1996-05-01May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
000046
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
virginia, was held on May 1, 1996, at 9:00 A.M., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis; and V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m. by the
Chairman, Mrs. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer, Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT), about the size of the sign saying "No
Right Turn on Red" at the corner of Rio Road and Route 29 North. He said it
is being almost totally ignored. Ms. Tucker said it is a standard sized
highway sign. She thinks the problem may be that it sets a couple of car
lengths back from the "stop bar" at the intersection. Unless the car is part
of the queue, the driver may not be aware of the sign. She will check into
adjusting the placement of the sign.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned Item 5.1e, and said the Board moved the study of
the athletic fields by the Parks and Recreation Department forward in the
Capital Improvements Plan. It has occurred to her that the way athletic
fields become the subject of protests no matter where they are put, it might
be good to do the study using a citizens advisory committee.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned Item 5.11 and said there is one person whose farm
and house entrance comes onto Route 782, and he is concerned that if the road
is closed, he will not be able to get out, particularly during bad weather.
She urged all Board members to drive the road before the hearing. Mr. Tucker
asked about installing a gate at the point where this farm enters the road.
Mrs. Thomas said he would have to get out and open a gate, and during this
past winter, he would not have wanted to do that. She is not sure how valid
that complaint is unless the Board members have looked at the road.
Mrs. Humphris said she has talked with this person, and in reading all
of the material from the University Real Estate Foundation (UREF) and the
staff, there was no mention made that this land might be developed in the
future. She thinks the Board needs to take that into consideration when
talking about the discontinuance of the road and what that does to having
legal access to his property. Especially, if there are a number of develop-
ment rights on that property.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff chose discontinuance over abandonment so the
right-of-way would be available for upgrading to bring the road back to a
maintenance situation. The right-of-way is not proposed to be abandoned.
Mrs. Humphris asked who would have to bring the right-of-way up to VDOT
standards should it ever be needed for a public road in the future. Mr.
Cilimberg said it would be the responsibility of the property owners just as
though it had never been discontinued. Mr. Davis said if the road deteriorat-
ed after being removed from maintenance, there would be additional expense to
bring it back into the State System, but it would be a decision of the Trans-
portation Board, and they would probably require that the road be built to the
then existing State standards.
Mr. Cilimberg said the road is not at a State standard at the present
time. Mrs. Thomas said it probably was never built to a state standard. Mr.
Cilimberg said staff had never looked at the road in that light.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board will discuss this at the public hearing.
Mr. Granger Wi!~ be calling each member of the Board, and requesting that they
visit the road and his farm to see the access problem.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned Item 5.19a. She said it is a short set of minutes
from the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, which says that certain reports were
received. She does not want all of the reports each month, but if there is
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
000047
any annual report, she would like to have a copy of that in order to have a
better knowledge of the activities.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned Item 5.19b. She said the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority (RWSA) used to show production figures for water treatment,
and they were not a part of these minutes. Mr. Tucker said RWSA is in the
middle of training a new secretary so some things were missing from the
minutes.
Mrs. Humphris said that concerning Item 5.22, she wanted to bring to
everybody's attention the public hearing on the Route 29 Corridor Development
Study. Now that the study is in it's final phases, the Board is hearing more
about it. Albemarle County has not been "in the loop" on this, but on May 22,
there will be a public hearing in the County Office Building starting at 6:00
p.m. Anyone wishing to speak must sign up, and there will be a panel to
answer questions. There was a meeting about this in Greene County last night,
and concerns were expressed about developing this route all the way through
the State at a 75 mph speed limit. She thinks the people in Albemarle need to
be aware of this, and the effect this might have on local business.
Mr. Martin said that in reference to Item 5.7, it is a good report and
he agrees with the conclusion that something be done on a temporary basis
while looking for a permanent solution. He suggested that for those schools
which have a middle/elementary school combination, something be done this
Spring because on any day from Monday through Saturday, there are usually 200+
people at these sites. He does not think it would be that expensive to put
one "portable potty" at each location. Mr. Tucker said the portable facili-
ties could be provided.
Mr. Marshall asked to discuss Item 5.1e, the amount for the new high
school recreational facilities. Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks &
Recreation, was present. He said $160,000 covers two multi-purpose fields,
clearing, grading, seeding, irrigation, an on-site pond and an access drive,
$85,000 is for the concrete poles for the ball field lights, and $30,000 is
for irrigation for the baseball fields themselves.
Mr. Marshall asked what the $9.8 million being spent during FY 1996-97
is for. Mr. Tucker said it will be broken down into phases in terms of
borrowing, so it is just for the project in general.
Mr. Marshall said he is questioning this because of the $2.0 million
which has not been appropriated, and he wants to be sure what that is going
for. Mr. Tucker said that will come back next year because it is just a
portion of the amount that will be needed for funding.
Mr. Marshall asked if the $1.399 million for the road is the entire cost
of the connector road. Mr. Tucker said yes; it is hoped that the entire
project will be completed next fiscal year. The road is needed in order to
get on the site for the other work.
Mr. Marshall asked if the County is coordinating the construction of
this road with the four-laning of Route 20 South. Ms. Tucker said there is a
formal request before the Commonwealth Transportation Board to give the
project priority in the Six-Year Primary Road Plan from the point where the
connector road comes into Route 20 up to the current four-lane section. Mr.
Marshall said he does not believe the County can build its road until the
four-laning of Route 20 is completed. Ms. Tucker said appropriate turn lanes
will be required in the meantime at the connection. Mr. Tucker said the
County can build the road, but the road does not have to be opened if the
worry is traffic that may come from Avon Street through to Route 20. He said
VI)OT will have to say when it is all right to open the road.
Mr. Marshall asked what can be done to push VDoT to do that so every-
thing will be completed at the same time. Mr. Tucker said the Board can
request the local members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board to support
the request from the local Highway Office. Mr. Bowerman suggested sending a
letter signed by the Chairman to the local members.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned Items 5.lb and 5.1c, both dealing with appropria-
tions to the Commonwealth's Attorney. She asked if the amounts are to cover
budgeted items. Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, was present.
She explained that these two items are additions to the budget. Mrs. Thomas
asked if the items should be discussed. Ms. White said one is to cover
unanticipated expenses when one member of staff was on maternity leave, and
the other is to cover the County's share of the purchase of a computer (the
State will pay the other portion).
May 1, 1996 (Regular DaY M~eting)
(Page 3)
000048
There being no further comments about the Consent Agenda, motion was
offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through
5.13, and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall
and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.la. Appropriation: Education Grant, $105,828.19 (Form #95065).
It was noted in the staff's report that the School Board previously
adopted a resolution to authorize schools to carry forward balances not
exceeding ten percent of their revised budgets. Based on this stipulation,
carry-over funds for the school-based accounts for the FY 94-95 amount to
$105,828.19. Staff recommends approval of appropriation #95065 in the amount
of $105,828.19.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro-
priation was adopted:
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-'96
NUMBER: 95065
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF CARRY OVER FUlqDS
FROM SCHOOL BASED ACCOUNTS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1221661101601300
1220261101601300
1221461101601300
1220361101601300
1220461101601300
1220561101601300
1220661101601300
1221561101601300
1220761101601300
1220961101601300
1221061101601300
1221161101601300
1221261101601300
1221361101601300
122516'1101601300
1225261101601300
1225461101601300
1225561101601300
1230161101601300
1230261101601300
1230361101601300
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
INST/REC. SUPPLIES
INST/REC. SUPPLIES
INST/REC. SUPPLIES
INST/REC. SUPPLIES
INST/REC. SUPPLIES
INST/REC. SUPPLIES
5,405.00
3,571.00
6,759.00
5,062.00
8,654.00
2 429.00
INST/REC. SUPPLIES
INST/REC. SUPPLIES
INST/REC. SUPPLIES
INST/REC. SUPPLIES
INST/REC. SUPPLIES
INST/REC. SUPPLIES
INST
INST
INST
INST
INST
INST
INST
INST
INST
/REC. SUPPLIES
/REC. SUPPLIES
/REC. SUPPLIES
/REC. SUPPLIES
/REC. SUPPLIES
3 308.00
1 148.00
1 736.00
5 600.00
9 712.00
2 131.00
3 401.00
1 634.00
6 777.00
9 448.00
105.00
10,613.19
9,270.00
4,183.00
$ 4,882.00
$105,828.19
/REC. SUPPLIES
/REC. SUPPLIES
/REC. SUPPLIES
/REC. SUPPLIES
TOTAL
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200051000510100
APPROPRIATION-FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$105,828.19
$105,828.19
Item 5.lb. Appropriation: Commonwealth's Attorney, $11,607.50 (Form
%95069).
It was noted in the staff's report, that during the absence of Cheryl
Higgins, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, for maternity leave, the State
Compensation Board agreed to fund a special prosecutor. A person was employed
at a cost of $11,607.50 of which $10,460.00 was funded by the Compensation
Board and has been reimbursed to the County. Staff recommends approval of an
additional appropriation in the amount of $11,607.50 as detailed on Form
#95069.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro-
priation was adopted:
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95069
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR COMMONWEALTH'S
ATTORNEY FOR SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100022010390000
PURCHASED SERVICES-LEGAL
TOTAL
$11,607.50
$11,607.50
REVENI3E DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100023000230101
2100051000510100
STATE SHARED EXPENSES
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$10,460.00
1,147.50
$11,607.50
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
000049
Item 5.1c. Appropriation: Commonwealth's Attorney, $8,390.70 (Form
095070).
It was noted in the staff's report that the State Compensation Board
will provide, at no cost, the Geronimo legal database for the Commonwealth
Attorney's office. This system would replace the current Virginia Law on Disk
system which has an annual cost of $800. A review of the data processing
equipment in the Commonwealth's Attorney's office by Information Services
revealed that the current equipment is outdated and incapable of running the
new Geronimo legal database. Their review also determined that replacement of
the equipment would actually be less expensive than upgrades to the current
equipment and would provide a substantial improvement in performance.
Based on a request by the Commonwealth's Attorney, the State Compensa-
tion Board agreed to fund $5,338.00 (63.62%) of the $8,390.70 cost for five
personal computers with CD Rom. The remaining cost of $3,052.70 would require
funding by the County. Based on the $800 annual cost for the current Virginia
Law on Disk system, the County would recoup its investment in less than four
years. The reimbursement request must be submitted to the Compensation Board
by June 15, 1996, since funding will not be available in the next fiscal year.
Staff recommends approval of an additional appropriation in the amount of
$8,390.70 as detailed on Form #95070.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro-
priation was adopted:
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95070
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR COMMONWEALTH'S
ATTORNEY FOR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1100022010800700
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ADP EQUIPMENT $8,390.70
TOTAL $8,390.70
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100023000230101
2100051000510100
STATE SHARED EXPENSES
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$5,338.00
3,052.70
$8,390.70
Item 5.1d. Appropriation: Mill Creek Industrial Park - Stoney Ridge
Road, $21,717.38 (Form #95071).
It was noted in the staff's report that the County entered into an
agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) on September
1, 1993, for the use of industrial access funds for the construction of Stoney
Ridge Road in Mill Creek Industrial Park. The County then entered into an
agreement with Craig Builders of Albemarle for the same reason. The Common-
wealth Transportation Board allocated funds for this project under the
"bonded" provisions of the access program allowing a three-year period for
documentation of eligible capital outlay. The County received a letter from
VDoT dated February 12, 1996, stating that the three-year bonded period for
this project expires on May 20, 1996, and stated that $21,717.38 of eligible
cost was incurred. In lieu of the required capital outlay documentation,
Craig Builders has provided a check to the County in the amount of $21,717.38.
This $21,717.38 must be appropriated into an expenditure account so that the
County can pay V/DoT. Once VDoT receives this money, they will release their
interest in the $27,500.00 Certificate of Deposit the County provided to
secure the Commonwealth's interest in this project. Staff recommends approval
of Appropriation #95071 in the amount of $21,717.38 for funds to be placed
into an expenditure account to pay VDoT.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro-
priation was adopted:
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
A/UMBER: 95071
FUND: CAPITAL/GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING TO REIMBURSE VDoT FOR EXPENDI-
TURES ON STONEY RIDGE ROAD/MILL CREEK.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1901041000950100
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
MILL CREEK INDUSTRIAL PARK
TOTAL
$21,717.38
$21,717.38
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2901019000199929
DEVELOPER-MILL CREEK
TOTAL
$21,717.38
$21,717.38
Item 5.1e. Appropriation: FY 1996-97 Capital Improvements Program
Appropriation Ordinance and Resolution of Official Intent for use of Virginia
Public School Authority (VPSA) Bond proceeds.
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
000050
It was noted in the staff's report that the FY 1996-97 Capital Improve-
ment budget was approved by the Board on April 10, 1996, in the amount of
$25,339,827; $2,075,442 to the General Government Capital Fund; $23,154,385 to
the School Division Capital Improvement Fund; and $110,000 to the Stormwater
Capital Improvement Fund. The Ordinance appropriates a total Capital Improve-
ment Budget of $25,789,827; an increase of $450,000 over the approved budget
due to the addition of $450,000 in capital project debt service reserve funds
approved by the Board in the FY 1996-97 operating budget. These funds will be
transferred into the General Government Capital Fund as a reserve against
unanticipated capital needs or increased debt service costs. With the
additional $450,000, appropriated funds in the FY 1996-97 General Government
Capital Fund will total $2,525,442.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following
Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Capital improvements Program for the
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1997; and the Resolution of Official Intent to
Reimburse Expenditures for Various Public Improvements with Proceeds of Bonds:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1997
AN ORDINANCE making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary
expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1997; to prescribe the provisos,
terms, conditions and provisions with respect to the items of appropriation
and their payment; and to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this
ordinance and all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of
such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FI/ND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as
follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1997:
Paragraph One: ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS
$298,850
1. County Technology Upgrade $180,000
2. County Office Building Maintenance/Replacement 118,850
$298,850
Paragraph Two: FIRE~ RESCUE AND SAFETY
$322,295
1o Fire/Rescue Building and Equipment Fund $250,000
2. Police Department Computer System 72,295
$322,295
Paragraph Three: HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
$561,000
1. Revenue Sharing Road Program $500,000
2. Route 29 North Landscaping 11,000
3. Ivy Road Bike Lanes 50,000
$561,000
Paragraph Four: LIBRARIES
$68,500
Maintenance/Replacement Projects
$68,500
$68,500
Paragraph Five: PARKS AND RECREATION
$824,797
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.
