and, Parks and Recre-
ation - for a total of $13.5 million.
General Fund revenues are: transfers from the General Fund, 84 percent
of the dollars available; borrowed funds in the amount of $1.4 million for the
Juvenile Detention facility. The Jail Expansion Fund Balance of $175,000 will
be used to fund the plan and design phase of the Juvenile Detention facility.
There were some remaining moneys in the CIP for the Jail Expansion before the
Jail Authority took over that project. The CIP Fund Balance of approximately
$100,000 a year has significantly declined over the past years as projects
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
ooo.3a3
come closer to what has actually been budgeted. The General Fund transfer is
a total of $11.4 million, or the majority of the funds.
Administration projects represent about 21 percent of all projects.
There is an on-going commitment to computers and technology upgrades at a cost
of $1.1 million. The remaining dollars are for maintenance and repair
projects.
Public Safety projects are about 27 percent of all projects. The
largest amount is for the on-going fire/rescue/building/equipment fund which
includes moneys in the out-years for a second fire/rescue station. The next
biggest project is $1.6 million for the proposed Juvenile Detention Facility.
That is the County's share which represents about 25 percent of the project,
with 50 percent being reimbursed by the State and the other 25 percent being
shared with the City.
Highway and Transportation projects. The largest part is $3.5 million
for the State's Revenue-Sharing program at $2.5 million or $500,000 each year.
The other new projects involve sidewalks, the Georgetown Road sidewalk,
sidewalk construction program for sidewalks not associated with road projects,
sidewalks not in neighborhood plans, and allocating funds each year to begin
doing some additional sidewalks. The Neighborhood Plan implementation program
plans to put aside a certain amount each year to fund neighborhood improve-
ments in the growth areas. Most of the other projects have been in prior
CIPs.
Ms. Thomas said it is her impression that the County was not in the
landscaping and sidewalk construction business until the recent past. Mr.
Cilimberg said there were no bike lanes in the CIP until after the Bicycle
Plan was approved because basically there was no State participation in the
cost of same. The sidewalks have come along as new road projects have come
along. That is the County's share of those VI)OT projects. Most of the bike
lane construction is happening now as part of a project so the County is not
having to put as much into bike lanes as had been expected. The four-foot
bike lanes on the edge are completely funded by VDOT now.
Mr. Tucker said urban type needs are a growing trend in the County.
More attention has to be paid to neighbor needs. As subdivisions develop,
they are becoming more of a cohesive neighborhood and not just a conglomera-
tion of subdivisions. That is what needs to be dealt with now.
Ms. Thomas said the County needs to do what it can to keep people from
having to get in a car for every trip. Mr. Tucker said the staff of Planning
and Community Development has focused more on the long-range planning aspects
of the County as growth occurs. He thinks the County will have to provide
more funds because it does not have the staff available to do the micro-type
of development and planning that needs to be addressed in neighborhoods and
communities. The growth areas will demand more micro-planning. They are hard
to deal with under the current staffing situation.
Mr. Martin asked about neighborhood plans. Mr. Tucker said there will
be more of that type of planning, and this will be a start. That has been
done in the past, but even when those neighborhood plans were put together
they were looked at more in the macro-sense than getting down to neighborhood
planning.
Mr. Marshall asked where the money will come from. Mr. Tucker said Ms.
White will explain.
Mr. Marshall said he believes the County is getting closer to the
service area concept. Mr. Tucker said Ms. White will focus on that eventu-
ally. While the County is able to cover most of these types of projects, the
Board will see the crunch is in debt service.
Library projects. Ms. White said there are some changes in their
maintenance/replacement projects, but the other project, Library Computer
Upgrade, was in the last year.
Parks and Recreation projects amount to about 16.3 percent of all
projects. The largest project, the County Athletic Field Development Study is
the result of money the Board allocated last year ($20,000.00) to study the
need for new athletic fields. This $369,810 goes toward allocating a specific
amount of money each year in order to build athletic fields. The request was
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
for about $50,000 a year, but $500,000 could not be funded. The Crozet Park
Athletic field development shows at $548,000. Part of the agreement for
funding the swimming pool at the Crozet Park was that the County could use
those fields for athletic purposes. New projects are: the PVCC softball
field, the school athletic field, the Towe irrigation, and the Mint Springs
concession stand, for a total of $2.2 million. Those are all funded with
local revenues.
Utility improvements. The only project continues to be the Keene
Landfill closure and that is at $300,000.
Ms. White said a summary of the out-year projects was furnished to the
Board. The Planning Commission included those to let the Board know the
unfunded needs. They were too high in dollars to be included in the Five-Year
CIP. There is a $12.0 million project shown which is the County's share of
the 800 megahertz trunking system which is part of the Agreement between the
University, the City and the County. That is almost $22.0 million in re-
quested projects which could not go in the CIP with the revenues now avail-
able. They were shown in the out-years just to show needs which are not being
addressed.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Federal government is likely to participate in
that top one. Mr. Tucker said ~no". Every locality is facing the same
problem because everybody's radio system is becoming obsolete at about the
same time. Some localities have been able to move this trunking system into
their area more quickly, but it is very expensive to do. Albemarle cannot
even program it into the CIP with current revenues.
Ms. White said there are two projects in the Stormwater Fund. One is
the final part of the County Master Drainage Study. The second part is a
yearly contribution of about $50,000 for various drainage projects.
School Fund. The Board was given a list of the School Board's recom-
mended CIP projects. The PREP facility at $2.5 million was taken out of the
requests in order to fund the additional money for the high school. The new
figure on the high school is $18.9 million.
Instructional Technology for the Schools is at $2.0 million over the
five-year period. Major projects are: $1.4 million for renovations to
Western Albemarle High School; $2.8 million for Henley; $3.9 for Red Hill;
$10.0 million for a new Northern Elementary beginning in FY 1998; Stone
Robinson at $2.6 million; and various maintenance/replacement projects at $5.0
million.
The total CIP for the School Division is $53.0 million.
Ms. Thomas said a lot of people have asked her if reversion is approved
and the schools merge, how many of the County's capital improvements projects
would not have to be done since there may be capacity in City school build-
ings. Th list shows that there is a lot to do that has nothing to do with
expanding capacity. Mr. Tucker said that is true. This Board and the School
Board will have to delay some projects to help the Debt Service issue.
Ms. White said the School Division has available revenues of $48.7
million. The Technical Committee's recommended expenditure level is $48.7
million based on the fact that the VPSA bond level in last year's CIP was
$42.0 million. The Technical Committee did not want to expand that debt
service level or that bonding level. The projects are a total $52.9 as
opposed to the revenues, which leaves the School Division short of additional
moneys.
Mr. Bowerman said the biggest item is the new high school. He asked if
the bid was at $22.0 million. Mr. Tucker said that is for the school itself.
Then there are the land costs, the road costs, etc. Mr. Marshall asked if
total costs will be closer to $30.0 million. Mr. Tucker said ~yes".
Ms. White said she had a list of changes the CIP Technical Committee
recommended be made to the School Division's requests. One of their decisions
was not to incur any new debt. That was based on looking at the Debt Service
level and how that impacts on the operating budget shortfall for the next five
years. The second recommendation is that the County continue to fund as many
of its maintenance/replacement projects as possible with current revenues and
to only use its VPSA bonds on projects such as large roof replacements which
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
are projected to have a useful life of 20 years. The third policy was to
begin funding computer and technology purchases with current revenues and not
with borrowed funds. VPSA funds have been used in the past for computers and
the Committee felt strongly that with a useful life of only three to five
years, that is not a good idea.
Ms. White said the Revenues show $42.0 million in VPSA bonds. There are
also State Technology funds that were put in the CIP for computer technology.
There are Proffer funds at $400,000 for the Stone Robinson addition. Mr.
Martin asked if that is the only school that has a proffer fund attached to
it. Ms. White said "yes".
Ms. White said split-billing revenues came in higher than was antici-
pated so the Committee recommended that the money be put into the CIP to help
fund school technology projects. That money is basically one-time revenues
but at least local revenues will be used to help fund computer projects.
The General Fund Transfer is increasing over the five-year period.
There is $500,000 in 1997-98 and it is increased up to $1.0 million in the
year 2001-2002. That is almost up to a $4.0 million transfer into the School
CIP in order to fund their maintenance/replacement projects.
Ms. White said when the Technical Committee looked at debt, it was
looking at what has to be done in order to fund School projects. This Board's
Financial Policies say the debt per capita is about $1,000. The debt esti-
mated value of assessed real estate is to be no higher than two percent, and
then the debt to General Fund revenues should be no higher than 10 percent.
In 1995 there was a debt per capita of $603 and then in FY 2002, it is up to
almost $1000 per person. That is without funding any of the recommended
projects. The debt to General Fund revenues is below the 10 percent figure,
but getting up to the debt per capita limit.
To show the growth in Debt Service over the 12-year period, the increase
in debt service from 1990 to 1997 was a total of $40.3 million, $23.5 million
in principal and about $17.0 million in interest. For the next five years,
for a total of almost $44.0 million in debt, it will be $25.0 million in
principal and about $19.0 million in interest payments. There is a signifi-
cant jump in 1999 which reflects the first year of major debt service on the
new high school. The difference between what is being recommended by the
Technical Committee and what is being requested is about $400,000 in that
year.
Ms. White said in order to make that leap to the high school debt a
little easier, a Debt Service Reserve is being built up to a total reserve of
$8.4 million in the fifth year. That Debt Service Reserve Fund needs to be at
$10.0 million in FY 2002. Ms. Thomas said the word ~reserve" is confusing
her. Mr. Tucker said staff has been anticipating this payment. Each October
when staff brings the allocation of revenues for the next budget year to the
Board, a line item for this debt service reserve shows. Staff shows an amount
to plan for the out-years where it is known those large debt service payments
will occur. Money has been put in a reserve fund for this purpose. What has
happened is that new projects keep coming in early instead of starting in the
fifth year, so that financing can gradually be built up so the projects can be
managed. These projects are being put in year two or year three and that
hurts the financial planning. Funds for Debt Service payments come from the
operating budget each year. Unfortunately, projects are growing faster than
can be managed, at least with current revenues.
Ms. White said this Debt Service Reserve Fund is a way to accumulate
funds gradually so the increases each year do not take all of the operating
funds. Also, debt service fluctuates. Staff has tried to keep the debt
service payment level at about $6.8 million. Additional dollars are needed on
top of that in order to get to the $10.0 million figure.
Ms. White then showed a chart showing the annual contributions to the
Debt Service Reserve. The chart showed the difference between the recommended
amount and the requested amount. Between FY 98-99 and FY 99-2000, another
$450,000 must be added to that reserve fund to cover the recommended amount.
The requested projects between FY 98-99 and FY 99-2000 need an additional
$600,000 in new money in order to get to the $1.8 million needed for the
reserve. This shows the impact on the operating budgets because the annual
contributions to that debt reserve fund will get greater.
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18 )
000336
Mr. Bowerman asked if the accumulated difference over that period of
time is $4.2 million. Ms. White said byes", the total project cost. She said
she knows it is confusing. Staff looked at different ways to show the impact
of the large projects. This chart shows the difference between the recom-
mended amount and what would happen if a large project such as a new Northern
Elementary school were taken out of the CIP. It shows the difference between
having a debt service of $8.9 million as opposed to $10.2 million by the year
2002, which is a cumulative savings over a four-year period of $2.5 million.