10.
11.
12.
ADA Compliance at Parks
ADA Compliance on School Playgrounds
Outdoor Recreation Project Completion
Walnut Creek Park Improvements
Towe Park Recreation Improvements
Chris Greene/Mint Springs Security
Crozet Park Improvements
Swimming Beach Playground Structures
$80,278
89,375
49,600
75,000
143,144
20,000
150,000
30,000
Scottsville Community Center Outdoor Improvements 55,400
Rivanna Greenway Access and Path 75,000
County Land Athletic Field Study 20,000
Maintenance Replacement Projects 37,000
$824,797
Paragraph Six: CAPITAL PROJECTS RESERVE
$450,000
Capital Projects/Debt Service Reserve $450,000
$450,000
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
000051
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Appropriations for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1997:
$2~525,442
To be provided as follows:
Transfer from General Fund $1,956,600
Transfer from General Fund Capital Projects Reserve 450,000
CIP Fund Balance 118,842
$2,525,442
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Resources available for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1997:
$2,525,442
SECTION II SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
from the SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FI/ND for the purposes herein
specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1997:
Paragraph One: EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION)
$23,154,385
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Crozet Addition
CATEC ADA Compliance
AHS Phase II & III Restorations
Woodbrook Renovation/Addition
New High School
Cale Addition
Brownsville Renovations/Addition
Stony Point Renovations/Addition
Technology Projects
Vehicular Maintenance Facility Reconfiguration
WAHS Building Renovations
Chiller Replacement
Avon Street/Route 20 Connector
Henley Addition
Technology Education Labs
$856,890
14,000
539,000
2,045,550
9,800,000
859,000
1,461,470
1,180,000
1,009,600
17,500
1,894,135
118,000
1,399,300
185,000
550,000
New High School Community Recreation Facilities 275,000
Maintenance/Replacement Projects 949,940
$23,154,385
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Appropriations for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1997:
$23,154,385
TO be provided as follows:
Transfer from General Fund
Interest Earned
VPSA Bonds
Transfer from Split Billing Reserve
$669,900
100,000
5,884,485
16,500,000
$23,154,385
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Resources available for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1997:
$23,154,385
SECTION III - STORMWATER FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
from the STORMWATER FUND for stormwater improvement purposes herein specified
to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
Paragraph One: STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS
1. County Master Drainage Plan
2. Transfer to Drainage/Erosion Correction
$60,000
50,000
$110,000
SUMMARY
Total STORMWATER FUND
Appropriations for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1997:
To be provided as follows:
Transfer from the General Fund
Stormwater Fund Balance
$60,000
50,000
$~10,000
$110,000
$110,000
Total STORMWATER FUND
Resources available for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1997: $110,000
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
000052
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I - III IN THIS ORDINANCE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1997
RECAPITULATION
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS
$25,789,827
Section I General Government Improvements Fund $2,525,442
Section II School Division Capital Improvements Fd 23,154,385
Section III Stormwater Fund 110,000
$25,789,827
GRAND TOTAL
$25,789,827
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized
to transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies
become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made
to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation ordinance.
SECTION IV
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in
Sections I, II and III are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions,
and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those
set forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appropri-
ations are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropria-
tions--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the
amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate
revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appro-
priations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full.
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such
proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is
to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal
year bV the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of
Supervisors included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund
budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the
said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent
of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these
agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an
appropriation.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual
services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or
individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by
requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for
items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required;
and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving
the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but
such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department,
bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or
Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing
such competitive bids on the basis of specifications furnished by the con-
tracting department, bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required
for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action
of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obliqations incurred contrary to the purchasinq procedures pre-
scribed in the Albemarle County Purchasinq Manual shall not be considered
obliqations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any
warrants in payment of such obliqations.
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by
any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the
Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on
account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automo-
biles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate
as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be
subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates.
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
000053 ·
Paragraph Five
All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to
regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Six
All ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions
of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Seven
This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred
and ninety-six.
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FOR
VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROCEEDS OF BONDS
WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
(the "County"), intends to undertake various improvements to its public school
system as described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the County intends to pay costs of the Project prior to the
issuance of the Bonds, as hereinafter defined, and to receive reimbursement
for such expenditures from proceeds of the sale of the Bonds[
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY:
(1)
The County intends to finance the Project through the issuance of
bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,884,485 (the "Bonds").
(2)
(3)
The County intends to receive reimbursement from proceeds of the
sale of the Bonds for costs of the Project paid by the County
prior to the issuance of the Bonds.
The County intends that the adoption of this resolution be consid-
ered as "official intent" within the meaning of Treasury Regula-
tions Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended.
PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Exhibit A
Description Amount
1. Crozet Addition $856,890
2. AMS Phase II & III Restorations $539,000
3. Woodbrook Renovation/ Addition $2,045,550
4. Brownsville Renovation/ Addition $1,263,045
5. Stony Point Renovations/ Addition $1,180,000
$5,884,485
Item 5.2a. Proclamation: May, 1996, as Multiple Sclerosis Awareness
Month.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Proclamation was
adopted:
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AWARENESS MONTH
Recognizing and Commemorating the Fiftieth Year
of the Incorporation of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society
and
Honoring its Founder, Sylvia Lawry
WHEREAS, Multiple Sclerosis is the most common disabling
neurological disease of young adults in this country, affecting
one-third of a million nationwide, and more than 1600 in Western
Virginia alone; and
WHEREAS, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has provid-
ed more than $189.0 million for biomedical research and fellowship
grants in the past fifty years; and
WHEREAS, the Blue Ridge Chapter of the National Multiple
Sclerosis Society provides a wide range of client services in the
areas of health, knowledge and independence throughout Western
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, research advances have now brought us closer than
ever to finding a cause and a means of preventing Multiple Sclero-
sis and arresting its progress;
000054
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we pause in our delib-
erations to recognize and commemorate the month of May Nineteen
Hundred Ninety-Six as Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month in honor
of Sylvia Lawry and the achievements of the National Multiple
Sclerosis Society in helping individuals living with Multiple
Sclerosis, and to encourage the National Multiple Sclerosis
Society in the pursuit of its mission of advancing the cure,
prevention and treatment of Multiple Sclerosis and improving the
lives of those affected by this devastating disease;
AND FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution,
suitably engrossed, be transmitted to the Blue Ridge Chapter of
the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
Item 5.2b. Proclamation: May 13-19, 1996, as Senior Center Week.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Proclamation was
adopted:
SENIOR CENTER WEEK
WHEREAS, older Americans are significant members of our
society, investing their wisdom and experience to help enrich and
better the lives of younger generations; and
WHEREAS, the Senior Center, Inc., and the Jefferson Area
Board for Aging have acted as catalysts for mobilizing the cre-
ativity, energy, vitality and commitment of the older residents of
Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, through the wide array of services, programs and
activities, Senior Centers empower older citizens of the County of
Albemarle to contribute to their own health and well-being and the
health and well-being of their fellow citizens of all ages; and
WHEREAS, the Senior Center, Inc., and the Jefferson Area
Board for Aging in the County of Albemarle affirm the dignity,
self-worth and independence of older persons by facilitating their
decisions and actions; tapping their experience, skills and
knowledge; and enabling their continued contributions to the
community;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, on
behalf of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, do hereby proclaim
MAY 13 through MAY 19, 1996, as
SENIOR CENTER WEEK
and call upon all citizens to recognize the special contributions
of the Senior Center, Inc., and the Jefferson Area Board for Aging
participants, and the special efforts of the staff and volunteers
who work every day to enhance the well-being of the older citizens
of our community.
Item 5.2c. Proclamation: May 19-25, 1996, as Industry Appreciation
Week.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Proclamation was
adopted:
INDUSTRY APPRECIATION WEEK
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is blessed with a strong
base of large employers; and
WHEREAS, these employers provide much needed jobs for the
citizens of the County of Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, these same employers provide local taxes from which
the entire local citizenry benefit; and
WHEREAS, our community also benefits greatly from the many
volunteer activities and charitable contributions so generously
provided by these employers; and
WHEREAS, we recognize and appreciate these important facts;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Charlotte Y.
Humphris, Chairman, on behalf of the Board of County Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby salutes its existing employ-
ment base and gives notice to the citizens that Virginia indus-
tries are building a better Commonwealth;
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
000055
AND, FURTHER, recognizes the week of
May 19 through May 25, 1996, as
INDUSTRY APPRECIATION WEEK.
Item 5.3. Authorize Chairman to sign well dedication document for Chris
Greene Lake.
It was noted in the staff's report that the FY 1995-96 Parks and
Recreation Capital Improvements Program includes funding for a new well at
Chris Greene Lake to be located near the bathhouse. Because this will be a
public water supply, the Health Department requires that the County record a
dedication document for the well lot for the purpose of protecting the water
supply from contamination. The well lot is 100 feet by 100 feet as shown on
the plat. The County Attorney's office has reviewed and approved the well
dedication document. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman
to execute the document.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Chairman was authorized to sign
the following document:
WELL DEDICATION
THE COIYNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA does dedicate a 100'x 100'
portion of that tract or parcel of real estate situated, lying and
being in Albemarle County, Virginia, more particularly described
by deed and plat of survey of record in Deed Book 423, Page 114,
Plat 423, Page 119, of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia, and being the identical real estate
which said COUNTY acquired by grant with General Warranty of Title
and Modern English covenants from Virginia Resorts Inc. Said
dedication being to establish the aforesaid area, described on the
attached plat plan as well lot, for water supply use only and the
said COUNTY agrees that only appurtenances pertinent to the water
supply system will be constructed in said area dedicated and that
said well lot will not be used for human habitation or other
sources of contamination.
The full interest and control of the aforesaid area dedicated
shall remain with the COUNTY and this instrument is solely for the
purpose of assuring the Department of Health of the Commonwealth
of Virginia as to the matters hereinabove set forth so long as
said parcel is used for a water supply system; and this dedication
shall be null and void and of no further effect should the well on
the said premises be abandoned and the use thereof for a water
supply system cease.
Item 5.4. Appointment to the Jefferson Health Council of the Northwest-
ern Virginia Health Systems Agency (NWVHSA).
In a memorandum dated April 17, 1996, Mr. Tucker indicates that Ms.
Margaret P. King, Executive Director of the NWVHSA,~is requesting that the
Board appoint a representative from the County to their Council membership.
Several County residents currently serve on this Council, but are not official
appointees from the County of Albemarle. Mr. Jim Heilman has been the
County's representative on this agency board but is unable to attend all of
the meetings due to various conflicts. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board
consider appointing Mr. John Harlan as the County's representative on this
agency's board effective immediately.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board appointed Mr. John Harlan
as the County's representative to the Jefferson Health Council of the North-
western Virginia Health Systems Agency effective this date.
Item 5.5. Order advertisement of a public hearing to convey ownership
of Lot 38A1 (TMP 45C-01-0E-38) in Woodbrook to the School Board.
It was noted in the staff's report that architects have completed the
schematic design for an addition to Woodbrook Elementary School. The most
efficient design would require one corner of the addition to encroach into the
zoning setback at the rear of the school. At the property line between the
school site and Lot 38A1 this lot is approximately one-third acre zoned R-2,
which is owned by Albemarle County, and was designated a well, or water supply
lot. It is no longer used for that purpose because the school and subdivision
are now served by public water. The benefits of transferring ownership of Lot
38A1 from Local Government to the School Board are as follows:
It would provide the necessary setback and eliminate
the necessity for the Board of Zoning Appeals to
review and approve the encroachment into the zoning
setback.
Fire trucks must have access, by way of an eighteen
foot wide fire lane, for fire truck access to the rear
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
000056
of the school building. If the lot is not made avail-
able, easements will have to be obtained from adjacent
homeowners to permit fire trucks to cross their prop-
erty.
Recreation and play areas lost to the new building
addition could be mitigated/restored by the acquisi-
tion of Lot 38A1. The lot is currently being used as
a playground area by the school and community, and for
school storage buildings.
Staff recommends that a public hearing be advertised for June 5, 1996,
to consider conveying ownership of Lot 38A, Deed Book 417-Page 413, from the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to the Albemarle County School Board.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board ordered the advertisement
of a public hearing to convey ownership of Lot 38A1 (TMP 45C-01-0E-38) in
Woodbrook to the School Board.
Item 5.6. Authorize Certificate of Approval and Adopt Resolution for
Virginia Housing Development Authority (Vt{DA) mortgage loan for moderate
income housing renovation project at Linnwood Development.
It was noted in the staff's report that Mr. Mark Wolf, President of Wolf
Property Corporation, has received approval for a VHDA multi-family loan for
$90,000 to renovate 16 single-family detached rental units in a development
called Linnwood, originally built by himself and others in 1973. The VHDA
loan will be used to redo kitchens, baths, windows and water heaters in all 16
units. Utilizing the competitive loan from VHDA will, according to Mr. Wolf,
allow him to operate the units as moderate cost housing. The property is
located on White Rock Road one-half of a mile south of Charlottesville on
Route 20.
According to VHDA regulations, the County has the ability to disapprove
VHDA's loan to Mr. Wolf on two conditions: 1) that it is not in compliance
with zoning/land use regulations; or 2) that it is not consistent with the
CHAS (the County's adopted Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy). The
Housing Coordinator has verified that the proposed project is consistent with
the CHAS in promoting the expansion of affordable rental housing and the
Zoning Administrator has verified that the development, although not on two-
acre lots, is lawfully nonconforming since the development predates current
zoning and is, therefore, grandfathered. Staff recommends adopting a Certifi-
cate of Approval and Resolution approving the use of VHDA's Multi-Family Loan
Program funds for the Linnwood project.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution was
adopted:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring
that decent, safe and sanitary housing is available for all its
residents; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 36-55.39.B of the Code of
Virginia, the County has been notified that the Virginia Housing
Development Authority (VHDA) is considering financing a housing
renovation project at "Linnwood Development"; and
WHEREAS, VHDA's Multi-Family Loan Program funds will be used
to upgrade 16 single-family detached rental units to be operated
as moderate cost housing for Albemarle County citizens; and
WHEREAS, the renovation project is consistent with land use
regulations applicable to nonconformities; and
WHEREAS, the renovation project is consistent with the
County's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of County Supervisors approves the use of Vt{DA funds for the
renovation of the Linnwood development project.
Item 5.7. Restroom Access for Youth Sport Programs at School Athletic
Fields°
It was noted in the staff's report that at the April 3, 1996, Board
meeting~ Mr. Martin voiced a concern over the lack of outdoor restroom access
for youth sport participants and parents at the Hollymead and Sutherland
school sites. Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, responded
that restroom access is a problem at nearly all of the school fields being
used by various youth leagues. After a short discussion of various alterna-
tives, the Board directed Mr. Mullaney to look into how restroom access could
be provided at school fields.
May ir 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
oooo57
The Parks and Recreation Department has contacted all of the schools
regarding this issue. Currently outdoor restroom access is provided only at
the Albemarle High School and Burley Middle School baseball fields. The
discussions with school principals revolved around whether it would be better
to provide access to indoor facilities and gate off the rest of the school, or
to provide portable toilets. All of the principals cited concerns about
security, vandalism, and clean up of indoor restrooms, whether or not they
were gated off from the rest of the school. Also there were concerns about
how the new school alarm systems would complicate access to indoor restrooms.
In all, fifteen principals were contacted and all preferred portable toilets
to providing indoor access. The primary concern mentioned about portable
toilets was their appearance. Portable toilets are expensive. An accessible
unit serviced once per week would cost $95 per month. Currently there are
seventeen sites that are being used regularly for practice or games. Provid-
ing these units would cost $1615 per month. The youth sports season covers
about nine months per year for an annual cost of $14,535. A few sites may
require additional units and servicing more than once per week. Units would
need to be checked between servicing by either school or park personnel.
The Parks and Recreation Department also contacted the Soccer Organi-
zation for Charlottesville and Albemarle (SOCA), the largest field user. The
SOCA administrator agrees with the need for restroom access and would be
willing to build that cost into the registration fee in future seasons. It is
interesting to note that SOCA would prefer portable toilets to indoor access,
due to the potential for problems that could create friction between the
schools and SOCA.
Staff recommendation is to begin providing portable toilets at the sites
during the fall season. The cost of the toilets, as much as possible, should
be passed to the youth athletic organizations using the fields, perhaps as a
requirement of the field use approval process. The Parks and Recreation
Department's role should be to reach agreement with the individual principals
on the location of the units and provide an acceptable method of screening.
Details of the responsibility for checking on units between servicing will
need to be worked out.
It should be a long term goal of the Parks and Recreation Department to
work toward constructing year-round outdoor restroom facilities at County
school sites in order to maximize the use of the sites as community and
district parks. Such improvements should be requested in the Capital Improve-
ments Budget and examined against other County funding priorities. Major
multi-use game and practice sites such as Hollymead and Sutherland, Henley and
Brownsville, and Jouett and Greer, should receive higher priority for funding
than lesser used game or practice sites. If the Board concurs with this
approach, through action of your consent agenda, staff will begin implementa-
tion of this strategy.
By the recorded vote set out above, the staff's recommendation was
approved.
Item 5.8. Adopt Resolution directing the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission (TJPDC) to apply for and manage state welfare reform
planning.
It was noted in the staff's report that Mrs. Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive
Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), had
forwarded a memorandum outlining the efforts of a planning group for welfare
reform. This group is composed of Social Services directors and locally
elected officials from each jurisdiction in Planning District Ten. State
funds in the amount of $50,000 are available to the economic development
districts across the state to plan for welfare reform. The TJPDC is eligible
to apply for these funds, and the planning group has recommended that TJPDC
manage these funds as fiscal agent for the six jurisdictions. Staff recom-
mends adoption of the appropriate resolution.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution was
adopted:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the localities in the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District are preparing for community welfare reform; and
WHEREAS, the regional nature of employment and the economy
is important to the success of reform in the area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the counties of
Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Nelson and Louisa are committed to
working together to develop a successful strategy for welfare
reform in their localities and throughout the region; and
WHEREAS, the area is aware of the possibility of planning
funds from the State Department of Social Services.
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
000058
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the aforementioned
localities agree to work together in planning for welfare reform;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the aforementioned localities
designate the Thomas Jefferson Planning District as the coordina-
tor and fiscal agent for the planning; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the aforementioned localities direct
the Commission staff to apply for and manage the state planning
funds.
Item 5.9. Authorize Chairman to sign letter requesting disaster
designation for Albemarle County vineyards.
It was noted in the staff's report that the Virginia Cooperative
Extension Service has alerted the County that fifty percent to ninety percent
of the grape crop for the current year has been lost to the extreme low
temperatures encountered during the recent winter. Mr. Charles W. Goodman,
Extension Agent, Agriculture, Virginia Cooperative Extension, estimates that
this will result in a $20,000 to $60,000 loss this year for most of the
vineyards in the County.
Governor George Allen will be filing for a Declaration of Disaster of
Virginia vineyards on May 5, 1996, and would like to have the support of
boards of supervisors in counties with vineyards which have suffered losses.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign a letter to the
Governor.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the Chairman to
sign the requested letter.
Item 5.10. Approve $3750 for the County's local match for a Criminal
Justice Planner for the Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) .
It was noted in the staff's report that the Jefferson Area Community
Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) serves the eight jurisdictions of the 16th
Judicial District, plus Nelson County. It was approved by the Board of
Supervisors in March, 1995, to begin planning and coordinating criminal
justice issues and programs for the region. Although the CCJB had requested a
planner position in their original grant request to the State, the position
was not initially funded. When federal funding became available through the
State Department of Criminal Justice Services, the local CCJB again submitted
a request and this time was funded for a criminal justice planner. The
planner position will begin July 1, 1996, and will be supervised by the
Albemarle County Commonwealth's Attorney.
To receive the total $59,000 grant award, the CCJB must match it with
twenty-five percent or $14,750. To date, $6000 has been committed by the
localities of Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison and Orange, $1000 from
Goochland, and $500 from Nelson. They are requesting the remainder of $7500
from the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Staff recommends
approval of the local match in the amount of $3750 for the criminal justice
planner. If the Board approves the additional $3750, it can be deducted from
the Board's FY 1996-97 reserve fund and added to the FY 1996-97 Appropriation
Ordinance to be approved in June. Approval at this time will allow the CCJB
to proceed with hiring plans.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved $3750 for the
County's local match for a Criminal Justice Planner for the Cormnunity Criminal
Justice Board (CCJB).
Item 5.11. Order advertisement of public hearing to consider the
discontinuance of a portion of Route 782 (Stribling Avenue Extended).
It was noted in the staff's report that on January 4, 1995, the Board of
Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to abandon a portion of Route 782
if certain conditions were met. At that time, the City Planning Commission
had not approved the abandonment because of opposition from adjacent landown-
ers. In general, the opposition was to the total abandonment of the road
without the possibility of any future public use. The adjacent parcels in the
City could not be developed until the road, one-half of which is located in
the County, is improved to VDoT's standards. For these reasons the abandon-
ment was never completed. Currently, there are no plans in the City or County
to improve Route 782. Staff met with legal representatives from the City,
University, and the County to determine what alternative method could be used
that would allow for adjacent landowners and the public to continue using the
road.
As a result, staff has pursued a discontinuance, pursuant to Code of
Virginia, Section 33.1-150. This section is used when it is determined that a
road no longer serves a public convenience. The road remains a public roadway
until it is abandoned. However, if a road is discontinued, Section 33.1-152.1
allows for it to be used by the public for purposes such as hiking, bicycle
000059
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
trail, and paths for other non-vehicular transportation and recreation
purposes. If, in the future, there are plans to improve Route 782 to VDoT's
standards, the road can be returned to the state-maintained system. Route
782's discontinued status meets the needs of the County, VDoT, City and the
University Real Estate Foundation, which has assumed the responsibility of
removing debris from illegal dumping activities and erecting barriers to
prevent all terrain vehicles' activities. The University Real Estate Founda-
tion (I/REF) has proposed constructing a gate at each entrance which will
prevent vehicular access, but will allow pedestrian access. City and County
fire officials and emergency officials do not oppose the gate. They, as well
as utility officials and a local farmer who needs continued access for
agricultural purposes, will be given keys to the gate.
The City Council adopted a resolution supporting the discontinuance at
its November 20, 1995, meeting. VDoT approves of this status. UREF has
agreed to maintain the current roadway in a "greenway~'' type environment. This
also fits into the City's plans for a system of greenbelt connections along
creeks throughout the City.
If the Board agrees with staff's recommendation, the Board will ask the
Commonwealth Transportation Board to discontinue maintenance for a portion of
Route 782. Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing to consider
discontinuance of Route 782 for June 5, 1996.
By the recorded vote set out above, a public hearing was set for June 5,
1996, to consider discontinuance of Route 782.
Item 5.12. Adopt proposed revision to Drug and Alcohol Policy (Person-
nel Policy-06).
It was noted in the staff's report that passage of the Omnibus Transpor-
tation Employee Testing Act of 1991 (Omnibus Act) requires employers with less
than fifty personnel engaged in driving commercial vehicles to implement a
drug and alcohol testing program. Employers with more than fifty personnel,
such as the school division, implemented this act on January 1, 1995. The
County has had a drug and alcohol policy in support of the Drug Free Workplace
Act of 1988 that is still applicable to all employees and stipulates testing
requirements for certain "safety-related" personnel.
The new legislation expands the coverage and testing requirements for
specific personnel. The Omnibus Act applies to drivers required to have a
commercial drivers license (CDL) and who operate vehicles in excess of 26,000
pounds gross vehicle weight or vehicles designed to carry sixteen or more
passengers (including the driver), or vehicles of any size, which are engaged
in the transportation of hazardous materials. Some personnel in the Parks and
Recreation and Engineering departments will be affected by the more expansive
requirements of the Omnibus Act.
The Act requires pre-employment testing, post-accident testing, random
testing, reasonable suspicion testing, return-to-duty testing, and follow-up
testing and also specifies extensive regulations for the implementation of the
Act which are reflected in the proposed policy revision.
The proposed revision implements the provisions of both the Drug Free
Workplace Act and the Omnibus Act into one policy. While personnel covered by
the Omnibus Act (i.e., people with CDLs) will be subject to all the testing
scenarios noted above, other personnel in safety-related positions will be
subject to only the pre-employment and reasonable suspicion testing, and
lastly, personnel who are not in either a CDL position or a "safety-related"
position will only be subject to reasonable suspicion testing. Staff recom-
mends the Board adopt the revisions to Personnel Policy P-06.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following
revisions to the Drug and Alcohol Free Workplace Policy (Personnel Policy
P-06).
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PERSONNEL POLICY
§ P-06
Alcohol/Druq Free Workplace
Albemarle County has a vital interest in maintaining a safe,
healthful, and productive environment for its employees. The use
of alcohol or illegal drugs, or unlawful use of prescription drugs
undermines the quality of job performance, endangers co-workers
and brings discredit to the County.
The County will not tolerate the possession or use of
illegal drugs, alcohol, or the unlawful use of prescription drugs
by its employees in any job-related context and is committed to
the eradication of such substances from the workplace. This
policy is not intended to prevent employees from participating in
social functions outside of County facilities where alcohol may be
served. The improper use of alcohol or the use of illegal drugs,
or the unauthorized use of prescription drugs undermines the
May 1~ 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
000060
quality of job performance, endangers co-workers and brings
discredit to the County. For purposes of this regulation, "ille-
gal drugs" shall mean any controlled substance, or imitation
controlled substance, whose unauthorized manufacture, distribu-
tion, dispensing, possession, consumption, use, or sale is prohib-
ited by federal or state law. "Unauthorized use of prescription
drugs" means use of a drug by anyone other than the person for
whom the drug was prescribed, or in any manner that is prohibited
by federal or state laws.
Any County employee determined to have violated this policy
will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dis-
missal.
Ail County employees shall be responsible for reporting any
evidence of the use of drugs or alcohol by staff to their depart-
ment head. All such reports shall be thoroughly investigated and
reported to the County Executive or designee and appropriate
action will be taken as necessary.
The Board will not tolerate any violation of the law and, in
accordance with the law, will fully support any employee who, in
good faith and with probable cause acts to report the activities
of other employees as they relate to the use of alcohol or drugs
on County property.
In order to comply with federal laws:
a)
Under the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988, the County
requires that an employee notify the employer of any
criminal drug statute conviction for a violation
occurring in the workplace no later than five days
after such conviction. Failure to notify the County
of drug-related convictions is grounds for dismissal.
The County must notify any federal contracting agency
within 10 days of having received notice that an
employee engaged in the performance of such contract
has had any criminal drug statute conviction for a
violation occurring in the workplace. The County will
impose a sanction on any employee who is so convicted.
b)
Under the U.S. Department of Transportation final
rules implementing the Omnibus Transportation Employee
Testing Act of 1991, Albemarle County is required to
establish a program to conduct pre-employment/pre-
duty, reasonable suspicion, random and post-accident
alcohol and controlled substances testing of each
applicant for employment or employee who is required
to obtain a commercial drivers' license (CDL). The
effective date of this program is January 1, 1996.
Duties, Responsibilities, and Riqhts of Employees
I. PURPOSE
To provide guidelines for establishment of an alcohol- and
drug-free workplace and to set out the County's drug and
alcohol testing program.
II. APPLICABILITY
This regulation applies to all employees. Federal law
provides standards for creating a workplace free of illegal
drugs with the passage of the Drug Free Workplace Act of
1988. In addition, required standardized tests have been
established by the government with the passage of the Omni-
bus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 (Omnibus
Act) for employees who are drivers of commercial motor
vehicles. The County has exceeded these minimum require-
ments to establish and maintain a drug-free workplace for
all employees.