Mr. Bowerman asked why taking out the Northern Elementary School is an
alternative when the kids are going to be there. Ms. White said this project
was chosen just to give an idea of the impact of a large projection debt
service. Mr. Tucker said staff has not yet looked at the fiscal implications
of another school. They just chose a large project to show how it would
impact debt service fiscally.
Mr. Martin said he assumes the County can get some type of proffers for
the Northern Elementary School, such as those obtained from Glenmore. Mr.
Bowerman said proffers can be taken during a rezoning. Mr. Tucker said the
County cannot generate a rezoning. Mr. Martin said he is simply saying that
if something of that sort occurs, the staff needs to be looking at that
possibility. Ms. Thomas said the County would only expect to 9et something
for the number of students in that particular rezoning as opposed to all the
other rezonings that have 9one before it. Mr. Martin said in Glenmore the
County 9ot about $1000 per house. Mr. Tucker said the County probably won't
see a major change or rezoning like Glenmore again. Mr. Cilimber9 said there
is one possibility in the northern area that was amended into the Comprehen-
sive Plan about four years ago. The land lies on the northeast side of the
Proffit Road/Route 29 intersection. There is no application pending at this
time, but it is a possibility. Mr. Martin said that is the property he had in
mind. Mr. Cilimberg said there may be one or more smaller scale rezonings
where staff could talk about the same thing. Mr. Marshall said there will be
some growth in Southern Albemarle when the new high school is finished. Mr.
Cilimberg said the County is running out of Growth Area land, but there is one
bi9 tract left in that southern area too.
Ms. White said the last two charts show the impact of the increased debt
service on the operating budgets of both the School Division and General
Government. When the budget allocations are done each October, first staff
deducts Fixed Costs, Debt Service, the Reserve Fund, and the CIP Transfer off
of the top. Then, the remaining revenues are allocated to School operations
and General Government operations. This chart shows the annual reduction in
revenues because of the projects, and shows that by FY 2001-2002, the School
Division would lose approximately $570,000 from their operating revenues due
to the difference between the recommended and the requested CIP. General
Government would be contributing their share of the increased Debt Service
($380,000) and that amount would be taken off of the General Government's
operating revenues. During the last couple of years, staff has begun to show
how allocations to the Capital Budget impact on the operating budget.
Increasing Debt Service really has a significant impact on both the operating
budgets for the School Division and for General Government because that money
comes off of the top.
Ms. White said the last chart shows the cumulative effect over that
five-year period in operating revenues available to the School Division. Over
that five-year period, $1.74 million for the School Division and $1.2 million
for General Government would not be available for other operating costs. Mr.
Martin asked if all of these charts are based on projected revenues. Ms.
White said ~yes". This shows what debt service would be, and shows the
difference between what's being recommended and what's being requested in the
CIP. It shows the cumulative difference between those two scenarios and how
that impacts both the operating budgets for the School Division and for
General Government.
Ms. White said that is the end of the Summary Information. She would be
glad to answer questions.
Ms. Humphris said that was quite a tour. She asked if Dr. Kevin
Castner, Division Superintendent, would like to speak next.
Dr. Castner thanked the Board members for their support on the new high
school. He said the School Board was really ~in a bind". It was something
they could not control, and the Board helped them out. He also thinks that
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
over the years, the Board's work on the Capital Improvement Projects has been
quite impressive. Albemarle County is not having the problems that other
localities in Virginia, and across the country are having. He agrees with Mr.
Tucker about the need to have a cap on the CIP. That relates to the operating
budget, and he thinks it is something he will recommend to his Board so they
can do their part. Dr. Castner said the School CIP is very much a draft
document. The School Board has not "blessed it" and will not do so until they
see the whole picture as a result of redistricting. An example might be the
Red Hill School expansion. Red Hill is an area where there has not been a lot
of growth so that might be a project that can be downsized.
Dr. Castner then discussed some things the School Board had considered
during the redistricting. He said that on March 31 they were anticipating an
enrollment growth next year of approximately 200 students. That has now been
upgraded, ~nd the increase could be over 280 StUdents, with the increase the
following year being over 300 students. While projections don't indicate this
on paper, it is their best estimate that a lot of this growth will occur in
the northern area. If the growth does occur in the northern area, on the
short-term they would fill up vacant seats at Sutherland, or could take
students they would be asking to move from Agnor-Hurt. Then, they would have
to move them again in two or three years. Instead of making that change at
the expense of what it might do to a future change with students, they would
like to, once they have received final public input, complete the redistrict-
ing, and then look at other ways to find the $500,000 this Board asked them to
do in January. Some of the recommendations for cuts from the Committee still
need to be reviewed by the School board in light of the whole picture.
Dr. Castner said it will be January before the School Board can get into
the details of a final plan.
Ms. Humphris asked if any Board member had a question. There was no
response.
Mr. Pat Mullaney was present to thank the Technical Committee for their
support of Parks and Recreation projects and not telling them to wait until
the fifth year to get in some new projects. He said they are in the process
of trying to figure out athletic field needs and are dealing with 22 different
organizations. A lot of those needs are probably going to come in the area of
a new northern area elementary school. He asked that when it is time to start
looking for property for that school that recreation needs be considered at
the same time. Ms. Thomas asked when the Athletic Field Study will be
completed. Mr. Mullaney said there was an initial meeting about three weeks
ago. It's probably going to be more mind-boggling and difficult than had
originally been expected. They are in the process of trying to get informa-
tion back from those 22 organizations because it is hard for Parks & Recre-
ation to forecast all those individual needs. Once they have the information,
they will sit down with each individual organization and separate fact from
fantasy. They hope to come up with a plan that all of these organizations
will support. It will not be easy.
Mr. Tucker said this work session was just to give the Board an overview
of what is coming up in the next CIP. A major portion of the CIP is the School
requests and Dr. Castner has indicated that the School Board will not have
their final recommendations until early next year. Staff wanted the Board to
understand the critical nature of the Debt Service issue the County will be
facing. Ultimately, it will the Board's decision of how these various
projects can be funded either through additional revenue or through moving
some of the projects further into the out-years. Next fiscal year the County
will not be facing that problem, but in the second and third years and beyond,
the County will be facing these critical issues.
Ms. Humphris said a public hearing on the CIP is planned for February 8,
1997. Mr. Tucker said ~yes". Ms. Humphris asked if there were further
questions for Mr. Tucker.
Mr. Marshall asked when the Board will begin discussing the additional
revenue issue. Mr. Tucker said the Board does not adopt the CIP itself. It
adopts a plan for five years, and then adopts a yearly budget along with the
operating budget. More than likely, all of these issues will need to be
discussed during the entire budget process next year.
Ms. Humphris asked if any of the Board members want to tentatively plan
a further update at the day meeting in February. Mr. Tucker said that may be
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
a good time. Staff will have a new picture of revenues for next year after
the first of the year. Ms. Humphris said this item will be placed on the
February day meeting for another work session.
(Note: At 10:30 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:45 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 9. Work Session: Fire Protection and Open Burning
Ordinances and request to set a public hearing to amend and Reordain Chapter
9, Fire Protection, of the Code of Albemarle.
Mr. Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney, summarized the staff's report.
He said staff has been working for some time on revisions to the County's Fire
Protection Ordinance and its Open Burning Ordinance in order to clarify the
authority of the County to regulate open burning, fire prevention issues and
leaf burning and to provide a mechanism for collecting fees for inspections
that are performed by the County's fire prevention personnel under authority
of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code.
The Board has been presented with two options. Option #1 authorizes an
office of a fire marshal and provides the mechanism for appointing assistants
as was done by the Board several years ago. The specific duties of a fire
marshal and his assistants are spelled out accordingly. It amends the period
of time, as well as distance requirements, for burning brush, etc., in the
County. It specifically spells out adoption of the Virginia Statewide Fire
Prevention Code by the County and establishes the appeals process for deci-
sions of the fire official. It establishes minimum width requirements for
fire lanes and authorizes both the County police department and the fire
marshal's Office to enforce the provisions of these sections, including the
blocking of fire lanes. Option #1 specifically does not amend the provisions
of the Open Burning Ordinance so that the amendments in Option #1 can be
adopted by the Board at its pleasure without a requirement for approval by the
State.
Mr. Trank said open burning regulations are now regulated by the State
Air Pollution Control Board. In April, 1996 a new set of Air Board regula-
tions were promulgated. Localities were given the option to either adopt what
the Air Board proposed as a model ordinance, which is to simply follow the
State regulations, or, subject to approval by the Air Board, adopt a local
ordinance which is more stringent than any of the other two options.
Option #2 is the State's proposed model ordinance which is somewhat more
stringent that the State Air Board's regulations. Noted differences are that
the model ordinance allows for distance requirements for open burning whereas
the State regulations eliminate any distance requirement. The model ordinance
requires that open burning be attended at all times where the State regula-
tions do not have any attendance requirement. Themodel ordinance allows
localities to permit open burning where the State's regulations do not
specifically authorize such an activity. It should be noted that, as written,
Option #2 would ban leaf and yard waste burning anywhere that private haulers
provide pick-up service in the County. This restriction can be deleted by the
Board of Supervisors, but authorization to continue leaf burning by subdivi-
sion or zoning district will have to be approved by the State. The ban on
burning of household waste in the model ordinance cannot be waived by the
Board of Supervisors without State approval.
Mr. Marshall said he lives on a farm and he had a number of trees which
fell during the heavy rains of a month or more ago. He has an enormous amount
of waste waiting to be burned after the first snow. He lives close to an
urban area even though he is on a farm. He asked if there is a possibility he
would have to have this waste hauled away. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Marshall's
land is in a rural areas district. Mr. Trank said, as far as he knows,
nowhere in the County would be deemed an urban area. Ms. Thomas said the
model ordinance says that Mr. Marshall could not burn his yard waste. Mr.
Trank said if the Board adopted this version of the requirements as written,
that is correct. It would prohibit the open burning of leaves and yard waste.
Mr. Marshall said yard waste would be brush, limbs, and things from trees.
The trees themselves were cut up for firewood. Mr. Tucker asked about brush
and tree stumps. Mr. Trank said that is considered debris waste and this
ordinance would require a 500-foot minimum setback from any occupied building
unless the owner or occupant of that building agreed, otherwise, as long as
the burn is attended. In most places in the rural areas, if the minimum
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
0003 9
setback requirements in the ordinance are met, that activity should be
permitted.
Mr. Davis said that under the model ordinance it is 300 feet and debris
waste would be included. This would change it from what the existing State
law has been for a number of years. It actually reduces the separation
distance from 500 feet to 300 feet, otherwise, the rules have basically not
changed~
Mr. Martin said there is a County ordinance which allows people in
subdivisions to petition to outlaw the burning of leaves. He asked what is
the identifiable problem that is so large the Board needs to adopt Option ~2.
Mr. Trank said basically the problem is that State regulations no longer
permit localities to ban leaf burning on a subdivision-by-subdivision basis.
If the Board chooses to continue with what is in the current ordinance, that
requires approval by the State Air Board. Mr. Davis said the State regula-
tions which changed in April became less stringent than what had been the law
enforced by the State. They did that by putting out a model ordinance which
would be enforced by the local fire official and which, if adopted, would
bring the regulations back up to what State regulations had been in the past.
If this Board does not adopt the model ordinance, the regulations are less
stringent than what they had been before. Basically, they are trying to get
the localities to adopt local regulations to maintain the same level of fire
protection from smoke and open burning that previously existed, but have the
locality enforce the regulations rather than the State doing so.