III. DEFINITIONS
Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV). A motor vehicle or combina-
tion of motor vehicles used in commerce to transport passen-
gers or property if the motor vehicle (1) has a gross combi-
nation weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds inclusive of a
towed unit with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than
10~000 pounds; or (2) has a gross vehicle weight rating of
26,001 or more pounds; (3) is designed to transport 16 or
more passengers, including the driver; or (4) is of any size
and is used in the transportation of hazardous materials
requiring placards. This includes all qualifying vehicles
in all departments.
Confirmation Test. A second alcohol test, following a
screening test to detect alcohol in an individual's system,
that provides quantitative data of alcohol concentration.
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
O000G .
For controlled substances, confirmation testing means a
second analytical procedure to identify the presence of a
specific drug or metabolite. Confirmatory drug testing is
independent of the screen test and uses a different tech-
nique and chemical principle from that of the screen test in
order to ensure reliability and accuracy.
Driver (CMV/CDL/. Any person who operates a commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) requiring a commercial drivers license
(CDL) or is in a position which requires a CDL as an eligi-
bility criteria because they must drive or be on call and
ready to drive if necessary. This includes full time, part
time, and temporary personnel. In every position requiring
a CDL, the employee is either driving or in a state of
readiness on call if required to drive. Drivers are subject
to drug and alcohol testing under both federal law and
Albemarle County policy. For purposes of pre-employ-
ment/pre-duty testing only, the term "driver" includes a
person applying to Albemarle County to drive a commercial
motor vehicle.
Medical Review Officer (MRO/. A licensed physician respon-
sible for receiving laboratory results generated by an
employer's drug testing program who has knowledge of sub-
stance abuse disorders and has appropriate medical training
to interpret and evaluate an individual's confirmed positive
test result together with his or her medical history and any
other relevant biomedical information.
Omnibus Transportation Employees Testinq Act of 1991. The
federal law that requires drug and alcohol testing of driv-
ers in various industries. By the authority of this Act,
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation (DOT) on February 15, 1994, has
published rules requiring employers to test each applicant
for employment or employee who is required to obtain a CDL
for the illegal use of alcohol and controlled substances.
For the Albemarle County General Government, compliance with
the law commences January 1, 1996.
Safety-Sensitive Function. An employee is performing a
safety-sensitive function whenever he/she is engaged in
driving a commercial motor vehicle (CDL required) or working
in any employment capacity which could affect the safe
operation of the vehicle and the safety and welfare of
others. This includes any period in which the employee is
actually performing, ready to perform, or immediately avail-
able to perform any safety-sensitive functions.
Screeninq Test. Also known as an initial test. In alcohol
testing, an analytical procedure to determine whether an
individual has a prohibited concentration of alcohol in his
or her system. In controlled substances testing, an immuno-
assay test on urine specimens to eliminate "negative" speci-
mens from further testing.
Split Sample Testinq. Division of the urine specimen in
controlled substance testing into two separate containers,
the primary specimen used for the screening test and the
split specimen used if the employee requests a second test
after being informed of a verified positive screening test.
IV. GUIDELINES
Ail employees are expected to adhere to the following guide-
lines as a condition of their employment with the County,
and any violation of this regulation, including a first
offense, may subject the employee to discipline, up to and
including dismissal from employment.
The manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession,
consumption, use, transportation or sale of illegal drugs at
any time and anywhere on County-property, at a County-spon-
sored function or event, or in any other manner while per-
forming duties or obligations incident to County employment
is strictly prohibited.
No employee shall report to work, perform assigned duties,
or otherwise engage in County business in the community,
with detectable amounts of alcohol, illegal drugs, unautho-
rized prescription drugs, or illegal drug metabolites in his
or her system. Whether the employee has alcohol, illegal
drugs, unauthorized prescription drugs, or illegal drug
metabolites in his or her system shall be determined in
accordance with medically established standards for detect-
able amounts of these substances.
The only limited exception to the foregoing pertains to
employees who are not on an official on-call roster and who
000062
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
are called in to work outside their normal duty hours to
perform emergency or unscheduled work. No such employee
will be disciplined for off-duty consumption of alcohol that
results in reporting to duty with alcohol in his or her
system so long as the employee first reports that consump-
tion of alcohol to the supervisor making the work request
prior to the commencement of any work activity.
EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE
Early recognition and treatment of alcohol and drug abuse
are essential to successful rehabilitation. The County
maintains an employee assistance program known as Employee
Assistance Program (EAP) to assist employees with alcohol
and drug abuse problems as well as with other personal
problems. The EAP will assist employees with these problems
and will also make referrals to appropriate treatment pro-
grams.
Employees voluntarily seeking assistance for a substance
abuse problem through the EAP or a medical source will not
be disciplined as a result of their disclosure of prior drug
or alcohol use, and treatment by the EAP or another source
will be handled in confidence. An employee may not avoid
discipline for violation of this regulation by participating
in a treatment program unless he or she does the following:
1. Volunteers for such treatment prior to being confront-
ed by a manager or supervisor with the violation of
this regulation.
2. Successfully adheres to requirements of and completes
the prescribed treatment program.
3. Does not thereafter engage in conduct violating this
regulation regarding use of alcohol, illegal drugs,
and unauthorized prescription drugs.
In the case of employees returning to work after successful
completion of a treatment program, the County reserves the
right to test for drug and/or alcohol use, on a random or
periodic basis in accordance with procedures for return to
duty testing in section VIII.B.2. of this regulation.
The County shall establish a drug-free awareness program to
inform all employees about the dangers of drug abuse in the
workplace and that the maintenance of a drug-free workplace
is the County's goal. The awareness program shall identify
counseling and rehabilitation programs and shall emphasize
the penalties for employees' violating this policy and its
administrative procedures.
VI. ALCOHOL
Reporting for Duty--All Employees
No employee shall report for duty or remain on duty
while having detectable amounts of alcohol of 0.02
breath alcohol content (BAC) or higher in his or her
system. Albemarle County will test for alcohol using
an evidential breath testing device (EBT) approved by
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA). Any supervisor who has actual knowledge that
an employee has violated this regulation and permits
the employee to work will be in violation of this
regulation except in reference to section V, paragraph
five.
Testing Procedure
Upon entering the test location, the employee will be
asked to provide positive identification with photo-
graph (example--driver's license or employer identifi-
cation badge) to the breath alcohol technician (BAT).
The employee and the BAT will complete the Breath
Testing Form distributed at the test site and follow
required testing procedures. Providing incomplete
information (except a social security number), engag-
ing in conduct that obstructs the testing process or
failing to sign the required certifications may be
regarded as a refusal to take the alcohol test and may
constitute just cause for dismissal from employment.
At the completion of the screening test, the results
will be shown to the employee. If the result of the
screening test shows evidence of detectable alcohol
concentration, a confirmation test will be performed
within specified time limits. If detectable amounts
of alcohol of 0.02 BAC or higher are verified in the
confirmation test, the employee will be in violation
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
000063
of this regulation. An individual with a verified
positive confirmation test may not leave the test site
without approval from the attending physician or
designee.
If a screening or confirmation test cannot be complet-
ed, or an event occurs that would invalidate the test,
the BAT will conduct a new screening or confirmation
test, as applicable. In the event that an employee
attempts and fails to provide an adequate amount of
breath, the employee will be required to submit to a
blood test.
At the conclusion of testing, copies of the Breath
Alcohol Testing form will be retained by the testing
location, provided to the employee, and transmitted in
a confidential manner to the Director of Human Re-
sources, or designee. If the test results are posi-
tive, the results will be reviewed by the Director of
Human Resources who will in turn notify the employing
department head/designee to determine what action
would be appropriate.
VII. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
Reporting for Duty--Ail Employees
No employee shall report for duty or remain on duty
having used c9ntrolled substances except when the use
is authorized as prescribed medicine by the attending
licensed physician who has advised the employee that
the substance does not adversely affect the employee's
work performance. Any supervisor who has actual
knowledge that an employee has used an illegal drug
and permits the employee to work will be in violation
of this regulation.
A finding that an employee has a positive drug test
results when the initial screen test and a confirma-
tion test provide evidence of one or more of the
following substances in the system: cocaine, marijua-
na, opiates, amphetamines and phencyclidine.
Reporting for Duty--Drivers (CMV/CDL)
In addition to the requirements in Section VII.A.,
drivers of commercial motor vehicles taking over-the-
counter or prescribed medications shall be responsible
for knowing the effects of such medication. They
shall not drive or perform other duties under the
influence of prescription or over-the-counter drugs
that could impair their ability to perform their
duties safely. They shall be responsible for not
working when under prescribed or over-the-counter
medication that might impair their ability to perform
their duties safely.
Testing Procedure--All Employees
For controlled substances testing, employees report to
a specified test location where a urine sample is
collected and subject to the split sample testing
procedure. If the employee is unable to provide the
specified quantity of urine, the employee will be
instructed to drink not more than 24 ounces of fluid
and wait up to two hours to provide another sample.
If a complete sample still cannot be provided, the
Medical Review Officer (MRO) will refer the employee
for a medical evaluation to determine if the inability
to provide a specimen is genuine or constitutes a
refusal to test and then report the findings in writ-
ing to the Department of Human Resources.
Strict chain of custody procedures will be followed as
the samples are forwarded to the laboratory. If the
primary specimen is verified positive, the MRO will
notify the employee who can request that the split
specimen be tested at the employee's expense at a
different Department of Health and Human Services'
certified laboratory. The employee must make the
request within 72 hours of notification by the MRO.
If the result of the test of the split specimen fails
to reconfirm the presence of the drug(s) or drug
metabolites found in the primary specimen, the MRO
shall cancel the original test results and the cost of
the split sample test will be borne by the employer.
Upon learning that the MRO is attempting to contact
the employee, the employee must respond by calling the
000O64
May i, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
MRO within 24 hours of receipt of notification to call
or be in violation of this regulation.
If the employee does not contact the MRO within the 72
hours as required, the employee may present informa-
tion to the MRO documenting a legitimate explanation
for the employee's failure to contact the MRO within
the 72 hours. The MRO may determine to honor the
employee's request to test the split specimen. The
MRO's decision to permit further testing is final.
Test results shall be confidential and will be report-
ed directly to the employee, the Director of Human
Resources, or designee, and upon request, to the U.S.
Department of Transportation in the case of drivers of
commercial motor vehicles. If the test results are
positive, the results will be reviewed by the Director
of Human Resources who will in turn notify the employ-
ing department head/designee to determine what action
would be appropriate.
VIII. TESTS REQUIRED
Testing shall be conducted by personnel designated by the
County. In general, the County shall pay the cost of re-
quired drug and alcohol testing, including screening and
confirmation tests for alcohol and primary specimen tests
for drugs. The County shall not pay if the employee's
initial testing indicates the need for further examinations
or consultation on a problem other than drug or alcohol use,
in which case the employee shall pay the cost of the addi-
tional tests or examination.
For Safety-Related Positions, Including Drivers
(CMV/CDL) pursuant to federal law and its own authori-
ty, Albemarle County will test personnel in safety-
related positions under the following circumstances:
1. Pre-employment/Pre-duty
Prior to the first time a new hire or current
employee is placed into a safety-related posi-
tion (including placement by way of lateral
transfer or promotion into a safety-related
position for a current employee), the person
shall be tested for alcohol and controlled sub-
stances and must be found to be in compliance
with sections VI. and VII. as well as other
applicable requirements of this policy.
Applicants offered positions requiring CDLS, as
a condition of employment, give written consent
to permit Albemarle County to contact all previ-
ous employers over the past two years to confirm
that the applicant's work history was free of
substance abuse, alcohol abuse, and positive
drug or alcohol test results. In addition,
applicants offered positions shall, as a condi-
tion of employment, provide written consent for
post-accident testing and release of test(s)
results to the County.
2. Post Accident-For Drivers (CMV/CDL)
While on duty, a driver of a commercial motor
vehicle who is involved in an accident must be
tested for alcohol and controlled substances as
soon as practicable following an accident and
found to be in compliance with Sections VI. and
VII. of this regulation. Post accident testing
will be required if (a) there is a fatality,
and/or (b) one or more persons requires medical
treatment away from the accident scene, and/or
(c) one of the vehicles must be towed from the
scene, and/or (d) the driver receives a citation
arising from the accident. Every reasonable
effort will be made to administer alcohol tests
within two hours of the accident. If a test has
not been performed within eight hours following
the accident, efforts to test will stop. Con-
trolled substance testing will stop if not per-
formed within 32 hours following the accident.
Supervisors are responsible to provide and for-
ward written documentation to the Department of
Human Resources any time alcohol testing is not
performed within two hours and drug testing is
not performed within 32 hours. Written documen-
tation should include the amount of time taken
between the accident and testing and the reason
for the delay.
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
000065
A driver who is subject to post accident testing
shall remain readily available at the accident
scene for testing following the accident until
he/she undergoes testing or he/she will be
deemed to have refused to submit to testing.
The only exception to this requirement applies
when the driver leaves temporarily to obtain
assistance in responding to the accident, to
obtain necessary medical care or is detained by
law enforcement personnel. Without supervisor
approval, an employee may not ingest food or
drink during the period prior to testing. Test-
ing conducted by federal, state, or local offi-
cials at the scene of the accident having inde-
pendent authority to conduct tests for alcohol
controlled substances shall meet the requirement
for post accident testing. Employees will be
required to consent to testing by such offi-
cials, and to release the results of such tests
to the County.
3. Random
Alcohol and controlled substance tests will be
conducted periodically on an unannounced basis
throughout the calendar year. Employees will be
randomly identified using a scientifically vali-
dated method and notified to report for testing
during the work year. Under this selection
process, each driver shall have an equal chance
of being tested each time selections are made.
Employees identified to be tested will report
directly and immediately to the test site when
notified by their supervisor. Otherwise, refus-
al to, or delay in, reporting immediately and
directly to the test site will be considered a
refusal to test and grounds for dismissal. If a
driver is off work due to illness, vacations,
leave of absence, layoff, injury, or for any
other reason, for more than 30 calendar days,
his or her name will be removed from the random
pool, and prior to returning to driving the pre-
duty testing provision of this regulation shall
apply.
For random alcohol testing, the minimum annual
percentage rate shall be 25 percent of all the
commercial motor vehicle drivers. This percent
may increase or decrease in any given year de-
pending on the violation rate as determined
annually for each industry by the Federal High-
way Administration (FHWA) in accordance with DOT
guidelines. Drivers will only be tested for
alcohol just before, during, or just after per-
forming safety-sensitive duties.
For random drug testing, the minimum annual
percentage rate shall be 50 percent of all the
commercial motor vehicle drivers. This rate for
controlled substances may change annually simi-
lar to the alcohol adjustments. Drivers will be
tested for controlled substances within 32 hours
of random selection.
B. For Ail Employees
Albemarle County will also test all employees in the follow-
ing situations pursuant to its own authority and, with
respect to drivers, the drug and alcohol testing regulations
issued by DOT and the FHWA.
1. Reasonable Suspicion
Upon reasonable suspicion of a violation of this
regulation, the employee may be tested for alco-
hol or drugs. Reasonable suspicion may be based
upon, but not limited to, the following: specif-
ic observation of actual use or possession of
alcohol or illegal drugs; physical symptoms of
having used those substances such as uncommon
speech or body odors; observation of abnormal
conduct or erratic behavior; or the receipt of
information when the nature of the information
suggests that the source was reliable and credi-
ble.
A supervisor trained to recognize signs of alco-
hol or drug use, shall make the necessary obser-
vations and review information provided regard-
O000GG
May 1, 1996 {Regular Day Meeting)
{Page 21
ing the reasonable suspicion that the employee
may be in violation of this regulation. If any
authorized supervisor or authorized representa-
tive from the Department of Human Resources
determines that reasonable suspicion exists, the
employee shall be directed to submit to testing
and be transported to the test site by the su-
pervisor or his or her designee. Without super-
visor approval an employee will not ingest food
or drink during the period prior to testing.
An employee directed to submit to alcohol or
drug testing shall be informed of the reason(s)
for the test and the fact that refusal to pro-
vide the specimen constitutes failure to obey a
direct order and is grounds for dismissal. The
supervisor and/or personnel representative shall
document the information communicated to the
employee and the evidence which constituted
reasonable suspicion within 24 hours of the
observed behavior or report of the incident or
before the results of the test are released,
whichever is earlier. At the employee's re-
quest, a copy of such documentation will be
provided to the employee by the Department of
Human Resources. All testing at a designated
medical facility will be administered by an
official in accordance with established medical
standards. For example, drug testing will be
performed using chain of custody procedures
along with confirmation testing and other safe-
guards.
The alcohol test shall not be performed more
than eight hours after the determination of
reasonable suspicion. Whenever an alcohol test
is not administered within the first two hours
upon determination of reasonable suspicion, a
record will be maintained which documents the
reason(s) for the delay and how long the delay
lasted.
2. Return to Duty/and Follow-Up Testing
A former driver (CMV/CDL), and other CDL desig-
nated personnel, dismissed for violations of
these regulations, who satisfactorily completes
a rehabilitation program prescribed, monitored,
and certified by a substance abuse professional
may reapply for employment and receive fair
consideration for all positions applied for
except those requiring a CDL. If selected, the
employee will be subject to a minimum of six
random unannounced follow-up alcohol and/or
controlled substances tests at County expense
during the first twelve months after employment.
In the event Albemarle County allows any other
employee to return to duty after engaging in
conduct which violates this regulation, he or
she will be sent to the EAP, as a condition of
employment, and may be required to be evaluated
by a substance abuse professional who shall
determine the employee needs in resolving prob-
lems associated with alcohol misuse and/or con-
trolled substance use. Evaluation criteria used
to determine if the employee may return to duty
shall include but not be limited to: level of
performance, years of service, previous conduct
violations, possession of unique skills, knowl-
edge and training, recommendation of a certified
substance abuse professional, if available, and
the safety-sensitive nature of the position.
Referral to the substance abuse professional
will be made through the Employee Assistance
Program (EAP). All follow-up testing will com-
ply with procedures as set forth in this regula-
tion.
IX. REMOVAL FROM DUTY
Employees will be removed from duty and placed on adminis-
trative leave with pay pending a final decision for disci-
plinary action. Employees will be advised of their viola-
tion, have an opportunity to respond to the charges against
them, and be notified in writing of the status of their
employment.
OOO067
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
The following circumstances, while not necessarily inclu-
sive~ require placing the employee on administrative leave
pending a final decision on the status of employment:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
refusal to be tested
confirmation of a positive test result
after an accident requiring testing
when reasonable cause has been established
when the behavior, speech, and performance indicators
of alcohol/drug misuse are impossible to confirm
reasonable suspicion with a test.
X. DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
Drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CDL required)
and other CDL designated personnel, who engage in any
of the following conduct will be terminated in accor-
dance with due process:
violate any of the foregoing rules regarding
manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, pos-
sessing, consuming, using, or selling drugs or
alcohol;
have drugs or alcohol in their systems in viola-
tion of this policy/regulation;
refuse to submit to or cooperate with drug
and/or alcohol testing which includes, but is
not limited to: a) tampering with or attempting
to adulterate the specimen or collection proce-
dure; b) not reporting directly and immediately
to the collection site; c) not accurately sign-
ing in and reporting the arrival and departure
times at the test site; and d) leaving the scene
of an accident without a valid reason before the
tests have been concluded;
Bo
fail to report their consumption of over-the-
counter or prescribed medication that could
impair their ability to perform their duties
safely; or
fail to report any drug or alcohol conviction or
charge as required by this regulation.
In addition, other employees may be subject to disci-
pline, up to and including discharge, even for a first
offense, if they:
violate any of the foregoing rules regarding
manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, pos-
sessing, consuming, using, or selling drugs or
alcohol;
Co
have drugs or alcohol in their systems in viola-
tion of this policy/regulation; or
3 o
refuse to submit to or cooperate with drug
and/or alcohol testing which includes, but is
not limited to: a) tampering with or attempting
to adulterate the specimen or collection proce-
dure; and b) not reporting directly and immedi-
ately to the collection site.
This regulation shall be administered consistently
with the County's obligations under federal, state,
and local laws/regulations. Recommendations for
disciplinary actions, including dismissal for viola-
tion of this regulation, will be consistent with
standard operating procedures to ensure that due
process is observed throughout all proceedings.
Disciplinary actions affecting employment status shall
be reviewed by the County Executive's office, Director
of Human Resources, or designee, before a final deci-
sion with respect to continued employment status or
disciplinary actions is reached. An employee who is
charged with a drug-related felony or convicted of any
criminal offense shall notify his or her immediate
supervisor who shall report the information to the
Director of Human Resources within five days of the
charge or arrest or prior to reporting for duty,
whichever is earlier. This requirement shall not
apply to an alcohol-related offense for employees
except for commercial motor vehicle drivers, and other
drivers required to maintain a CDL, and employees
whose position responsibilities include the operation
of a County vehicle:
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23
O000GS
XI.
XII.
XIII.
Employees Who Drive as Primary Occupation
If a County employee is charged with or convict-
ed of a motor vehicle offense involving alcohol,
illegal drugs or the misuse of legal drugs
whether in or outside of the workplace and their
position in the County requires driving as a
primary responsibility, they will be dismissed
from their employment in accordance with due
process. Upon being charged by legal authori-
ties, the employee will be suspended without pay
until the case is resolved. If the employee is
convicted, the employee will be dismissed effec-
tive the date he or she was originally suspend-
ed. If not convicted, the employee will be
reinstated with full pay retroactive to the date
of suspension.
Other County Employees
County employees whose primary occupation does
not involve driving and who are convicted of a
motor vehicle violation involving alcohol, ille-
gal drugs or the misuse of legal drugs will be
suspended from driving a County Vehicle for one
year from the date of conviction. Employees
convicted of such offenses must notify their
immediate supervisor of the conviction and will
be referred to the Employee Assistance Program
for counseling.
RECORD RETENTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY
Ail records and data relating to violations of this regula-
tion shall be maintained in a secure location with con-
trolled access by designated representatives in the Depart-
ment of Human Resources. Testing records for drivers of
commercial motor vehicles will be maintained in accordance
with rules and regulations of the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Test results shall be confidential and shall be communicated
to individuals other than the employee and the Department of
Human Resources staff only on a "need-to-know" basis, and
only with the approval of the Director of Human Resources
and, in appropriate cases, the employee. An employee is
entitled, upon written request, to obtain copies of any
records pertaining to the employee's use of alcohol or
controlled substances. Test results for drivers of commer-
cial motor vehicles may also be provided annually to the
Department of Transportation in compliance with federal
requirements.
NOTIFICATION AND TRAINING
Every employee is expected to be aware of the regulation and
its requirements and to abide by the requirements. Direc-
tors/program managers have the responsibility to ensure that
all employees are made aware of this regulation. In addi-
tion, directors/program managers should schedule a meeting
with their respective staffs on an annual basis to review
the provisions and requirements of this regulation. Ail
employees in positions requiring a CDL will be provided a
copy of this regulation and shall sign a statement certify-
ing receipt of such which will be maintained in the
employee's personnel file.
Supervisors of employees in positions requiring a CDL, who
are responsible for determining if reasonable suspicion
exists, will undergo two one-hour training sessions, one
each on substance abuse and on alcohol misuse. Training
shall include the physical, behavioral, speech, and perfor-
mance indicators of probable alcohol misuse and use of
controlled substances.
APPEAL PROCEDURE
Employees in positions requiring maintaining a valid CDL who
choose to appeal a dismissal decision based on a positive
drug or alcohol test result must appeal to the County Execu-
tive via their Department Head.
Ail employees (including persons in positions requiring the
CDL) who test positive based upon reasonable suspicion who
choose to appeal a dismissal decision, must appeal to the
County Executive via their Department Head.
Violations of these procedures are subject to the grievance
procedure outlined in Policy P-03.
000069
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
{Page
XIV. POLICY OR PROCEDURAL INQUIRIES
Questions related to this regulation should be directed to
the Director of Human Resources.
XV.
This policy states the Board's current policy and may be
changed or modified without notice, consistent with applica-
ble local, state or federal laws and regulations.
Item 5.13. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance,
Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for
the months of February and March, 1996, were presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the statements were approved as
presented.
Item 5.14. Letter dated April 23, 1996, from Ms. Angela G. Tucker,
Resident Highway Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, regarding trans-
portation matters discussed at the April 3 and April 10, 1996, Board meetings.
Received for information as follows:
"We offer the following comments regarding transportation matters
that were discussed at the April 3, 1996, Board Meeting and
outlined in your letter dated April 10, 1996.
Hickory Ridge Subdivision is to be surface treated this year
under our contract maintenance schedule. Work will likely
occur in mid to late June.
The Department will be remarking the lanes on Fontaine Avenue
to allow for continuous right turns off of the northbound Route
29 and 250 bypass. This should alleviate the back up of
traffic onto the bypass during the morning rush hour.
County-wide litter pick up by VDoT occurred during the week of
April 15-19, and will continue this week. Route 20 South from
the City limits to Carter's Bridge was picked up during the
week of April 15.
The Department has installed a NO RIGHT TURN ON RED sign on the
westbound Rio Road approach at Route 29. We will monitor this
new stop condition to see if it alleviates the traffic conges-
tion between the Route 29 and Rio Road signal and the Route 29
and Albemarle Square signal.
The Department has remarked the pavement and stop bars as well
as replaced the stop signs at the corner of Commonwealth Drive
and Westfield Road. After discussions with concerned citizens
this appears to address their desires for alerting drivers at
this intersection.
With appropriate right-of-way and easements, the Department can
construct a right-turn lane into the Seminole Trail Volunteer
Fire Company. Funds for this work (approx. $30,000) will not
be available until FY 1997-98 as the Department is currently
attempting to fund the installation of guardrail along Rio Road
between the Park Street bridge and Stonehenge Subdivision. The
turn lane project can also be constructed by others under
permit to VDoT.
A public hearing for the Route 29 Corridor Study has been
scheduled for May 22, 1996, from 6 pm to 10 pm at the Albemarle
County Office Auditorium. A public hearing will also be held
in Greene County on May 21, 1996, from 6 pm to 10 pm at the
William Monroe High School in Stanardsville. Both meetings
will present information regarding the Corridor Study and offer
a period for formal public input.
Concerns shared during the March 6, 1996, Board meeting:
There currently exists "SLOW VEHICLES KEEP RIGHT" signs on 1-64
along Afton Mountain; however, the Department is reviewing this
section of interstate for any additional signing that will
address the concern of large trucks keeping right.
The majority of property owners along Route 708 have dedicated
right-of-way necessary for improvements; however, eight proper-
ty owners still need to consider dedication prior to improving
Route 708 under the gravel road improvement program (priority
#31).
If you have any questions regarding the above issues, I will be
available to discuss these at the May 1st Board meeting."
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
000070
Item 5.15. Albemarle County Planning Commission - 1995 Annual Report.
Received for information.
Item 5.16. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for April 9, 1996.
Received for information.
Item 5.17. Update on Juvenile Detention Needs Assessment and Request
for Proposals for Feasibility-Planning Study. Received for information as
follows:
It was noted in the staff's report that in September 1995,
the Board discussed the possibility of a new juvenile detention
facility for Albemarle and Charlottesville. The Board reviewed
the needs assessment prepared by a City/County team for submittal
to the State Board of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) in October.
In December, the State Board approved the secure detention needs
assessment and directed staff to proceed with development of a
planning study to be submitted to the State no later than August
1996. If the feasibility-planning study is accepted by the DYFS
Board, it will be submitted to the 1997 General Assembly for
funding approval with possible construction as a facility as early
as July 1997.
Due to the extremely short time frame for submitting a study
to the State, staff will issue an RFP the first week in May. The
study is projected to cost between $10,000 and $20,000, and will
include program design, projected operating costs as well as the
facility and site plan design. The consultants will also be asked
to provide a cost-benefit analysis of alternative programs,
including remaining at an expanded Shenandoah Valley Juvenile
Detention Home, and a private-public cost comparison for the
operation of detention space.