Mr. Martin asked if the Air Board could be requested to accept the
County's current policy. Mr. Trank said that is an option. Staff is now
looking at ways to come up with more stringent restrictions than are set forth
in the model ordinance.
Mr. Martin said burning is now allowed in the County or it is not, but
the County discriminates by allowing the burning in individual subdivisions.
Staff is saying they want to make the regulations even more stringent, and he
asks again ~what is the problem?" Mr. Trank said there has been a concern in
different parts of the County that the subdivisions which have not petitioned
the Board to ban leaf burning should be more closely regulated. Mr. Martin
said if the people in that subdivision get 51 percent of their residents to
support a ban on leaf burning, they can be included under the law now. Mr.
Trank said that was true until April 1, 1996, when the new law went into
effect. Now they cannot.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the County needs to ask the Air Board that it
be allowed to continue what it has been doing. If the answer to that request
is uno", then there is a legitimate reason to say to the citizens that this
ordinance had to be adopted. Mr. Davis said there may be other ways to
address the situation. Under the model ordinance, there are other options
such as setting separation distances between where leaves can be burned and
the closest occupied dwelling. If someone consents to your burning leaves,
then the distance can be reduced. If a neighbor within 300 feet does have a
problem, there could be no burning. The distance radius that appropriately
addresses anyone who would be adversely affected by burning needs to be
determined. If 500 feet separation distance is enough to address anybody who
would be bothered by smoke from leaf burning, and it requires everyone's
consent within that radius, maybe that is all that is necessary, and it can be
self-regulating. Mr. Martin said he thinks that is still more stringent.
Under the proposal, if he lives where he has four neighbors, all four have to
consent, whereas now, only 51 percent have to consent in the entire neighbor-
hood.
Mr. Bowerman asked if that is true under the model ordinance. Mr. Davis
said uno". Under the model ordinance, there is no mechanism to prohibit
burning on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.
Mr. Trank said staff has received an indication from the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) that the Air Board will look favorably upon local
ordinances that are more stringent, but that step will have to be taken by the
County. Restrictions over and above what the law requires would have to go
the State for approval.
Ms. Thomas asked if what is being discussed will be more or less
stringent than State requirements. Mr. Trank said it would be more stringent.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is more stringent just in the neighborhoods which have
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meetin9)
(Page 22)
000340
voted to ban leaf burning. In the rural areas, she does not believe the model
ordinance should be adopted and be more stringent. Mr. Trank said the County
cannot adopt an ordinance that is less stringent than State regulations.
Ms. Thomas said she is torn between the various options. She likes
having the neighborhood say they want the leaf burning ban because it places
the responsibility into the neighborhood. She has some constituents who live
in Batesville who are concerned about the smell of burning every weekend, but
she thinks it is the way a lot of people handle their trash disposal problem.
She does not want to come up with something that is so stringent it does not
pay attention to the fact that there are a lot of rural areas in the County
where people should be able to burn their debris.
Mr. Martin said he has not heard a good reason for adopting the new
ordinance. To make it easier so the County does not have to get approval from
the State is not a good reason. He knows that in his neighborhood one person
burns and the others don't like it, but that person does it one time a year,
so the neighborhoods just don't say anything. He does not want to take his
right away to do that when he is not abusing it.
Mr. Tucker said what he hears is that the Board is trying to mirror what
is currently in effect in the County. In order to take that ordinance to the
Air Board for approval before adoption, will require that the ordinance be
rewritten.
Ms. Thomas said she has recently learned that in Albemarle County you
are not allowed to burn garbage because garbage collection services are
provided in the County. That will not be one of the options. Mr. Tucker said
garbage cannot be burned anywhere in the State. Ms. Thomas said most are
collecting everything in the house and then once a week burning it, and that
is, in fact, not legal in the State. Mr. Davis said that under the open
burning regulations which were in effect until April 1, 1996, that was
correct. Now the regulations are less stringent until the model ordinance is
adopted which requires it to be prohibited. Mr. Trank said the regulations
state that open burning is permitted for the disposal of household refuse
provided there is no regularly scheduled public or private collection service.
Ms. Thomas said if a neighbor is really upset by burning because a family
member has asthma, it is against the law, and that regulation could be
enforced.
Mr. Marshall suggested the Board go along with something like the County
has now. He agrees with Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas. He does not want to put
more restrictions on people who live in rural areas, such as where he lives.
Mr. Davis said the Board does need to adopt, on an interim basis, at
least the model ordinance. The leaf burning prohibition can be taken out if
that is a problem because that is an optional provision for non-urban coun-
ties. The model ordinance is important because it fills in the gap left when
the State amended the open burning regulations. On an interim basis, the
Board should adopt the model ordinance to fill that gap. The next step would
be to consider whether it wants to have more stringent regulations. If the
Board does, an ordinance has to be drafted and taken to the Air Pollution
Control Board for approval and then brought back to this Board for approval.
That will take several months since the APCB only meets on a quarterly basis.
Mr. Davis said the Fire Official feels it is important to adopt the model
ordinance to give him more enforcement capability.
Mr. Trank said that in material respects, the model ordinance resembles
what the County has in place now. Without it, the County is bound by State
regulations which eliminate any minimum distance requirements, eliminate
permitting requirements and leave the County with only a minimal level of
local control.
Mr. Bowerman said he had another issue. Consider that there is develop-
ment occurring adjacent to an already established neighborhoods. The devel-
oper will log the wood, and then want to burn all the stumpage and all the
brush because it is cheaper. That affects all neighbors even if they are a
good distance away. There are roaring fires within a residential area. He
would like for the Board to prohibit that practice without prohibiting a
landowner from doing something where a couple of trees go down. He objects to
the commercial use of this activity because there is the opportunity at the
landfill to chip the debris (the County is doing this' at the Monticello High
School site). He had a family in his district who got up during the night
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
ooo ;4 .
because they had a wood shingle shake roof and were concerned the fire could
set fire to their house. He does not think citizens should be subjected to
that type of fear for a commercial activity.
Ms. Humphris said when the land for the Colonnades was cleared, it
created a real health problem. They burned for days and the people who lived
in Old Salem Apartments and the Hessian Hills area had problems with ashes
everywhere. Mr. Martin said he heard someone say that would not have occurred
if the burning had been done right. Mr. Bowerman said that is his point. It
is rarely done right because people are trying to save money. He wants to
eliminate the opportunity for that to happen. Mr. Martin suggested the Board
look at some regulation to do it right. Mr. Bowerman said there is a regula-
tion now and it is violated. The County goes out and closes them down. Then
they can ask for the burning to be restarted and the County has to allow it
and regulate it closer. If there are going to be no violations, he suggests
that it not be allowed in the first place.
Ms. Humphris asked about Option #2 in the model ordinance, and the
section which says ~if no regularly scheduled public or private collection is
available" and asked if the ordinance would be adopted with those words. Mr.
Trank said with respect to leaf burning, the Board has the option to take out
those words, or leave them in. With respect to household refuse, that is a
requirement of the State, and the Board does not have the discretion to take
out that language. It then becomes an enforcement issue.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to
set for January 8, 1997, a public hearing on both Option #1 and Option #2,
with the understanding that a more stringent ordinance which will have to be
adopted or approved by the State Air Pollution Board will be brought forward
for the Board's review at a later date.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Tucker said a new fee schedule has also been provided which can be
adopted by resolution. It basically includes those inspections allowed by the
Fire Prevention Code which staff feels should be conducted in order to protect
the health, safety and welfare of those dealing with flammable and hazardous
substances. The fee schedule was determined based on approximately 75 percent
of the actual cost of conducting such inspections as well as a review of other
jurisdictions who have similar fee schedules. The fee schedule is presented
for the Board's review and, if approved, can be adopted following the public
hearing in January.
Ms. Humphris said she was impressed by the various types of inspections
that are required of the Fire Official's Office.
Mr. Carl Pumphrey, Fire Official, was present to answer questions.
Because of the lateness of the hour, there were no questions today.
Agenda item No. 10. Appointments. This item will be discussed later.
Agenda Item No. 11. Virginia Department of Transportation (V]DOT) Route
250 East and West Corridor Study Committee, Selection Process.
Mr. Tucker said Route 250 West will be studied and VDOT hopes to have
consultants hired in February, 1997. Staff would like to have a committee
appointed by then. Route 250 East will not be studied next year. He sug-
gested that staff advertise for applicants.
Ms. Thomas said there are categories along Route 250, and the Committee
might be composed of persons from these categories, i.e., retirees, subdivi-
sions, commercial, schools, institutions. She also said she had been asked
what section of the road the study will cover. If the study stops at the 1-64
interchange at Crozet, it will miss an aspect of Route 250 going into Nelson
County which creates quite a lot of traffic.
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24) '~ ~'~'
000842
Ms. Humphris said it would seem to make sense to go to the County line.
She asked about the scope of the study, and how that is to be established.
Mr. Tucker said he has not seen anything yet. Mr. David Benish, Chief of
Community Development, said he has not seen anything yet. He will get a copy
for the Board members.
Ms. Humphris said there should be an advertisement placed for a Citizens
Advisory Committee of residential and commercial owners along Route 250 West
for this committee, requesting that the scope of the study run from the City
limits to the County line at the top of Afton Mountain near the interchange of
Route 250 and Interstate 64. The Board will make a determination as to the
number of members and qualifications of members after they see the applica-
tions received.
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board.
Mr. Tucker said the Board needs to select a meeting date on which to
hold a public hearing on the Solid Waste Task Force Study. It was suggested
that the meeting be scheduled for either February 13, 20 or 27, 1997. The
hearing will be held in the County Office Building Auditorium.
Mr. Martin said he is meeting with his constituents on December 9 at
Forest Lakes Country Club if anyone would like to join him.
Ms. Thomas handed out a copy of a resolution to the Board members and
mentioned a problem which had arisen concerning the selling of Christmas trees
at various locations by the Boy Scouts. It seems that it has been determined
that the Boy Scouts must have zoning permits for this use. They have five
different sites so it would cost the Boy Scouts $250.00. She recognizes that
groups like this should not be competing unfairly with commercial establish-
ments, but she thinks $250.00 is a lot for this non-profit organization which
raises a good deal of its money in this one event each year. She suggests to
the Board that the Boy Scouts pay a zoning fee for one site. Ms. Thomas then
offered motion to adopt the following resolution donating an amount not
exceeding $200.00 to the Boy Scouts. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DONATION TO
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, INC.
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America, Inc. is an entity
permitted under the Code of Virginia to receive donations of money
or property from the County of Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds it is in the public interest to
donate funds to support the activities necessary for this entity
to provide services to the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors hereby appropriates and donates to the Boy
Scouts of America, Inc. a contribution equal to the fees charged
by Albemarle County for zoning permits for all its tree sale
locations to be utilized in 1996 except for one location, pro-
vided, however, the amount shall not exceed $200.00. Upon certif-
ication by the appropriate development review department, such
funds shall be transferred by the Department of Finance to the
revenue accounts of that department or directly to the Boy Scouts
of America, Inc. if the fee has already been paid to the County.
Ms. Thomas said the Senior Weatherbusters Program in Albemarle County is
mentioned in the new issue of NACO News. This is a program that Ms. Lee
Catlin and others put into effect.
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
000343
Mr. Marshall said he has a constituent meeting next Tuesday at Yancey
School at 7:00 p.m. He invited anyone who wished to attend.