Although the State Board is waiting until the feasibility
study is completed to determine the exact number of beds needed
for secure detention, the current estimate for a joint facility is
approximately 40 beds. At an estimated cost of $100,000 per bed,
for a 40-bed facility the total cost of $4.0 million would be
reimbursed 50 percent by the State, with a 25 percent share of
$1.0 projected cost for Albemarle County.
No action is required today, but staff will be requesting an
appropriation in June for the contracted cost of the feasibility-
planning study.
Item 5.18. Draft Executive Summary of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Proposed Consolidated Plan 1996-2000, as prepared by the Virginia Department
of Housing and Community Development. Received for information.
Item 5.19a. Copy of Minutes from Board of Directors of the Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority for March 25, 1996. Received for information.
Item 5.19b. Copy of Minutes from Board of Directors of the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority for March 25, 1996. Received for information.
Item 5.19c. Copy of Minutes from Board of Directors of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for March 21, 1996. Received for information.
Item 5.20. Information on proposed Bright Stars Four-Year Old Program
for FY 1996-97. Received for information as follows:
It was noted in the staff's report that during the final
budget work sessions, the Board approved funding for a second
Bright Stars Program for FY 1996-97. The Board also asked staff
to look into the possibility of opening a third four-year old
program since state funds are available to serve an additional 32
at-risk children. The local contribution for operating a full
year program is $39,405 with a matching contribution from the
State of $33,860 based on our composite index.
Staff met with school staff from Greer and Agnor-Hurt
Elementary Schools, as well as A1 Reaser, Director of Building
Services, to determine the possibility of opening and operating a
program either within or adjacent to the respective schools.
These two sites were selected because the urban area has the
highest concentration of at-risk four-year olds that are not
served by any other program. Although both principals expressed a
desire to have a program located at their school site, only Greer
has potential space for the coming year. However, if enrollment
numbers are up in the fall, the space would not be available and a
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
000071
trailer or "learning cottage", similar to the one at Stone Robin-
son, would need to be installed adjacent to the school building.
Cost of this installation is estimated to be between $36,000 and
$51,000.
This summary is presented for information only. Staff
wanted the Board to know that depending on enrollment, additional
start-up costs could be involved in setting up a Bright Stars
Program at Greer Elementary. If the Board is willing to appro-
priate the additional funding necessary, staff will proceed with
preparations for the program to open at Greer in September 1996.
Item 5.21. February 1996 Financial Report. Received for information as
follows:
BACKGROUND:
The FY 1994-95 Audit has been completed and is submitted for your
review. The field work and audit testing was completed by Robin-
son, Farmer, Cox Associates, the County's external auditors. The
General Purpose Financial Statements and the Comparative Report
Transmittal Forms were delivered to the Virginia Auditor of Public
Accounts (APA) by December 5, 1995, as required. Since that time,
County and audit staff have worked to convert the County's audit
from a General Purpose Financial Statement to a Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report. The primary differences are the inclu-
sion of a transmittal letter which is a brief narrative report on
the County's financial activities, several schedules on the
County's fixed assets, and some minor changes in format.
DISCUSSION:
Certificate of Excellence
This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), was submitted
to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), for the
Certificate of Excellence.in financial reporting. This award is
coveted by localities throughout the United States and Canada. We
anticipate approval and expect to receive notification within six
months.
Government Accountinq Standards Board
This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), reflects a
change in reporting standards required by the Government Account-
ing Standards Board (GASB), Statement 10. This Statement requires
Public Entity Risk Pools to report Health Insurance Funds as
Internal Service Funds.
Component Unit
The County's school system is required to be reported as a compo-
nent unit and as such has a significant impact on the way informa-
tion is reported when compared to previous years. Prior to FY
1993-94, data on the Debt Service Fund and Capital Improvement
Fund were reported in the financial statements inclusive of both
general and school operations. These activities are now required
to be segregated and reported as part of their respective opera-
tions. This is the second year of component unit reporting.
General Fund
The General Fund experienced better than anticipated revenues, as
well as significant savings in various departmental budgets.
General Fund revenues exceeded budget by $2.3 million. The
primary sources of the additional revenues were: General Property
Tax $1.3 million, Sales Tax $500 thousand, and Interest $800
thousand. General Fund experienced expenditure savings under
budget of $780 thousand. The primary sources of savings were:
Public Safety $149 thousand, Public Works (Landfill) $278 thou-
sand, and Community Development $145 thousand.
School Fund
The School Fund revenues exceed budget by $153 thousand. The
School Fund experienced expenditure savings under budget of $683
thousand. The primary sources of savings were: Executive Servic-
es $119 thousand, Building Services $128 thousand, and Self-
sustaining Funds $195 thousand.
Fund Balance
The Fund Balance Report shows balances at June 30, 1995, to be
$14.8 million for the General Fund, $1.5 million for the School
Fund, and $4.5 million for the Capital Improvements Fund.
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
000072
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of the FY 1994-95 Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report as presented°
Item 5.22. Letter dated April 18, 1996, from R. L. Chwojdak, Location
and Design Division, Highway Department, sending a copy of the revised public
notice on Project: 6029-967-F01, PE-100, for the Route 29 North Corridor
Development Study.
Item 5.23. Letter dated April 24, 1996, from Ms. Angela Tucker,
Resident Highway Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, forwarding the monthly
update on highway improvement projects currently under construction in
Albemarle County. Received for information as follows:
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
MAY 1, 1996
Route Location Status Estimated
No. Comp.Date
29 From Hydraulic Rd. (Rte. Construction 99% Complete July '96
743) to N. of Rio Road
(Rte. 631)
240 Route 240 Bridge Replace- Construction Complete
ment Near Int. Route 250
29 From N. of Rio Road Construction 53% Complete May '97
(Route 631) to S. Fork
Rivanna River
671 Bridge Replacement at Construction Complete
Millington
682 From Route 250 to 1.7 Mi. Construction 5% Complete Dec. '96
S. Route 787
20 Right Turn Lane - Route Construction Started April July
53 @ Int. Route 20 1996 '96**
* Revised Date
** New Project
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: November 3, 1993, March 22,
1995, and April 9, 1996.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of November 3, 1993, pages 26-37 (Item
~22) and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall
and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Route 631
widening, from Route 743 to Route 29 to include sidewalks on the west side.
Mr. Cilimberg said VDoT held a public hearing on March 14, 1996, on
plans for widening Route 631 between Routes 743 and 29. This project is in
the County's Six Year Secondary Plan as a major reconstruction and is sched-
uled to be completed March, 1999. Staff made the following comments on parts
of the plan:
(a), (c) Request for Signal and Turn lane at Four Seasons-Staff
supports VDoT determining if signals are warranted. VDoT has
particular guidelines that must be met to install signals.
(b)
Bike Lanes-Staff supports VDoT's plan to install bike lanes.
Both Rio Road west and Hydraulic Road are recommended for
bike facilities in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Bike Plan.
Cross-Section-The original plans for the Route 631 widening
recommended a four-lane facility. However, VDoT's traffic
projections indicate that a five-lane facility is needed to
accommodate the number of turning movements anticipated due
the existing development along the road. While staff recog-
nizes that a five-lane roadway creates a very wide road
corridor which is less attractive and more difficult for
pedestrians to cross, in this particular case a fifth lane
appears to be warranted due to the existing development in
the area.
May id 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
OOO0?3
(d)
Request for Noise Barriers and Trees-Staff opinion is that
this is more of a visual issue than a noise issue. Staff
recommends that landscaping be provided where possible along
the entire project corridor. Replacement of existing vege-
tation lost is encouraged. There is some question as to how
feasible and effective noise barriers would be along the
road given the character of the proposed improvements.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends sidewalks be constructed on both
sides of the road. This recommendation is consistent with the new standards
for roads in the revised Comprehensive Plan, which states "walkways should be
provided along all arterial, collector, and through local roads in the Urban
Area .... "and that "for roads of four or more lanes, sidewalks on both sides
of the road shall be provided to more safely accommodate pedestrians." Staff
recommends the Board endorse VDoT's recommended improvements with the addition
of sidewalks on the west side of the project.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Angela Tucker, in her written comments, if she is
saying that because of concerns expressed by some residents about buffering,
that they can have quite a bit of say during right-of-way negotiations as to
what amenities they may be able to extract from the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDoT). Ms. Tucker said in respect to fair market value being
settled with individual property owners as to impact on their property.
At this point, Mrs. Humphris suggested that the Board move on to
discussion of Other Transportation Matters.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Ms. Tucker had other items to discuss.
Ms. Tucker said she wanted to discuss why the Rio Road project shows
just sidewalk on the east side from Berkmar Drive around to Hydraulic Road.
That is in accordance with ~he approved land use plan, rather than the
proposed land use plan. It appears that the VDoT policy would allow for
sidewalks on both sides with a cost-sharing by the County from other than
secondary funds. Outside of the funding issue, the right-of-way issue is even
more restrictive. The impacts would be great to certain properties along the
west side of Rio Road just for a five-foot sidewalk on that side. The project
calls for a five-lane cross-section, two four-foot bike lanes, a five-foot
sidewalk on the east side, curb and gutter, and enough right-of-way for signs.
Right-of-way is very restrictive.
Mrs. Humphris asked what the Board should do. Ms. Tucker said that in
accordance with the approved land use plan, pedestrian needs are accounted
for, although there will be points where pedestrians will need to cross at
intersections. Sidewalks will be installed on both sides of Rio Road from
Berkmar Drive to Route 29. At that location, there is a formal way for
pedestrians to cross. Where Rio Road meets Hydraulic Road at the Rock Store
(for that project which is soon to begin), there will be sidewalk only on the
east side around to Lambs Road, and at that point, there is sidewalk on both
sides.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there will be sidewalk on the east side all the
way from Berkmar Drive continuously around to Lambs Road. Ms. Tucker said
that is correct.
Mr. Martin said there is not a lot of residential on the west side. Mr.
Tucker said there is a mix of residential and commercial from the SPCA
(Woodburn) Road around to the Rock Store. Ms. Tucker said the houses at the
corner of Woodburn Road are extremely close to Rio Road and the improvements.
She thinks the impact would cause an increase in project cost, and could also
cause a relocation of one house. Mrs. Thomas said the house would not be
taken if there is no sidewalk. Ms. Tucker said that is correct. Everything
is accounted for, or very finely tuned, with respect to the west side of Rio
Road. Mrs. Thomas said it would be a very extreme measure to take a home for
a sidewalk. Mr. Tucker asked if the right-of-way would encroach on the house.
Ms. Tucker said she is not sure. Mr. Tucker asked when VDoT needs the Board's
final action on this project. He does not believe staff was aware of this,
and needs to take another look at their recommendation. Ms. Tucker said if
the Board takes action within the month, that would satisfy VDoT's time
limits. Mr. Tucker said staff needs to look at the plans again, and the
impact of the plan on the house. Ms. Tucker said she has reviewed the entire
corridor, and there are other properties where it is just as restrictive.
Mr. Tucker said he believes the Board members are in favor of the
project, and he suggested that this item be passed by today. Ms. Tucker said
there are some businesses to the east of that point, but to the west of
Berkmar Drive, that also sit very close to the road. That portion of the
project is being constructed now as a transition between the two projects. It
is very restrictive there also. VDoT has, according to the current plans for
Rio Road, settled with those businesses.
Mr. Bowerman said he is one of those businesses which has settled with
VDoT (Berkmar Crossing Shopping Center). He is involved with another building
at the western end of that property, almost at the curve. He does not know if
that is part of the project that is going on from Route 2~ He-Wa~'~ to
000074
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
disclose that, although he does not get any more benefit from that than any
other property owner. He does not believe it is a conflict, and unless he
hears to the contrary, he will probably support whatever the Board does.
Mrs. Humphris asked the effect the Western Alternative 10 Bypass will
have on those properties which Ms. Tucker mentioned would be impacted by a
sidewalk, those properties past Squirrel Ridge. Ms. Tucker said they are on
the west side of Woodburn Road, whereas the homes she spoke about are on the
east side of that intersection. Mrs. Humphris said the homes she is referring
to are in the curve of the road. Ms. Tucker said she would have to review
that in conjunction with the plans for the bypass.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned a letter furnished with the Board's agenda packet
in which it is stated that landowners have the option of discussing landscap-
ing during right-of-way negotiations. She asked what that insures. Ms.
Tucker said the cap for the whole negotiation is the fair market value for the
individual property. The owner does not get money for impacts to the proper-
ty, and, in addition to that money for landscaping. That is a way to be sure
VDoT treats all property owners fairly. Often it is taken care of in negotia-
tions because it is just as easy to have the contractor handle landscaping
installation while working on the project.
Mrs. Thomas said there is a reference to cost-sharing on the sidewalk
project and she asked the cost. Mr. Cilimberg said it is included in the
Capital Improvements Program (CIP), but sidewalk on the west side of Rio is
not in the CIP for the next fiscal year. If the Board approves the sidewalk,
the cost will be addressed in the next update of the CIP. This project is
actually scheduled for advertisement in 1998, and the funds do not need to be
in the CIP until the year in which construction begins.
Mrs. Humphris asked staff to furnish a cost estimate for that sidewalk
when appropriate.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Ms. Tucker had other highway matters to discuss.
Ms. Tucker said she would like to mention that the Greene County meeting for
the Route 29 Corridor Study will be held on May 21, 1996, at the Greene County
High School from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. That is the day before the public
hearing in Albemarle.
Mr. Martin mentioned Route 784 and a Mrs. Jarvis. He said Mrs. Jarvis
called Mr. Gerald Utz who said VDoT no longer obtains rights-of-way for
secondary roads. Mrs. Jarvis has everybody ready to sign. Ms. Tucker said
VDoT has scheduled the staking of the right-of-way at Mrs. Jarvis' request.
That staking should happen soon. It was IrDoT policy in the past to not get
into such detail regarding gravel road improvements until the road was
actually included in the Six-Year plan. Since there is this much interest and
the property owners are prepared to donate right-of-way, this should not be
let to slip away.
Mr. Martin said if the County sticks to the policy that gravel roads
will not be paved unless all of the right-of-way is donated, then at whatever
point that can be obtained, it should be done. Ms. Tucker suggested a meeting
be scheduled after work hours to meet with as many property owners as possi-
ble. She can have right-of-way agents at the meeting to help with paperwork.