Ms. Humphris mentioned that she had received a letter from Mayor Kay
Slaughter saying the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is now going to
request from the State Water Control Board (SWCB) that they consider designat-
ing the Moormans River as a Tier 3 water, in the past, this Board has always
supported this designation. When it was put on hold, this Board was miffed
because the Moormans is definitely an exceptional water and all of the
riparian landowners had been contacted, and all were in unanimous support of
the designation. Now, there is a possibility this request will go farther.
She said the hearing before the SWCB is on December 12 at 10:00 a.m. Ms.
Slaughter is suggesting that this Board provide support with attendance at the
meeting or at least send a letter of support. It was the consensus of the
Board members that a strong letter of support for that designation be for-
warded to the DEQ as soon as possible.
Ms. Humphris mentioned that 1997 will be the County's year to lead the
Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) . She said Mr. Tucker is soliciting
ideas for subjects to be discussed. The PACC meets quarterly. There are
things on Mr. Tucker's list which she feels would be good to discuss: the
University's Master Plan and their Birdwood/Faulconer B Study, because that
area is closer and closer to the County's urban area. The City is interested
in discussing housing because of the pressures that are put on rental housing,
moving people out of affordable housing in the City because of the pressures
of students, and because some people feel there is a lack of housing being
provided by the University. Ms. Humphris said she recently read that the
University's plan calls for only one more dormitory (which houses 100) for an
additional 2000 students. If anyone has a major item for the PACC, or the
PACC Technical Committee, they should give that thought to Mr. Tucker. Ms.
Thomas said the League of Women Voters sent a two-page letter listing items,
many of which are still relevant.
Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 11:36 a.m.
motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adjourn into
executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under
Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific
legal matters concerning reversion, and pursuant to Subsection (1) to discuss
appointments to boards and commissions. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. 12:30 P.M. - Presentation by the Albemarle County
Rotary Club. The Board attended the ceremony marking the 25th Anniversary of
the founding of the Albemarle County Rotary Club which was celebrated with the
planting of a tree on the lawn of the County Office Building, and the placing
of a permanent marker commemorating the event.
Agenda Item No. 15a. The Board immediately recessed for lunch and
reconvened in Room 235 at 1:00 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 14. Certify Executive Session. At 1:00 p.m., motion
was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to certify by a recorded
vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business
matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive
session. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
00O344
Agenda Item No. 16. Joint meeting with Commonwealth Transportation
Board (CTB) members to discuss transportation issues. Present at this time
were Mr. William S. Roudabush and Mr. Carter Myers, members of the Common-
wealth Transportation Board; Mr. James Browder, Chief Engineer, Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT); Mr. Don Askew, District Engineer; Ms.
Patsy Napier; Mr. Bills Mills and Mr. Charlie Williams from the Charlottes-
ville Residency Office.
Ms. Humphris introduced all of the persons present from VDOT. She said
the CTB members had been invited today to discuss a matter which has been
carried forward from July and August. At that time, this Board discussed
action taken by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which said the
MPO would reconsider inclusion of construction funds for the Route 29 Bypass
project after completion of the following process: the base case improvements
on Route 29, that is the current widening; the completion of the Route 29
Corridor Study; completion of the Route 29 Bypass Design Study; and, comple-
tion of a cooperative process between the MPO and V DOT to agree upon funding,
scheduling and inclusion in this transportation improvement plan of the
projects identified in the resolutions and agreements that preceded this
statement. In order to start working on that cooperative process, the Board
invited CTB Board members today.
Mr. Myers said he will be speaking as only one individual member of the
CTB today, not for the CTB, or for VDOT.
Ms. Humphris asked if any Board member would like to make a comment to
start the conversation. Mr. Marshall said he is concerned about the action
the MPO took and the possibility that the Route 29 Bypass might have to be
built with State funds rather than Federal funds. He does not want the CTB to
be upset with Albemarle County because of the action the MPO took and "put
this thing on the back burner" so it gets held off to a point where the
Federal funds are lost. There is also the question of when it might be built.
Mr. Roudabush said the project is in the design phase at the present
time. The next phase will be for purchase of right-of-way. Money for those
two aspects of the project has already been allocated and is contained in the
Six-Year Plan. At construction stage, more Federal funding will be needed for
that aspect of the project. He understands the design and purchase of right-
of-way will proceed with the funding already in the Six-Year Plan.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Federal funds are lost for the bypass project
if those funds could be used for other projects, hopefully, for the Meadow
Creek Parkway (MCP) . Mr. Roudabush suggested that Mr. Browder answer that
question. Mr. Browder said he can speak to the issue of loss of Federal
funds, but not to loss of Federal funds for the Route 29 Bypass. The action
taken by the MPO kept it in the TIP funding for preliminary engineering,
design and right-of-way. The project has been developed and will continue
through the process following Federal guidelines. That makes it eligible for
Federal funding if Federal funding are available within VDOT's budget. The
action that the MPO has taken to date does not jeopardize the availability of
Federal funds being used on the project.
Ms. Humphris said if that answers Mr. Marshall's question she would like
to discuss this Board's concern about getting primary funding for the MCP,
which this Board has been trying to do for six years. Also, the fact that
sequencing is called for in all agreements back to 1991 and these agreements
call for the MCP construction to be done prior to the Bypass and to be an
essential element in the road network of this area. She understands that all
studies which have been done assumed the presence of the MCP.
Mr. Myers said he would like to answer Mr. Marshall's question by saying
that the actions of the MPO will not currently create a delay. There is a
possibility the bypass could be built with State funds. But, as long as the
bypass project is just hanging and is not done, how do new projects get into
the plan? That is the consideration that must be looked at. Mr. Marshall
said his concern is how the CTB feels about it. If this was a bad move, then
this community needs to know that.
Ms. Thomas said the MPO motion said a cooperative process is needed.
That is being started today. If the CTB and the individual members say they
will not engage in a cooperative process and discuss the sequence and the
other projects which were always assumed to come before or in conjunction with
the Bypass, the ball is in their court. The motion of the MPO very clearly
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
000345
says approval of funding for construction awaits four things. The main thing
they can deal with as a group is the process of discussing the other items
that before 1990, and at least in everything that has happened since 1990, had
been assumed to be happening in this area. The MCP is the main unaddressed
part of that.
Mr. Roudabush said as far back as he can remember it has always been
understood that the MCP project would be funded with urban funds, or secondary
road funds. He realizes the County would like to have the project designated
as a primary road and funded with primary road funds, but that is a decision
the entire CTB has to make. The CTB discussed this over a year ago, and at
the present time there is no inclination by the CTB to take on another primary
road for funding. There are other established projects still waiting for
funds. He has told several people in the County that he would be willing to
sit down and discuss ways funding could be obtained, not necessarily from
primary road funds, but other methods. He talked with Mr. Tucker about a toll
road, and that was not realistic. There may be other options to discuss. ~ He
does not think that he and Mr. Myers could unilaterally decide the road could
be built with primary road funds.
Ms. Thomas said that does need to be discussed. As the Bypass schedule
has been moved up 10 years or more from what was discussed in the Sverdrup
Study, there is the problem of an agreed upon sequence of projects that
appears to be impossible. That is an unhappy situation and what has brought
about this discussion.
Ms. Humphris said some of the agreements say the MCP will be built with
urban and secondary funds, however, that does not lessen the necessity of the
construction of that road to the community. The County has a plan for
economic development which says there will be a huge amount of growth along
Route 29 North which will put a large number of vehicles on Route 29. There
is no connection between the growth area to the north (UREF and The Towers)
and then out to the east. This is a corridor which is unserved. When the CTB
had its work session in May, 1995 the then Chief Engineer told the CTB that
the MCP does meet the criteria for being a primary road. Yet, when Mr. Myers
and Mr. Roudabush were asked at that meeting which project they wanted, the
MCP or the Bypass, no case was made for the MCP. Neither said how essential
that road is to the movement of traffic in this community.
Mr. Myers said Mr. Marshall asked if the MPO resolution could hurt the
cooperative process. To tie the Chief Engineer's hands and try to make him
juggle State funds to build the MCP is not a way to create a cooperative
process, or a way to get VDOT to help support other road projects. Why make
it difficult for VDOT to build something that has been on the drawing boards
and talked about for 20 years (Route 29 Bypass)? It is an issue that is
bigger than just Albemarle. It is national in scope, regional and statewide.
To create a cooperative process, all need to work together to get the MCP done
and it can't be done by trying to stop one project to get another.
Mr. Bowerman said that more than a year and a-half ago, Mr. Myers and
Mr. Roudabush met with most members of this Board regarding the CATS plan,
specifically the interchanges on Route 29 North and the problem that those
interchanges were creating. One of the obstacles VDOT had was the insistence
upon the interchanges as being the next item in the agreed-upon document. The
City of Charlottesville, at that time, had already removed their support of an
interchange at Hydraulic Road. It was important to Mr. Myers and Mr.
Roudabush that the interchanges not become an issue with Albemarle County.
Mr. Bowerman said he agreed to take that issue to the Board and subsequently
this Board passed a resolution, which was not by a unanimous vote, which
according to the minutes took about 45 minutes of arguing and discussing with
Board members, with a high amount of opposition between Ms. Thomas and
himself, and between Ms. Humphris and himself, regarding the wording of taking
the interchanges out. They wanted to say ~not at this time" and it came down
to "withdrawing support" for the interchanges.
Mr. Bowerman said the resolution was passed and sent to Secretary
Martinez. The reason was that this Board could not look at funding for the
MCP with the interchanges as an obstacle. Mr. Myers and Mr. Roudabush agreed
to do whatever they could to make the MCP a reality. Mr. Bowerman said his
main problem with where the County is today is that he does not see any
evidence that the two have made the MCP a priority to the extent that he went
to bat one and one-half years ago to remove the interchanges from the official
policy of Albemarle County. That was done by Mr. Bowerman, and the point was
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
made at the time that there was a lot of engineering and design money tied up
in those interchanges in the Six-Year Plan. Maybe that money could be
redirected, maybe not to the MCP, but the implication was that if the inter-
changes were out of the way maybe Mr. Myers and Mr. Roudabush could look at
other priorities for Albemarle County. Mr. Bowerman said to the extent that
he was able to do something on. his end, he did it, and he did it with some
personal distress, but he accomplished it. He would like to look to Mr. Myers
and Mr. Roudabush to see what efforts have been made on Albemarle County's
behalf to make the MCP a reality for this community.
Mr. Myers said he thinks the Bypass needs to be one issue, and the MCP
and other Albemarle County needs a separate issue. He thinks that linking
these two projects together is an error. The resolution of the CTB basically
takes any agreed-upon sequencing by V DOT off the books. About a year ago, he
and Mr. Roudabush in talking to Bob Tucker, encouraged setting up a task
force. They knew after going to the CTB with a $72.0 million project (the
cost estimated by the County's engineers) that it did not have a chance. No
members of the CTB showed any interest in even thinking about it. Mr. Myers
said that Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Myers, Mr. Roudabush, County Staff and
VDOT staff met to discuss how the cost could be reduced to a more realistic
figure. He and Mr. Roudabush also met with two of the major property owners
in an informal session to see if they would donate right-of-way to get the
cost down. He does not know if the task force followed up on that or not. He
said that he and Mr. Roudabush met with Ms. Humphris to talk about some other
suggestions and he talked to Bob Tucker. Whether it is a $31.0 million road,
or a $72.0 million road, that kind of money on the State level is very hard to
come by. To get the 16-member CTB to approve any road will take a lot of
work.
Ms. Humphris said Mr. Myers started by saying that these two projects
have to be considered separately. They can't be considered separately because
of the record going back to 1991 when the agreements were reached. The County
was told, if it would agree to put the Bypass in the sequencing, the Bypass
will be put last and built only when it is proven to be needed and when there
are funds available. If the County does that, "we promise you we will do
this." After much turmoil in Albemarle County, that agreement was reached.
Ms. Humphris said she voted against the agreement because she did not
like the way at which it was arrived. Nevertheless, it was passed on a 4/2
vote. Then the Board saw that things were being done by VDOT which made it
believe immediately that the agreement was not to be adhered to. There were
many letters, other resolutions and other promises from Secretary Milliken.
He said in 1992 ~our intentions are clear and we will move heaven and earth to
make good on these promises." Is not this Board supposed to rely on those
promises?
Moving on to the situation with the interchanges, Ms. Humphris said she
believes that Mr. Myers and Mr. Roudabush did meet with every member of this
Board. In fact, they met with her and Ms. Thomas together. It was their
clear understanding (and the subject of the Board's meeting on May 3~ 1995)
that the interchanges had to be removed completely from the agreement in order
for these two gentlemen to give the Board help in funding the MCP. The motion
passed on a 4/2 vote. Ms. Humphris said she was one of the two in opposition.
That is when the Board gave in a second time.
Somewhere along the way, this Board found out that the resolution the
CTB passed deleting the interchanges from the agreement also took out the part
about the sequencing of the Bypass and said that no longer would be Bypass be
subject to the promised sequencing. The only thing wrong with that was that
at no time was Albemarle County ever told that had been done. When the
official letter was written that was filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court
making that announcement, it did not say anything about that changing of the
sequence. It only spoke about the deletion of the interchanges. The Board
was told to give up the interchanges and Mr. Myers and Mr. Roudabush would
help get the MCP. If that was not said outright, it was such a clear implica-
tion that that vote was taken, and this Board believed it was going to get the
support of these two on the CTB for help in that. Then when the CTB had the
work session (Ms. Humphris, Ms. Thomas and others were there), there was no
indication on the part of Mr. Myers or Mr. Roudabush that either supported the
primary designation for the MCP.
Ms. Humphris said that after the Board was told, "if you will just
reduce the cost of the MCP from $72.0+ million to something better" it was
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
reduced to $31.0 million. The Board is still being told to jump through one
more hoop. It is being told that now that the cost has been reduced the Board
will have to come up with some of its own money, perhaps $1.0 million in local
funds to have an environmental impact statement done. Every time the Board
gives up something in order to get something, it ends up further in the hole
as far as the original agreement is concerned. Every time it is "fooled you!"
This is a piece of what is causing this Board a problem in having a coopera-
tive effort which it very much wants to have with VDOT and with the CTB.
Mr. Martin said he sees this thing like one party declaring a divorce.
One party is saying we are leaving. We are separated. Separate these issues
and there is not a lot the other party can do about it. It is time that
instead of talking about what the promises were at the time of the marriage,
if the children are going to be saved, all need to move forward and try to be
as cooperative as possible. He does not think the Board will accomplish
anything today if everybody leaves this room "hunkered down" in their way of
doing things. Ms. Humphris asked what Mr. Martin was suggesting. Mr. Martin
said he is suggesting that statements being made will get the Board nowhere
because it is all in the past. If he is wrong, correct him.
Ms. Thomas said the last time the CTB mentioned the MCP it was to
support it. That was in their motion in February, 1995 in which they were
dealing with the interchange issue. "The CTB supports the continuation of
this construction, base case improvements, the continued development of
projects of the CATS Study, construction of the MCP and reaffirms its support
of the Route 29 Bypass Alternate 10.' Ms. Thomas said as far as she knows
that is the last formal statement by the CTB, and that is a support statement
and that puts them all in the same sentence.
Mr. Martin said if that is the case, he would like to ask Ms. Thomas her
suggestion as the next step for this meeting. What would be a reasonable step
to take as opposed to just simply saying, it's got to be our way, or no way?
Do you feel that is the only stance you can take?
Ms. Thomas said she does not know what Mr. Martin means by ~our way, or
no way". What needs to be figured out is how that road can be built. That is
the subject of the discussion because it is the main item of the sequencing
that should not be dropped by the way. She does not think these folks can
unilaterally divorce that issue.
Mr. Myers said he and Mr. Roudabush put the MCP on the CTB's agenda and
both of them supported the road at that meeting. Sometimes when you know you
don't have the people with you, you can't take it but so far. They knew they
had to go back and get more work done before the project could be taken back
to the CTB.
Mr. Roudabush said he had discussed with Ms. Humphris and Bob Tucker
that the County continue to work within Secondary Road funding to complete a
design of the MCP to the extend it could to save time. That is work which
would not have to be repeated or done later and which would give some accurate
forecasting of costs and environmental problems associated with the route.
That was the time he made the statement about a probable environmental impact
study cost of $1.0 million, but his statement was in reference to a project
already before the CTB in the Winchester area. The people there took it upon
themselves to develop a project and then came to the CTB for funding. The
impact study had already been done as well as most of the preliminary design
work.
Mr. Roudabush said another thing he mentioned to Mr. Tucker last week
was an attempt to get the MCP, at least Phase I, out to Rio Road redesignated
as a primary road. Then to renumber it as Route 53 to match the corridor
going to Monticello. Eventually that would make the highway usable as a
tourist route. He has discussed this with some V/DOT staff members and he
read: ~It is possible that the Department would entertain the idea of
extending the Route 53 designation after the completion of the MCP Phase I
construction. It is being constructed with urban funds and secondary road
funds, but at the completion of Phase I construction, we would possibly
consider that designation. This would only be done with the concurrence of
Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville because we are aware of their
opposition at one time to a corridor being brought right to the Bypass and
stopped. The purpose of this route designation would be to provide more
direct access to the historic tourist attractions along existing Route 53 for
travelers approaching the area from Route 29 North. In reverse, it would act
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
0003,1-8
as a corridor leading tourists who are at Monticello, the Visitor's Center, or
downtown Charlottesville, and get them back to Route 29 in a more direct way
with a marked corridor that would lead them directly from one side or Char-
lottesville to the other. There is no guarantee that this would be granted
since it would require favorable attention by the entire CTB, but with an
endorsement of the two local jurisdictions at the appropriate time, it would
be presented to the CTB after Phase I of MCP is complete."
Mr. Roudabush said he thinks that would be a step in the right direc-
tion. The only implication Mr. Browder has mentioned is the cost for other
than the MCP would be signing from existing Route 53 south of Charlottesville
through the City and out to Route 29 along the present Rio Road. If that is
done and Phase I of MCP is complete, then there would be a little more
knowledge about usage of the road and that would be helpful in considering
Phase II of the MCP. That is an initial step which he thinks can be looked
into. The City needs to be involved in this process also. That is something
that could be done fairly soon. The other thing he would suggest is that the
County continue to look at the MCP as a secondary road project and possibly
consider whether it would be worth building with only two lanes and a four-
lane right-of-way. He said there is a lot of work that needs to be done
before the CTB considers this as a primary road and considers it for funding.
Mr. Martin said it seems that if the objective is to get the MCP, then
the Board has two options: 1) Pursue whether the CTB is saying the MCP and
the Bypass need to be separated so this Board can pursue that to see if that
is what the entire CTB is saying; and, 2) Pursue looking at some alternatives,
such as using Route 53, if indeed the objective is the MCP. To him that makes
more sense than "hunkering in".
Mr. Myers said he supports Mr. Roudabush's idea about Route 53. He
thinks some ground work will have to be done with the City, but he thinks it
could be a real benefit to get Route 53 designated at least initially out to
the Rio Road/Route 29 intersection. Coming south from Washington to historic
downtown Charlottesville it is very complicated to explain how to get there.
This would take some of the Monticello tourists and expose them to downtown.
He thinks the idea could be sold to the City as a good benefit. Also, later
it could help divert some of the traffic between Hydraulic Road and Rio Road
which is the heaviest section of Route 29. That was the part that previously
had approximately 54,000 vehicles a day, whereas north of Rio Road it was
34,000+. He thinks it would help to divert some of that traffic now, and also
help with tourism. It would benefit the area, and it would be the first step
in getting primary road funding for the next leg which might have to be
started as a secondary road project. He has always said that this project
needs to be kicked off as a Secondary Road project. One of the problems with
the MCP is that initially it was to have had T-connectors into the Forest
Lakes/Hollymead area. That was bringing a substantial amount of traffic off
of Route 29 directly onto the MCP. He went to a Planning Commission meeting
and they were factoring about 16,000 cars on the road. When the T-connectors
were deleted, the traffic dropped to about 8000 cars a day. The engineer's
estimate (the County got Sverdrup Corp to do a study) was $72.0 million to
carry 8000 cars. The numbers didn't jibe. He thinks the County has to look
at ways to make the road more supportive in terms of cost.
Mr. Martin said the Board recently took a vote on that section of the
MCP from Rio Road to Route 29 and he came close to not supporting that section
at all for the same rationale just used. The reason he stood behind that
section was because of the KW" factors and the need to have something that
might shoot across Route 29 to the Airport. Would it be beneficial for the
County to look more into the ~W-connectors" and pin some of that down and try
to get some traffic ideas to make that section of the MCP more viable?
Mr. Myers said if the CTB had $31.0 million, one of the things Albemarle
County should look carefully at, and he was glad to see in the draft of the
CATS study, is an Eastern Connector. There is a bottle-neck now at Pantops
(Free Bridge on Route 250 East). He was shocked when he drove at five o'clock
heading west and saw traffic backed up almost to Locust Avenue. He said the
County needs to look hard at a way around that bottleneck. Some improvements
to Route 20, with a connector road across from where the MCP would come into
Route 29 or further out near the Proffit Road area, needs to be looked at.
Some new connector across Route 29 might be important in the long-term
planning of the County. When it comes to allocating dollars, obviously he and
Mr. Roudabush will support this area. They both live here. They have a
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
000;3,t9
vested interest in the area and want to support it, but they also want good
decisions to be made with the money.
Mr. Tucker asked what changed from the time the parties were working
cooperatively to reduce the cost of the MCP from the $72.0 million to the
$31.0 million? Staff feels that there must have been some changes in policy
because it seems VDOT is looking more for localities to put funding in some of
the projects that benefit the local residents rather than serving an intra-
state type corridor. The County does not have reserves of money to use on
these kinds of projects. They are expensive. Even if the MCP is continued as
a Secondary Road project, the County's other secondary road needs are tremen-
dous. There is not enough money to handle secondary road improvements on
existing roads, much less putting aside funds for the first phase of the MCP.
Some Board members, particularly Mr. Perkins, do not feel the County should be
using local taxpayer dollars on public roads. Mr. Perkins feels that roads
are VDOT responsibilities. Mr. Tucker said this new possibility has created a
dilemma for the Board because of all the financial obligations they have. He
asked if Mr. Roudabush would speak about that.
Mr. Roudabush said Mr. Browder can speak to that. Airport Road (Route
649) is a good example of being able to leverage a project ahead of other
projects because some local money was put into the project and also because
the County was able to get some Airport Access Funds. A little switching was
done to get two allocations in one year. That does help bring projects
forward.