Mrs. Thomas thanked Ms. Tucker for helping with the Stribling/Sunset
Avenue clean-up.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned the Red Hill Depot road which may be used by the
Envi:?onmental Protection Agency (EPA) if they haul soil from the Greenwood
Chem,.cai Plant there. EPA probably will agree to return the road to the
cond~.tion it was before they started taking the big, heavy trucks over it.
She wants to be sure there is an impartial assessment made of the condition of
the :3oad before this work begins in the event there are requests afterwards to
retu:Tn the road to its prior condition. She asked if th~re is some way for
VDoT crews to assess that road before the work begins. Ms. Tucker said V DoT
had videotaped the roads in the Greenwood area, and that can be done for this
road also. As part of permission to use these roads for hauling, it has been
stated that EPA will need to reestablish road status.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned Route 682 and the fact that the project has begun.
She said the citizens have praised the workers for their responsiveness to
questions. However, one question raised has to do with the ultimate speed
limit once the road is completed. The residents have been assured it will be
35 m~les per hour. They don't want it to automatically go to 55 because there
was an understanding beforehand that it would not automatically be posted at
55 mph. There have also been concerns expressed as to the type of surface
being applied. Evidently there are differences in the surface from one
sectLon to the other section. She asked that someone explain to the residents
the need for the different surfaces.
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
000075
Ms. Tucker said the plans call for a plant mix application on the first
mile of the project, and past that point the road will be surface-treated. It
has to do with the amount of truck traffic that is anticipated on that section
of road.
Mrs. Thomas said there is still an unanswered question about Grassmere
Road.
Mrs. Thomas said that recently in the commercial area of Ivy there was a
spectacular accident, near the area where there had been a fatality. There is
a need that something be done.
Ms. Tucker said she and her staff met with Juan Wade of the Planning
Department last week and she needs to provide him with formal, written
comments with regard to the commercial area. There is other statistical data
regarding sight distance at the Route 738 intersection where the fatality
occurred.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned the railroad crossing on West Leigh Drive which is
a private road, and not a state-maintained road. CSX is making some dire
sounding threats of closing that crossing, and that would leave the West Leigh
homeowners to consider bringing the road up-to-standard so they could qualify
for federal funds for a gate crossing. She asked if a portion of West Leigh
Drive on each side of the railroad crossing were brought to standard, would
that be adequate for the entire system of roads in the subdivision? Ms.
Tucker said the critical issue would be the service to three separate property
owners, which constitutes public service. She said that VDoT often meets with
homeowners who want to bring a road up to state standard, and they make up a
"punch" list in order to obtain cost estimates.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the intersection at Route 29 North and Rio
Road and asked how the solution from last month was working. She did not see
that it addressed much of the problem. Mr. Bowerman said it addresses a lot
of the problem. Mrs. Humphris said she hopes everybody gets adjusted to the
"No Right Turn on Red" sign.
Mrs. Humphris thanked Ms. Tucker for communicating with people about the
concern at the intersection of Commonwealth Drive and Westfield Road and
taking action there.
Mrs. Humphris asked about her request concerning the turn lane at the
Seminole Trail Fire Company. Ms. Tucker said she has not brought the Board
up-to-date on attempts to install guard rails along Rio Road (at the bad curve
just past the entrance to Stonehenge). VDoT representatives will meet with
the majority property owner, Mr. Olsen, this Friday. He owns a lot of the
"cut" frontage, and they had hoped to be able to shift the road over if he is
agreeable to the impacts to his property since the Department does not have to
purchase right-of-way. They would then be able to install guard rail on the
outside edge of pavement and re-stripe the road. In the past the thought was
to place fill on the fill side of the curve rather than to cut into the slope,
but the property owners were not agreeable to the filling of the swale areas.
The Department took the opposite approach with that property owner, and the
property is being staked today so he can get a general view of the impact to
his property on top of the slope. He has said that he is tired of dealing
with emergency vehicles and responding to those calls, so he will work with
VDoT however he can.
The problem with the project is funding, since the project could cost
close to $200,000. VDoT hopes to use only a 1.5/1.0 slope using some fabric
stabilization. There is rock involved also, and if the Department thinks the
blasting will impact on homes in the area, they may decide not to do the
project at all. Basically, the money for such projects is available only if
other projects come in under budget. There were some funds left from the ~
Fifth Street project which probably would not fund this entire project. With
a $30,000 cost estimate for turn lanes at Seminole Trail, at completion of the
Hydraulic Road project, if funds are available, they could be used for this
purpose. Ms. Tucker said there has been quite a bit of donation along Berkmar
through the years because the ultimate design was for a four-lane street
through there as each property developed.
Mr. Martin said he understood that once the Meadow Creek Parkway was
built, it would take care of the problem because that portion would only be
used by local traffic. Mrs. Humphris said she has received a lot of comments
from older people who live in Stonehenge and they say they do not venture out
after dark because they cannot negotiate that road. It is a safety hazard no
matter who is using it.
Mrs. Humphris said she had received a copy of a letter from the Vice
President at Crutchfield Corporation addressed to Mr. Mills. She asked about
the comments concerning the intersection at Route 649 and Route 606, at the
Airport. Ms. Tucker said that at this time, the County and her office are
working to expedite the Route 649 improvement project from Route 29 to Route
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
000076
606. She said the potential to relocate both the Airport entrance and exit to
a new connection where it would be the fourth leg of the 649 and 606 intersec-
tion, and then to have that signalized, will be done under the Route 649
project. The application for Airport Access Funds is being sent this week to
the Commonwealth Transportation Board in the hope of expediting this project.
Mrs. Humphris again mentioned the meetings concerning the Route 29
Corridor Study on May 21, in Greene County and in the Albemarle County Office
Building on May 22. She said there is a proposal to study the possibility of
having a limited access Route 29 all the way through the state. It would have
a tremendous effect on local property.
Mr. Bowerman asked for a response to his letter regarding the placing of
guard rail on Woodburn Road in the vicinity of the playground at Agnor-Hurt
Elementary SchOol. Ms. Tucker said she understands the concerns about the
playing fields and the traffic. The lay of the land does not formally warrant
guard rails since there is a landing behind the ditch line. Installation of
the guard rail would have to be looked at as something coming out of construc-
tion funds. Mr. Bowerman said he received a letter from the Agnor-Hurt PTO
which expressed concern that if a car lost control and ran over onto the
property it would go directly down to the playing fields. The PTO asked to
have guard rails installed, so he sent a letter making the request. If this
cannot be handled by V DoT, he suggested that a cost estimate be obtained. Ms.
Tucker said she will respond to the letter and include a cost estimate, and
exactly what VDoT can and cannot do.
Since the Board was behind schedule, they skipped to Agenda Item No. 9.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on a RESIDENTIAL LEASE AGREEMENT,
with addendum, by and between the County of Albemarle and the City of Char-
lottesville for property known as the Towe Park Tenant House. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on April 22, 1996.)
Mr. Tucker said the City and County own a house at Towe Park. The
tenant~ who occupied the house since 1988, vacated the house in early March.
The vacancy was advertised in the Daily Progress and approximately fifty
responses were received. Each prospective tenant was asked to provide two
references. After checking references, the top ten prospects were inter-
viewed. The Parks and Recreation Department is recommending that the City and
County enter into a lease agreement with Ms. Susan Seeds and Mr. Tony Harlowe.
The new tenants will be responsible for paying $375 monthly rent and
performing approximately thirty hours of work per month. The rent figure is
based on an estimated fair rental value of $900 with a twenty-five percent
reduction to $675 based on the various factors involved with being located in
a public park. The rent is further reduced by $300 based on an estimated
value of $10 per hour for the work requirement. The fair market value
estimate and the location reduction percentage was estimated by the County
Assessor°
The lease has been reviewed and approved by the offices of both the City
and County Attorneys. The lease consists of a standard residential lease
agreement with an addendum to cover the special requirements such as tenant
responsibilities. The Deputy County Attorney advised that Virginia Code
Section 15.1-261.1 requires the Board to hold a public hearing prior to
entering into this lease agreement.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the hearing was closed.
Mr. Marshall asked if Ms. Seeds and Mr. Harlowe were married, and if the
Board was signing a lease between two separate people who are not a married
couple. Mr. Tucker responded that he did not know. Mr. Martin responded by
saying it was better to have both names on the lease, rather than one name on
the lease with someone else living there. Mr. Marshall stated that when you
have two unmarried people living together, and they have an argument and
separate, there could be a problem with the remaining individual paying the
rent. Mr. Marshall also stated that with 50 applicants, he thinks a better
job could have been done with choosing an appropriate married couple. Mr.
Mulaney said their background checked out fine and everyone seemed happy with
their experience and knowledge of property management. Mr. Bowerman said he
had no problem with the couple living together in the house. Mr. Marshall
said he would not support chis living arrangement, since he did not know if
they are not married. None of the Board members knew if the couple was
married or not, and did not think it necessary to ask.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to authorize
the County Executive to sign the Residential Lease Agreement, by and between
the County of Albemarle, the City of Charlottesville, Ms. Susan H. Seeds and
Mr. Tony L. Harlowe (copy on file in the Clerk's office). Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
000077
Agenda Item No. 8. Water Conservation Presentation by the Albemarle
County Service Authority.
Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA), was present to speak on the Service Authority's efforts towards water
conservation. He said this was proposed as a question to the Board recently,
and the subject will receive a lot more attention as the Authority goes
through the process of obtaining the necessary permits to develop the Buck
Mountain Reservoir. He said that in obtaining those permits, the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority will have to present to the regulatory agencies, all
available 'alternatives for meeting future water requirements and demonstrate
that the Buck Mountain Reservoir is the most feasible alternative available.
Mr. Brent said they would be required by the Army Corp of Engineers to
evaluate conservation as a method of satisfying the projected water demand.
Mr. Brent said that all alternatives must be considered before Buck Mountain
will be approved to be constructed.
Mr. Brent mentioned an article he read regarding the process that King
William County recently went through in trying to obtain approval to develop a
reservoir. In that case, the Army Corp of Engineers required them to include
alternatives such as transporting an iceburg from the Artic to Hampton Roads
to meet their water demand. He said this would not have to be an alternative
here. He used this comparison to allow the Board to comprehend the amount of
work to be done in order to justify the reservoir. Mr. Brent said it took
Virginia Beach almost 20 years to obtain the necessary approvals to begin
taking water from Lake Gaston. James City County spent over $1.0 million
trying to obtain approval to develop a reservoir and they were unsuccessful.
Mr. Brent said each case had its own political, legal and environmental
issues. He mentioned the projects that were successful; such as one in
Stafford County, Roanoke County and others. He said that on an average day in
this community, approximately 11 million gallons of water is used. It is used
and then returned to the river. The process of storing, treating, distribut-
ing to customers, collecting the water and returning it back to the river is
very expensive and can alter the environment; therefore, this resource must be
used wisely. Mr. Brent said the dictionary defines conservation as "The
planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction
or neglect". He said the County has made significant efforts to prevent these
things from happening to the water supply.
Mr. Brent stated what the Service Authority is doing to promote the wise
use of the resource. He mentioned first that leakage is not a significant
factor in the water distribution system, including the City, since there is a
common contribution system. The main material used in the water distribution
system is ductile iron pipe. The first ductile iron pipe was installed in
1964~ on Grove Road and Meadowbrook Heights Road in the City. He said there
has never been, in 32 years, a leak on a ductile iron pipe except from an
outside force (i.e. bulldozer/backhoe). Mr. Brent said that when there was a
leak, it was usually a spontaneous event; it broke in half and was promptly
repaired. Many communities, in the past, used an abundance of steel pipe. He
mentioned that steel was different because steel did not break but if not
properly protected it could corrode and start to have pinhole leaks. The City
used a considerable amount of steel for its service lines prior to 1970. Most
of that material has since been replaced with copper. He said the County has
always used copper and does not have as many leakage problems.
Mr. Brent said to further leak avoidance, he is proposing in the ACSA
budget being considered by the Board of Directors this year, the implementa-
tion of a leak protection program which would start this summer and continue
for several years. This would ensure a tight system and also provide the data
necessary to present arguments to the regulatory agencies in justifying the
Buck Mountain Reservoir project.
Mr. Brent said another concern was unauthorized use of water. Over the
past several years, there has been a permitting system implemented, so that
any person wanting water from a fire hydrant must obtain a permit; therefore,
the water is measured and paid for. The Police Department has been helpful
enforcing this policy. If someone in the County is caught taking water from a
fire hydrant without a permit from the Service Authority, they will be
arrested and prosecuted. Volunteer fire companies are required to obtain a
permit also when the water is taken for a non-fire related purpose. He said
significant changes have been enacted in the building code so that flow
restriction devices are now required in new plumbing and water saving fixtures
are required in new housing.
Mr. Brent said that the ACSA participates each year with the Charlottes-
ville Public Works Department and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority in
what is called the National Drinking Water Week (which occurs next week). As
a part of the National Drinking Water Week, personnel are sent to schools to
speak with classes and provide teachers with course material on protecting
water supplies as well as water conservation. Tours are also available at the
water treatment plants. He said that as a part of the Drinking Water Week, a
display will be put at the Fashion Square Mall.
Mr. Brent said that the ACSA charges a flat rate for water which is
essentially the same amount for the first gallon consumed, as for the last.
There is an exception in that the ACSA has a tiered rate for the largest
customer. In order to forward conservation, some communities are charging an
inverted rate where the more water used by a customer, the more the customer
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
000078
pays. He asked if the public is willing, at this point, to pay more to use
less water. He said water conservation is not a simple issue, and is not one
which is being ignored. It will require more study. Where that will lead he
cannot predict. The efforts and progress the ACSA has made are reasonable,
but they will probably have to do more. It would be irresponsible to react to
what might be required as part of the Buck Mountain permitting process. The
ACSA may have to exercise some extreme measures, but he does not believe the
area is at a crisis situation, and he believes the County has at least 20 more
years before needing an additional water supply. He does not think any
extraordinary measures will be required in the near future; however, it does
need to be discussed.