Mr. Browder said primary system funds are allocated by a formula to the
different districts and that pot of money is just as constrained as secondary
allocations are. There has been no policy change. To cover the costs of
projects the citizens want faster, there has to be some additional funding.
If all of the wants identified at the Preallocation Hearing for the primary
system are real needs and are prioritized properly, people expect them to get
on the Six-Year Program shortly thereafter. The process to get them approved,
to get them designed, and then to acquire the right-of-way, takes a while.
There are not sufficient funds to cover the needs people identify. To request
the CTB members here to change the MCP from a secondary to a primary would not
make a big improvement in the situation. It would put the project in competi-
tion with all the other projects in the Culpeper District, a lot of which are
already on the books.
Mr. Myers said there is a funding crunch statewide. He and Mr.
Roudabush are trying every method possible to meet traffic needs and will
continue to do so. It is important to remember that just because this has not
happened in one or two Preallocation meetings, they don't support it and the
road doesn't have merit. MCP Phase I is going to construction in two years.
The first recollection he has of this road is 1967, so it takes time.
Ms. Humphris said that is the whole point. That is what the Board does
not want to have happen again. Mr. Myers said there were a lot of starts and
stops on that project along the way, and that is true of every road project in
the state. You can't get discouraged quickly. There is a long time span.
Ms. Humphris said she would like to make a comment at this point. Ail
need to be reminded that Albemarle County's, as is every other county's, major
source of funds is property taxes. People cannot stand increases in their
property taxes to build roads that are supposed to be for purposes of economic
development which help the whole state and not just Albemarle County. That is
an unreasonable thing to expect. About the connection between the Route 29
Bypass and the MCP and the funding, Mr. Myers said some time back that he did
what he could do at that meeting. What the transcript shows is a question to
Mr. Myers that said: ~Carter, is this is a higher priority than the Alterna-
tive 10 for the County?" Mr. Myers said ~you probably know what the County's
position has been on Alternative 10, not being supportive of it, I think they
are two different roads with two different needs. One is the 29 corridor need
to serve all of Central Virginia, and this serves an arterial need in that
region." Then there was more discussion and there was a comment by one member
~But, you live there" talking to Mr. Myers and Mr. Roudabush, ~you live there,
what do you want?" Mr. Rea said ~You all live there, have we done it right?"
From that point on, neither Mr. Myers or Mr. Roudabush expressed support of
the MCP. When they were asked "have we made the right choice?" Both said
there wasn't going to be $200.0 million flowing into Albemarle County so it
would have to be one or the other. From that point, Albemarle's chances of
getting the MCP into the primary system for funding "went down the tube."
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
000350
That was all "she wrote!" Mr. Myers and Mr. Roudabush didn't make that choice
at that time by saying how important the MCP is or that it is an essential
piece of the network.
Mr. Myers said ~that is your interpretation." The roads will draw money
in different ways. There is going to be statewide interest in solving the
Route 29 issue. There is a lot of support on the CTB for that project. Two
other members of the CTB live north and south on Route 29 so that is 25
percent of the CTB that have an interest in that road. In addition, there is
support all around to get funding to fix Route 29. Danville has opened their
bypass. Lynchburg is about where Albemarle County is, maybe a little ahead in
their design. The road is being improved in sequences all the way from North
Carolina. There is statewide interest to get statewide funding for that
project. That gives a broader constituency when he and Mr. Roudabush ask the
CTB to support other road projects.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to follow up on what Mr. Martin said.
It seems as though the priority is the Bypass rather than the MCP. It seems
to him that money could have been better spent on the MCP instead of studying
an interchange on Route 743. He knows there are problems with the CTB because
there are different pots of money and different groups of people competing for
the money. If this Board felt Mr. Myers and Mr. Roudabush were working as
hard for the MCP as for Alternate 10 it would make all the difference in the
world. If all were working collectively to solve the problems with Alternate
10 which keep coming up (not the least of which is how to get through the
mountain) as well as the MCP, he thinks they could have a more productive
relationship. He does not want to be adversarial. The Board is trying to
solve a problem for the community. How can that be done?
Mr. Myers said he did not think VDOT spent much money studying the
interchange at Hydraulic. MCP traffic studies did indicate that 7000 cars a
day in the design year would use that interchange and probably would leave it
from Route 29. Mr. Bowerman said "we don't want it." Mr. Myers said the CTB
dropped it. There will be no interchange at Hydraulic Road. The Board does
not have to worry about that.
Mr. Browder said Route 29 is a corridor that has more than just a local
interest. The Route 29 Bypass will help with the problems on existing Route
29 which is being widened right now. It will have the benefit of taking out a
lot of the through traffic. The traffic projections of VDOT indicate that
even after Route 29 is finished, the level of service on Route 29 will drop
back to much the way it is right now in the next five years. Mr. Bowerman
said that is without the MCP, without the bypass, and without the interchanges
on Route 29 North.
Mr. Browder said without the bypass, within five years Albemarle County
will be back in the same condition as right now. To tie into the original
question, the action the MPO took does not affect the process up to the point
when the final design is approved and VDOT starts acquiring the right-of-way.
They estimate having everything ready for advertisement on the Route 29 Bypass
by January, 1999 including the majority of the right-of-way. Since the
project has been designed to use Federal dollars, to move beyond that point
the MPO would need to put the project into their TIP. The MCP is really a
local need. If the MCP goes for the same design year of 2022, based on
projections now, it would take 23,000 additional vehicles whereas the Bypass
will take over 24,000 vehicles. That is 23,000 if Phase I and/or Phase II has
been completed by that time. That would be local traffic taken out of that
stream with the traffic from commercial development.
Mr. Browder said it does make sense to do both projects. The timing and
the funding are issues that need to be addressed. The development of and the
funding for the Route 29 Bypass is available now. It is a primary road which
has national, as well as local and state significance. It is moving ahead of
the MCP because the MCP is a secondary road, and that funding comes from a
different pot of money. Mr. Roudabush has identified one means of getting it
into an additional pot of money. He would say that the pot is only so big and
it covers more than one county. Doing it in stages is one way Albemarle can
move forward from where it is now.
Ms. Thomas said from some of the things said in the last few minutes it
is clear the Bypass is what some people like to call a "no-brainer". It is
what the rest of the State and the Nation want done here. They are interested
in driving past Charlottesville without stopping. That is not where the Board
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
needs leadership and the help of Mr. Myers and Mr. Roudabush. It never has
been. That's what the Lynchburg to Culpeper people have always wanted done.
The Board needs help for a problem that if called a local problem will make it
stay a secondary road. A lot of help was given on the Bypass, in fact its
construction was speeded up by about 10 years. This made it difficult for the
CTB to live up to the sequencing agreement the Board thought it had. One
reason the Bypass schedule moved up is because the interchanges were removed
from the sequence and the traffic counts changed faster on Route 29.
Where the Board needs help is on the MCP and to her ear, what is thrown
to it at this point is another way to make the City uncomfortable. The City
is not going to like having through traffic directed down Monticello Road
because that goes through a neighborhood. The Board may be able to get their
support, but it has little connection to the basic need for the MCP. This
gives the Board one more difficulty that is really not within its power to
control. She would like a little more to come out of this meeting than that
suggestion, although she appreciates Mr. Roudabush thinking of a way this
could happen. She would sure like to say ~try another one" because she does
not predict it is going to work.
Mr. Myers said he and Mr. Roudabush would be willing to meet with the
City and talk to them about the concept. Either that existing primary road
designation idea, or something like that will be critical. The City will have
to cooperate at some point because part of the MCP Phase I goes through the
City. If the City is not in there on a primary designation, it would not
happen anyway. He offered help to encourage the City to do it. He thinks it
would be in their best interest.
Ms. Humphris said she would like to bring up another subject and that is
the concern about the Route 29 Corridor Study. The section from Warrenton to
Charlottesville was studied. It was suggested that if Route 29 north to south
were made a limited access road, it could bring almost 20,000 more vehicle
trips a day to the Route 29 Bypass because all the traffic would be attempting
to escape 1-81 and 1-95. A lot of that would be heavy truck traffic. This
Bypass is not a true bypass but goes right through neighborhoods, next to
schools and through some Albemarle school property. This community most
certainly does not want to be the bypass for 1-81 and 1-95 and yet that is
what the County is being told is a possibility. She asked for comments on
that.
Mr. Myers said one of the concepts presented was an interstate-type road
up Route 29 with a 65 mile per hour speed limit. That is where the traffic
diversion would take place. Nobody has proposed that it be built to inter-
state standards at this point in time. He does not think there is six hundred
to eight hundred million dollars to do it anyway.
Ms. Humphris said that is what Secretary Milliken said about the Bypass
not too many years ago. It doesn't matter that there is no money to build it,
but all of a sudden it is being done.
Mr. Myers said he does support the bypass. He thinks it is needed. It
is in sync with the Lynchburg bypass being built. The location for the bypass
was approved by previous CTB members, under another Secretary and under a
different administration. He said that he and Mr. Roudabush have attempted to
work with the community, and with individual citizens whether it was for
hardship right-of-ways or not. Some hardship right-of-ways were approved and
it took people out of that hostage position. They have worked hard to make
the least impact and will continue to do that. They have put in a lot of time
on the Bypass project. It is a complicated project and Albemarle County
hasn't made it easy. A lot of time and energy has been spent handling the
complexity because Albemarle County hasn't worked with them on this thing.
That takes away time they could have put on the MCP. It takes time away from
other needs.
Mr. Myers said there are some other needs in this community that need to
get started before trouble begins. North of the South Fork Rivanna River, how
will the road be protected, even with a widening, and maintain the safety and
the through travel? That is a critical issue. The widening is being designed
right now. All need to figure out how Albemarle County can control that
access and keep that road from becoming another ~29 North" from the Airport to
the River. An eastern connector is a critical issue. There are a number of
issues that this community needs to look at. He wishes all could put time to
constructive efforts to help solve the problems and make sure that there is a
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
good transportation plan. The CATS plan is a pretty good plan, but there is a
lot of work to get it done.
Ms. Humphris said there are a lot of things that need to be dealt with
right now. The Route 29 Bypass Design Committee withdrew its support because
of all the design problems. When, suddenly, at the last public information
meeting before the final public hearing on the bypass, there were renderings
showing a 20+ foot bridge across Barracks Road and then, a short time later,
it is learned that the bridge is going to be 65 feet above Barracks Road; when
there is an understanding about Canterbury Hills and then it is found that the
road has been moved 100 feet closer to Canterbury Hills; when there is an idea
of where the road is going near Roslyn Ridge and all of a sudden it is found
that it is going to be elevated 30 feet and there will be embankments along
the way with detention ponds in people's backyards; this makes the public
completely lose faith in the designers, in VDOT, in the CTB. Right at the end
of the whole process it is found that the major determination of the design
for this road will be done based on value engineering which means to construct
the cheapest way possible. The cheapest way possible is not the "best design"
which Albemarle County was promised. The County was promised that the road
could be designed to go through the mountain so it would not impact Colthurst
Farm. The County said it could never be done and make the grades there, but
VDOT engineers always insisted that it could be done. Right at the end of the
design you say "sorry, we can't do that". It has been one major disappoint-
ment after another. It is very hard to keep the faith given the history on
this project since 1990. For this Board to keep asking for help, for Mr.
Myers and Mr. Roudabush to keep saying they are representing the County and
are going to give us help, but then in the face of what is happening she no
longer believes the Board can trust that its best interests are the ones that
are being looked after. It seems that they aren't.
Ms. Humphris said this session will have to come to a close now since
the Board has further business on the agenda to complete. The Board does
appreciate the attendance of Mr. Myers, Mr. Roudabush, and VDOT personnel.
She does not know that the Board has gotten any farther toward figuring out
how the MCP can be built, or what is to be done with the potential impact of
the Route 29 Corridor Study on the bypass, or how to perfect the road system
in Albemarle County for the benefit of the people who live here, work here, or
have to pass through here.
Ms. Thomas said the Board can consider the Route 53 idea since it has
received an assurance that the idea will be taken to the City. Ms. Humphris
asked who will do that. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the VDOT representatives
are meeting with City Council soon. Ms. Humphris said the Board would
appreciate Mr. Myers and Mr. Roudabush paving the way since it is not going to
be easy. Ms. Thomas said she does not have time to read it aloud now, but she
came up with a long list of things the Board needs to actually thank VDOT for.
There have been things in the last year that showed a great deal of interest
for the community. The inclusion of a landscape architect on the MCP and the
Bypass design teams is something that is not done every place. Mr. Myers and
Mr. Roudabush helped with the ISTEA enhancement awards for the Monticello
Parkway and funding for sidewalks and pedestrian ways along Emmet Street.
There has also been a great deal of work by Patsy Napier and others on the
Bypass. Also, a Rural Area Transportation Study has been undertaken here that
is fairly unique in the nation, as she understands it. Most highway depart-
ments have not been supportive of that type of rural transportation study and
the County is appreciative of that. She just wants to suggest that not all is
bleak.
Mr. Bowerman said the Local Residency is very sensitive to the needs of
the community. The Board does not always agree, but he thinks the Board and
the public have always felt that there are good discussions whenever there is
an issue. They have worked hard to try to resolve it, and he believes the
community is appreciative of that.
Ms. Humphris said that has been an excellent relationship and the County
is very fortunate in the people who have been assigned to this particular
residency. They are concerned about the community. She thanked Mr. Myers,
Mr. Roudabush and Mr. Browder for attending today and said she hopes they take
the comments today as constructive. She asked that they come back again. By
that time the Board may have some more ideas and it hopes they will have some
other ideas about how to solve Albemarle County's problems which are the
Board's responsibility, but their responsibility also.
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
000353
Mr. Marshall said he has one more thing he wants to discuss. In
September, 1998 Albemarle County will have its new high school open. The
four-lane portion of Route 20 South ends at Route 53 which is about one-half a
mile from where the new road into the school will be built. Route 20 is a
primary road and he asked that Mr. Myers and Mr. Roudabush "fast line" the
funding to widen Route 20 from Route 53 to at least where the entrance to the
school will be. There will be lots of buses and high school kids driving cars
mingled with the traffic of people from subdivisions on Avon Street coming to
what will be a dangerous intersection. He thinks it is imperative that the
road be widened to coincide with the time the school opens. Mr. Marshall
thanked Mr. Myers and Mr. Roudabush for all they have done for Albemarle
County. He asked that they work hard to solve the problem with the MCP. He
said he knows the Route 29 Bypass is a ~done deal" because a higher authority
than Albemarle County wants it and nothing this Board can say will change
that.
Agenda Item No. 17. Joint meeting with School Board and State Legisla-
tors to discuss the County's 1997 Legislative Program.
Present at this time were School Board members: Mr. John Baker, Mr. R.
Madison Cummings, Jr., Ms. Susan Gallion, Mr. Stephen Koleszar, Dr. Charles
Ward, and Ms. Karen Powell. School administration present were: Dr. Kevin
Castner, Division Superintendent, and Mr. Frank Morgan and Ms. Diane Ippolito.
State legislators present were: Mr. Peter Way, Delegate, and Ms. Jo
Blue substituting for Delegate Mitchell Van Yahres. Senator Emily Couric
arrived at 3:00 p.m.
Ms. Humphris asked Ms. Bonnie Fronfelter, Legislative Liaison, to give a
brief overview of the legislative program.
Ms. Fronfelter said she had not seen the School Board's legislative
program, but would give an overview of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission's {PDC) program. Concerning the budget, there was language left in
the budget which would prorate the State's share of funding for the Comprehen-
sive Services Act. That item continues to grow for most localities. Last
year Albemarle County asked for supplemental funding. The legislators are
being requested to support this request.
Two State study commissions are addressing the issue of education
infrastructure and the State's lack of support for construction funding or
borrowing mechanisms. At this time, there is a program that buys down the
interest rate for localities. There is no mechanism to deal with technology
funding. A lot of localities, particularly Northern Virginia, have floated
bonds for computers. Mr. Way said he believes the Governor is proposing that
the Virginia Public School Authority be opened for this type of borrowing.
Ms. Fronfelter said that is right. At this time the VPSA is prohibited from
borrowing money for that purpose.
The last issue is the issue of the Federal prisoner reimbursement which
has been in effect for a long time. Last year there was language in the
budget which would have required that local or regional jails give back a
certain amount of money to the State for any Federal prisoners they house. In
the case of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail that is an issue.
There are enough Federal prisoners housed at the Jail to make that a big cut
in their budget.
Ms. Humphris asked staff to mention the four bills Albemarle County is
interested in.
Mr. Tucker said Ms. White will do that. Staff would like to know from
the legislators if there is any legislation being proposed by them that the
County should be aware of.
Ms. White said Senate Bill 592 is a carry-over bill referred to as the
Silvicultural Practices" bill. That bill was not included in the PDC's
legislative package, but Albemarle County is opposed to that bill because it
weakens the County's land use powers to regulate forestry practices in the
County.
House Bill 1517 is a carry-over bill referred to as the ~Dedications,
Payments and Conveyances" bill. It also is not included in the PDC's legisla-
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
000354
tire package, and Albemarle County is opposed to that bill because it would
narrow the County's authority to accept proffers and it would have a large
impact on the County's ability to fund infrastructure and school facilities.
Ms. White said the County needs a sponsor for two bills. The first is
called ~Dark Skies" legislation. The bill would add Albemarle County to
legislation Arlington County got last year. It would give the County author-
ity to have an ordinance to control light pollution in all developments county
wide. The second bill concerns "Joint Court Facilities". There is a law
which forbids moving a joint juvenile court facility to another location
without first holding a referendum. Albemarle is asking to be excluded from
that requirement in case there is a need to move the joint juvenile court
facility.
Ms. Humphris asked the School Board to present its legislative package.
Dr. Castner said this year the School Board developed a legislative
action plan in which they defined the process to be followed (he handed out a
listing of the phases). This is different from what has been done in past
years. The Virginia School Boards Association, the Virginia Congress of
Parents and Teachers, the Virginia Association of School Superintendents, and
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission all served as resources.
Dr. Castner said it is important to call attention to the three State
commissions, the Virginia Commission on the Future of Public Education, the
Commission on Educational Infrastructure, and the Commission on Accountability
for Educational Excellence. These deserve special attention during the
upcoming Session. As an example, if the Commission on the Accountability for
Educational Excellence wants a third credit for science, that becomes a CIP
issue of having more science rooms in the schools. There is then the problem
of where the money will come from. That is something the School Board would
like to participate in and have someone do a cost analysis for that type of
impact. He indicated that the School Board members might like to make
comments.
Mr. Ward said that on House Bill 253 (requires the school board to adopt
policies for part-time admission and enrollment of home-school students) it is
very important to be able to count the Average Daily Membership. Support is
needed for the School Board's position. Ms. Powell said there is a pilot
program in existence now for high school students only. The School Board
wanted to monitor that program to see its impact. Mr. Way said he has been
told by the lobbying group for the home-schoolers that they are basically in
agreement with the School Board. They want this to be a local option. They
don't want any meddling with it at all. Ms. Powell said the issue for the
School Board is the funding that could go along with it from the State.
Ms. Humphris asked if Mr. Way plans on introducing any legislation that
this Board should know about. Mr. Way said he has nothing that will directly
affect Albemarle County. He is going to introduce some legislation regarding
the process of reversion, but that will not impact Albemarle County. The time
limit on petitioners is one part. It seems to him that was left out. He
thinks it is ridiculous to allow five years to get signatures on a petition.
It is the only piece of legislation that does not have a time limit.
Ms. Humphris asked Ms. Blue if Mr. Van Yahres had anything to introduce.
Ms. Blue said the only thing she knows of that might affect the County is the
~piggy-back income tax." Mr. Bowerman asked if it will be modified from his
proposal last year. Ms. Blue said it would. One of the things he has
mentiOned is that the locality could decide whether they wanted to use the
money they would get back to reduce either the real estate tax and/or the
personal property tax. Mr. Martin asked if the locality would have to chose
from those two. They could not take the income tax and maintain the real
estate and personal property tax. Ms. Blue said that is not the intent of the
bill. Ms. Thomas said that last year the bill was worded so that the first
year in which the tax was levied, the governing body would reduce the rate of
the tax in an amount that would reduce real estate tax revenues in the
following year by an amount equal to the amount of local income tax revenues
collected. It is revenue neutral in the first year, but that does not tie the
hands of local government forever. Mr. Bowerman said it makes the issue of
raising personal property or real estate taxes an on-going issue just as it is
today. But, it does give relief in that it would be income-based rather than
property taxes. Mr. Martin said he thinks it would be more viable if the
period of time in which it is neutral is longer. He thinks the citizens will
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
000355
say that the first year the real estate tax will be lowered because the County
has the income, but the second year real estate will be raised again, so it
works out to be a net increase. Mr. Marshall said he does not want it to work
out so it is an additional tax. Ms. Thomas said the question would go to a
local referendum. If the local referendum said it would be income-neutral for
more than one year, then the Board would have to decide how to get it passed
locally.
Ms. Humphris asked what the Board should do to get sponsors for its two
pieces of legislation. Mr. Way said he would take the responsibility to talk
with Mr. Van Yahres and Senator Couric, and the three of them can work out
sponsors. Ms. Thomas said there are a lot of people interested in the
legislation on dark skies and they are willing to appear before any committee.
The University of Virginia Astronomy Department is the main group pushing
this. Nationwide there is also a push to protect access to the stars. There
are millions of dollars in research money that hinge on having dark skies.
Ms. Humphris asked if anyone else had a question or a suggestion for the
legislators.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to mention the push to do away with the
personal property tax and replace it with a sales tax. She attended a hearing
six-plus weeks ago in the General Assembly. She was not planning to speak but
got agitated and spoke on behalf of Greene County. Albemarle County does
nicely on sales tax. But, nobody could replace Greene County's personal
property tax with the sales tax. Greene County would be paying sales tax in
Albemarle County on everything they buy. Eighty-five percent of the sales in
the Planning District take place in Charlottesville and Albemarle. Greene and
Fluvanna buy their things in Albemarle County. They would be paying sales tax
here. There are communities which are hurting because of population growth
and schools, and they would not be getting the personal property tax to help
their schools. If they had an option of increasing their sales tax that would
diminish the sales which take place in those counties. There is almost no way
that the sales tax could replace the personal property tax in those outlying
counties. Ms. Thomas said her comments had no effect on the people on the
commission. For many people, the personal property tax is the only local tax
they pay that they know of because the real estate tax can get hidden in their
mortgage payments or in their rent, or in something else. Ms. Thomas asked
that the legislators keep in mind what it does to local government to do away
with that tax, particularly in those counties that don't have the sales
activity that Albemarle has. Mr. Perkins said it would be shifting the burden
from what is many times a luxury item, an automobile, to a necessity, food,
clothing, etc.
At 3:00 p.m., Senator Emily Couric arrived at the meeting. Ms. Humphris
briefed her on what had occurred so far. She then mentioned that Senator
Colgan had said the other day that it is possible this change would be revenue
neutral. She said it would not be revenue neutral based on what she person-
ally spends. Her personal property tax on automobiles is quite a large
amount, and a relatively small amount of sales tax is collected on what she
spends. She has trouble with the whole logic that it could be revenue
neutral.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to mention another bill because it seems
to be a fair bill that would impact on Charlottesville and Albemarle more than
some other proposals. It is Diamonstein's H.B. 1513 having to do with water
and sewer connection fees. It is phrased in words such as "fair and reason-
able" fees. Those words will open up challenges to the way the Albemarle
County Service Authority and the City are paying for the increased infrastruc-
ture brought about by the increase in population growth and residences. The
present system is paying for the Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir, and is based
on a careful analysis of what each new residence brings to the future needs of
the water supply. If every section of that bill had to be defended with
numerous plaintiffs, it would probably bring to a halt something that has been
an important part of paying for water and sewer infrastructure. Mr. Way said
he received a call from Mr. Bill Brent about this legislation last year.
Ms. Humphris told Senator Couric the Board is interested in knowing
about any legislation she might propose. Senator Couric said she saw Senator
Chichester this morning and asked about the Silviculture Bill. The Bill was
passed in the Senate and is now in a Subcommittee in the House and on December
19 there will be a full committee vote. He indicated that the bill has been
significantly changed so that everyone is now in agreement. She suggested
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
that the County look into the current language. Senator Couric said she
recalls that when Senator Whipple had the "Dark Skies" legislation in the
Senate she ran into trouble, but Senator Couric did not recall what the
objections were. She suggested that someone in Albemarle research this so
that the same thing does not happen this time.
Ms. Humphris asked again about new legislation. Senator Couric said she
is in the process of having a number of bills drafted. A bill dealing with a
recent issue where a man came into a shop and fondled several women. The
Commonwealth's Attorney was not able to prosecute under sexual assault because
it did not entail force. The definition of ~sexual assault" will be rewritten
and expanded. She also has a couple of tax bills dealing with reporting
requirements, and some health care bills. None of these ideas are in final
form yet.
Mr. Marshall asked if she would talk to him about the health care bills
before they are filed. Senator Couric said one involves the definition of
"brain death" and one involves a research project. Mr. Marshall said he was
curious to know if any of them involved ~managed health care". Senator Couric
said they do not. She thinks there will be some bills coming out of the
Pharmacy Study.
Ms. Thomas said that last year there was a misunderstanding about the
public defender legislation. She asked if that will be an issue this year.
Senator Couric said Mr. Van Yahres will be introducing that bill this year,
although she fully supports the idea. Mr. Way said he has spoken against it
on the floor of the House both times. Ms. Thomas said nothing has changed in
the Board's position because the thought has not been discussed. Ms. Blue
asked if this Board was neutral on this idea last year. Ms. Humphris said
this Board did not take a position because it did not know the bill was being
brought up. Mr. Martin said he thought the Board was in opposition to it last
year. Ms. Humphris said the Board was in opposition the year before. Last
year, the Board did not know it would be brought up, so the Board took no new
position. Mr. Martin said his concerns about the legislation have to do with
who would do the hiring, and not just of the assistants, but who would hire
the main public defender. Right now, in Charlottesville and Albemarle, there
is fairly good representation. If you only have a choice of four and there is
one bad apple in that four, then one court gets stuck with someone who is
incompetent. Senator Couric said "we have to assume that no one who is
incompetent would be hired." Mr. Martin said that is a big assumption unless
you know who is going to do the hiring. There are some great folks out there
who pass themselves off as great lawyers, but that does not necessarily
translate into trial work.
Ms. Blue said she believes the hiring of at least the head person in the
office would be done by the Public Defender Commission. It had gotten to the
advertising stages a couple of years ago before the Governor vetoed the bill.
Mr. Martin said he is concerned. Senator Couric asked if Mr. Martin could
give an example of someone in a public defender's office who was not consid-
ered qualified. Mr. Martin said ~no". He does not know which jurisdictions
have such offices. Senator Couric said Lynchburg has one that would be
comparable to a local office here. Mr. Martin said he did not believe there
was enough history yet to compare anything with. Senator Couric said there is
enough history to know it is saving money, and it is fully operational. Mr.
Martin said if there are four people working out of the office, and each is
assigned to a different court, and one is incompetent, that one could cause
havoc for the people who are depending on having a good attorney.
Ms. Blue said the one big advantage promoted for the public defender
office is that they have a full-time investigator. People appointed by the
County do not have access to an investigator. That gives the defense a little
more opportunity to be represented the same way the prosecution is. Mr.
Martin said that is a reason why this Board remained neutral last year. Ms.
Blue said there is going to be a push to increase the fees for court-appointed
attorneys. At this time, Virginia is close to the bottom in what is paid to
these attorneys. Senator Couric said the concept is that if there is an
attorney specializing in a certain area full-time, that person would be better
versed and more competent than someone who does it on the side along with
higher paying cases. In addition, it will save money, and there will be the
greater efficiency of an investigator. Mr. Way said it is questionable as to
whether it will save money in Charlottesville and Albemarle. It may cost a
lot more at the start. Senator Couric said the Governor is strongly opposed
to this legislation.
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
0003,57
Ms. Blue said the problem with the existing situation is what Mr. Martin
was talking about. Sometimes there is a really good attorney appointed, and
at other times there is the attorney who just meets the defendant five minutes
before the trial starts, so the representation is spotty. Ms. Humphris said
the Board was told that the local judges know which attorney to assign to
which case. The judges said they think they have a better feel for the
assignment of the attorneys than the ordinary and there is a better supply of
well-qualified attorneys in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. The advice
this Board was given is that the area is different from a lot of other places.
It might be different in Albemarle than in other places given the quality of
the attorneys here and the care the judges take in choosing the defending
attorneys. Ms. Blue said she attended a public hearing put on by the local
bar association and people speaking there said either they or people they knew
were not well-represented by the current system. That is where the impetus
came from for introducing this legislation
Ms. Humphris asked if anyone else had questions for the legislators.
Ms. Powell said the Part-Time Non-Public School Access issues were mentioned
earlier. She wants to be sure everyone knows that the bill applies not just
to home-schoolers, but to private schools as well, so being able to count them
in the average daily membership is quite important if they are going to have
access to school programs and the costs that the school division will incur
because of that. Mr. Way said he does not know what will happen to the bill
because it is in conflict with what the home-schoolers have said to him. Ms.
Fronfelter said this is a carry-over bill so any action on it will have to be
made during this session.
Ms. Susan Gallion said she brought up the subject of binding arbitrage
last year. If it passes again this year, the subject will be placed on the
ballot, and she hopes the legislators will oppose the legislation this year.
Mr. Cummings said as the School Board has discussed redistricting and
opening Monticello High School, it has also discussed differential funding
which has not been done in the past. They feeI the money should follow the
need and not go to the individual schools equally. One of his areas of
interest is at-risk funding. The County has a '~Bright Starts" program at
Stone Robinson which has been successful. There is now another such program
at Greer. The School Board would like to see some focus in the legislature on
voluntary at-risk pre-school.
Ms. Humphris said if there is nothing else to discuss at this time, the
School Board will adjourn and the Board continue its session.
Mr. Way said he would like to make a few comments. This Board needs to
know when good things happen. As a Legislator, he would like to say that the
information he receives from Ms. White and Ms. Fronfelter is extremely good
and right on target. Ms. Humphris said the Board most appreciates what the
staff does in this instance.
At 3:24 p.m., Mr. Mitchell Van Yahres, Delegate, appeared at the
meeting. Mr. Van Yahres apologized for being late, but said there was a vote
at 2:30 p.m. Senator Couric asked if in the future this meeting could be held
in the evening. She had left a meeting half way through to get to this
meeting today. Mr. Tucker said staff will try to arrange that in the future.
Ms. Humphris said the Board would ask that Mr. Van Yahres give consider-
ation to the bills that Albemarle has requested. The Board would also like to
know of anything he is introducing that would be of interest to the County.
Mr. Van Yahres said there is the ~piggy-back" income tax and the public
defender bill which he was not going to put in again, but has been convinced
to keep trying. He said that every year it seems to be a little more impor-
tant. Some of the research and some of the statistics he has gotten in the
past year indicate it should be introduced and, hopefully, the Governor will
sign it. The only thing holding it up is that the Governor vetoes it. He
does not understand why because it will save money and it does a better job.
It is one of those things that has no drawbacks. Ms. Thomas said this Board
has not seen the facts and figures on which Mr. Van Yahres based his conclu-
sion that it is necessary, therefore, the Board opposed it two years ago, and
last year did not know it was coming up, so the Board took no stance. If Mr.
Van Yahres wants this Board's support or further consideration, the Board
needs to see the facts and figures.
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Ms. Humphris thanked all who had attended this session.
000,.258
Not Docketed: At 3:24 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded
by Mr. Perkins, to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-
344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult with legal
counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters concerning reversion, and
pursuant to Subsection (1) to discuss appointments to boards and commissions.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
At 5:05 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was
offered by Mr. Marshall to certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each
Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from
the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and
identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard,
discussed or considered in the executive session. The motion was seconded by
Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 10. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to reappoint Mr. David E. Krohn to the
Joint Airport Commission for a term to expire on December 1, 1999.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to reappoint Mr. Rudolph A. Beverly
and Mr. Timothy M. Michel to the Architectural Review Board for terms to
expire on November 14, 2000.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to reappoint Mr. Raymond E. Gaines to
the BOCA Code Board of Appeals for a term to expire on November 21, 2001.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to appoint Ms. Kathy Ralston to the
Community Policy and Management Team.
Ms. Humphris recommended that Mr. George Larie be reappointed to the
Equalization Board. Mr. Perkins recommended that Mr. Albert Humbertson be
reappointed to the Equalization Board. Mr. Marshall recommended that Mr.
James Clark be reappointed to the Equalization Board. Mr. Bowerman recom-
mended that Mr. Frank Rice be reappointed to the Equalization Board. Motion
to reappoint these persons for the Calendar Year 1997 was made by Mr. Mar-
shall.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to reappoint Mr. Raymond E. Gaines to
the Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals for a term to expire on November 21,
2001.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to reappoint Mr. Steve Runkle, Ms.
Jenny Greenwood and Mr. Peter Hallock to the Housing Committee for terms to
expire on December 31, 1999.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall to reappoint Mr. Jerry Jones to the
Jordan Development Corporation for a term to expire on August 13, 1997.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall to reappoint Mr. G. David Emmitt to
the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee for a term to
expire on December 31, 1998.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to appoint Ms. Millicent Bowerman to
the Social Services Board to represent the Rio District for the remainder of
Mr. George Stovall's term which expires on December 31, 1997.
Ail of the motions were seconded by Mr. Marshall. Roll was called, and
the motions carried by the following recorded vote:
December 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Approved
by the
Board of
County
Supervi-
sors
Initials
00oa59
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
C~a~irman ~