Mr. Bowerman asked the meaning of "extraordinary measures". Mr. Brent
answered that increasing the cost, charging more for water in the summer vs.
the winter (which is difficult in a tourist dependent town), citations for
hoses running in driveways, watering lawns only on certain days of the week,
etc. He said ACSA gets cooperation when there is a "perceived emergency".
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is currently in the process of inter-
viewing engineering firms to help with the permitting process for Buck
Mountain, to analyze current usage trends and to help develop additional
methods of discouraging use when necessary.
Mr. Brent said this is not a community with a lot of water-gulping
industries. The last fiscal year, water sales in the County were as follows:
1) residential usage accounted for 61 percent of the water that was delivered
in the County; 2) commercial accounted for 19 percent; 3) industrial accounted
for 12 percent; and 4) institutional was seven percent. He said the County
shares facilities with the City of Charlottesville, such as reservoirs and
common pipes, but the total urban area water consumption for the county
accounts for approximately 38 percent of the water demand.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Building Code specifies what type of pipe is
used from the water meter to the house. Mr. Brent said ACSA has no jurisdic-
tion beyond the water meter, the State Plumbing Code covers what goes from the
meter to the house. Mr. Perkins said he did not like the lower quality, black
plastic pipe. Mr. Brent said a different material was approved for water use
at one time and it also had to be replaced after a period of time and was
eventually eliminated from usage.
Mrs. Thomas asked if there is a plan in case of a drought. Mr. Brent
said the City and County have ordinances which can be enacted by an emergency
proclamation, which requires whatever action is necessary, depending on the
extent of the drought. He said this has been on the books for approximately
20 years, and has been used twice. Mrs. Thomas asked what could be done to
ask local merchants (i.e. hotels) to eliminate extra usage of water, such as
washing towels every night. Mr. Tucker said there is an association with the
hotels and motels that may be able to help in this situation; however, he did
not feel anything could be required.
Mr. Brent said the American Water Works is very active in providing
information, literature and other information to help inform people how to
conserve water.
(NOTE: At 10:32 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:40 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Slide Presentation by Bob Kirchman, re: Crozet:
2000+.
Mr. Kirchman said what he wanted to present today is a vision for the
year 2000+ for Crozet which is nestled against the foothills of the Blue Ridge
Mountains. It is the landscape that gives a community its reason for being
and its location. Resources such as water, natural travelways, organize the
events of men into certain courses. The coming of the railroad cemented
Crozet's place as a significant community. It began to build a town center
and to form along grid lines. The railroad terminus was the center of this
activity. Other businesses were built around it.
Other institutions grew and significant architecture was created in the
area to house these institutions. So far, modern development has continued to
fit into the rural village nature of the community. With the coming of the
automobile, a challenge was presented in that as strip shopping centers were
built and pulled back from the road and consumed more land, there is the risk
of developing the type of community where every place is no place in particu-
lar; communities without center.
Mr. Kirchman enhanced his presentation with slides of plans for Crozet
in the year 2000+ explaining their ideas as he proceeded. He said the town
center is very important, and certain businesses can be concentrated in this
area to the advantage of all who use them. If a metro link concept is looked
at, it is not out of reason to think of such a link because it would serve
several major communities and several large employment centers, two major
hospitals~ and recreational and scenic amenities so that based on the project-
ed population, it is not unreasonable to expect that at some time in the
future, the region will need to address this type of issue.
Mr. Kirchman said the town center of Crozet as envisioned basically
looks at completing the grid in significant places, and in-fill to create a
town center that is pedestrian friendly and able to accommodate the expansion
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
000079
necessary to serve the growth area population. Development of the station
square area which opens to Barnes Lumber on one side now, would close the
squared allow for small shops and services as necessary for a growing communi-
ty~ and finish the square area. He modeled his development after similar
projects in Staunton where historic buildings were incorporated. Development
is not limited to historical styles; however, the scale and proportion of the
district should be retained.
Mr. Kirchman said at the end of the block which holds the Food Liner
Store, there is currently a parcel available for commercial development. They
envision returning the shopping center to the pedestrian street and providing
for certain amenities which are necessary in a new civic center on the east
end of that shopping center. They would like to incorporate some of the
majesty of the existing architecture into new architecture. The Crozet Civic
Center borrows from historical tradition. What they have looked at are
expansions proposed by the Post Office and Library, and eventually establish-
ment of a satellite police facility and other civic offices, with the possi-
bility of including a civic auditorium.
Mr. Kirchman next went to what he referred to as the "main street area"
of Crozet. Their proposal requires an overlay district which would allow in-
fill of the main street while retaining a pedestrian culture. In-filling main
street properties would allow for mixed commercial and office space to order
for different types of businesses anticipated in the commercial center.
In their vision they see the area behind the Blue Goose becoming a wide
alley which incorporates parking which could be shared with the Methodist
Church and the businesses because the uses are not concurrent. There could be
less parking and a tighter density in the village square area which would
allow for a nicer transition which he proposes between the commercial front on
Main Street and Carter Street which has a more residential feeling.
Mr. Kirchman said Crozet represents a precious heritage which has been
inherited and would like to leave in a wonderful form. By concentrating
growth, pressure can be relieved on the surrounding area, thus easing the
pressure to develop the surrounding area in such a manner that efforts to
preserve the countryside and mountain vistas will be enhanced.
Mr. Marshall said he believes the next step is to sell this idea to a
developer and see if it is economically feasible. He sees a lot of flaws even
though it is a beautiful concept.
Mr. Perkins said Mr. Kirchman presented this plan to the Crozet Communi-
ty Association about a month ago. It is a new concept, a different way of
looking at things, and he does not know how it could be made economically
feasible.
Mr. Kirchman said as he worked on this plan he felt the metro concept
was the longest reach, but he was in St. Louis and looked at their metro link
system and found a lot of parallel situations. He believes that alternative
transportation will happen, and the way to sell these ideas is to put them
down on paper first to lay out a vision. Without that, there is no need to
deal with the problems.
Mro Marshall said he thinks it is beautiful and he would love to see it
happens but he believes the key to the whole idea is to find an entrepreneur
to see this idea to completion.
Mr. Perkins said he believes this idea is timely because of the work
currently taking place on the Comprehensive Plan. There are probably County
ordinances that would prevent some of the ideas presented from taking place.
Mrs. Thomas said it is also timely because probably one of the major
buildings mentioned would be built by the County. It is the County Library,
the U. S. Post Office, and the volunteer fire company which were all being put
into that building on a crucial piece of land. The Board does have the power
to plan for capital improvements, and to think of them in a way that will
further a community as opposed to finding cheap land far removed from the
people who would use it.
Mrs. Humphris said that although investment is a key ingredient,
investment will probably be driven by a change in circumstances. She men-
tioned a lecture which she attended last week in which the speaker discussed
the limits of growth and the limits of the petroleum supply. Everybody might
be limited in the future by how many more roads there is space to build, or
can afford to build. A growing community could be forced to live more densely
because of the limited supply of energy to power the individual automobile.
Mr. Marshall said he did not want the County to become involved in
anything like the Charlottesville Downtown Mall. Mr. Kirchman referred to a
copy of "Preservation Magazine" in which it is mentioned that a mall is the
wrong way to preserve a main street. A main street needs on-street parking, a
certain congestion level, but a certain amount of free access. In reality, if
one goes to Europe they find that people live in villages that have centers,
and villages that rural surrounds. There is a lot of economic sense in
concentration.
000080
May 1~ 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mrs. Thomas said Crozet is a good place for this to happen for several
reasons. People who move to Crozet have selected a small town to move into,
so they are not going against the whole history and trend of the community.
The Crozet Community Association has been working on what they like about the
area, and how it can be captured and worked on as opposed to how to reverse a
trend. They are building on what they have go. She thinks the Board should
be thinking about what type of ordinances, or plans, the County has that would
prevent this from taking place. It is not the County's responsibility to find
the developer who will do it, but if the Board buys into their idea of how
their community would develop, the Board needs to look at what is being done
to make it more difficult than it should be, and what be done to make it "more
nearly possible."
Mr. Tucker said staff worked with the residents of Crozet for about a
year to develop a revised Community of Crozet Land Use Plan. Now that Mr.
Kirchman has given his illustration of what can happen, staff will need to get
back with people in Crozet and try to mesh any potential differences in the
two plans. Then ordinances should be reviewed, and finally those people in
Crozet should look for an entrepreneur who might be able to help this happen.
Mr. Martin said he hoped that Mr. Kirchman would not limit himself just
to the Crozet area. Although Route 29 North is not a town, if it is to
continue to grow, there is a need to look at making it more pedestrian and
bicycle friendly.
Mrs. Thomas said one of the businesses next to the Pizza Parlor in
Crozet has found that the highway requirements for setback, etc. makes it
impossible to continue with the small town flavor that it has now. Those
regulations disregard that this is a village. Mr. Kirchman noted what had
happened to Stuarts Draft because of highway regulations separating it so it
is no longer a village.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Proposal for Albemarle County Strate-
gic Plan.
Mr. Tucker said that in August, 1993, the County participated in a
Visioning Forum with the City and the University out of which came a community
vision divided into four major functional areas: Land Use and Environmental
Balance, Social Well Being, Economic Opportunity, Educational Quality and
Government Structure and Public Services. Both the Board and the Planning
Commission reviewed this document in August, 1994, along with the County's
community survey. They generally accepted the community vision with the
understanding that it would form the basis of the FY 1996-97/2000-01~Compre-
hensive Plan. With this community vision as a base for the introductory
chapters, planning staff began to expand the scope of the comprehensive plan
to include areas of the community other than land use, such as human services,
arts and culture, housing, and education. Information for these sections of
the comprehensive plan was not to be the responsibility of planning staff, but
would come from the expertise and written documents of other groups, i.e., the
Housing Committee, Piedmont Council of the Arts, School Board, etc.
As the Commission moved into review of these new elements, questions
arose about the Commission's role in either approving or rewriting plans
already developed and approved by other official groups and in which they had
little exposure or experience. For these reasons, staff proposes that the
original concept of incorporating all elements of the County's vision and
mission, i.e., housing, human services, arts and cultural education into the
Comprehensive Plan be replaced with a more flexible, simplified Strategic Plan
approved directly by the Board of Supervisors. This plan would incorporate
the Land Use, Facilities, Environmental goals and objectives of the Comprehen-
sive Plan, as well as the major goals and objectives of the other plans. It
could also be expandable at a later time to other functional areas deemed
priorities by the Board.
Many other localities have adopted similar strategic plans that include
the major goals and objectives for a number of priority areas identified by
their Boards. Examples of these plans are available in the County Executive's
Office for information. Staff recommends proceeding with the development of
an Albemarle County Strategic Plan that would include the major goals and
objectives for identified priority areas, including education, human services,
arts and culture, economic development and housing with the understanding that
the land use and physical development/facility elements in the Comprehensive
Plan will also be incorporated into it after final approval. Should the Board
approve the concept of a separate strategic plan, staff will proceed with
developing a draft document for Board consideration.
Mr. Tucker said that at staff level this approach has been discussed for
some time. When the Planning Commission reacted as it did, staff decided to
discuss the concept with the Board before proceeding with any draft document.
Mrs. Humphris asked exactly what the plan would contain. Mr. Tucker
said the Comprehensive Plan would be as the Board has always seen it with the
major elements which are presently being reviewed: land use plan, community
facilities, transportation, etc. Staff is finding that with the many organi-
zations and agencies the Board makes appointments to and helps fund having
their own plans, the County Planning Commission is not really "in the loop"
and they don't feel close to those agencies. Staff feels it is important to
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
00008:1.
have those organizations and agencies included in a document that everyone can
be familiar with and to which the Board has access. Staff would gather the
goals, objectives and missions from those documents and put them in a docu-
ments along with the goals, objectives and strategies from the County's
Comprehensive Plan. Ail of the background and supporting data would remain in
the major individual documents.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the staff time that will be required to get
all of these plans pulled together. Mr. Tucker said staff does not envision
significant amount of time being required. Staff will just be pulling data
from plans which all ready exist and incorporating that information into the
Strategic Plan.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks it is a great idea and responds to what the
Board heard during budget hearings when people asked about the County's
overall plan. She has encouraged the Planning Commission to deal with the
items they have received, such as the Human Resources section of the plan.
The Commission was uncomfortable with that idea. She reiterated that the
Board needs this sort of plan because it needs some basis for making decisions
about funding agencies. The Board is getting increasing pressure to provide
funding because the Federal government is putting more responsibility on the
local level, but the Commissioners have not been happy with this idea. Mr.
Tucker said other localities have found the same thing happening. Their
Commissioners were not as familiar with all of those areas, but the governing
body had a need for the information from their localities perspective.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman to direct
staff to proceed with developing an Albemarle County Strategic Plan which
would include the major goals and objectives for identified priority areas,
including education, human services, arts and culture, economic development
and housing, with the understanding that the land use/physical develop-
ment/facility elements in the Comprehensive Plan will also be incorporated
into the plan after its final approval.
Roll was called, and the motion was carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Recognition of Boards and Commissions.
NOTE: At 11:26 a.m., the Board recessed for the ceremony recognizing
members of County Boards and Commissions. The Board members returned to the
room at 11:54 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 12. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Tucker said that an analysis from the City's staff has been received
since the public hearing and was forwarded to the Board members. Staff is
prepared to answer any questions, or discuss any alternatives the Board
members may have with regard to the proposed revisions to the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mrs. Humphris said she has two concerns about the recommended use of the
piece of property at the corner of Route 29 North and Hydraulic Road (Sperry
property), and the fact that it is being recommended for regional service.
The other property is on or at the corner of 1-64 and Fifth Street. She is
concerned about the proposed designation of that property also.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned several pieces of correspondence recently
received. 1) Letter dated April 12, 1996, from the Northerly Neighborhood
Watch Association addressed to the Board referencing specifically the Sperry
property and the rezoning of that property for a shopping center. It raises
issues about the effect of a shopping center at that location on the neighbor-
hoods referred to as The Meadows residential area across Hydraulic Road to the
south from the Sperry property; 2) Letter dated April 30, 1996, from N+S,
LLC, refers to the property at the Fifth Street Interchange at 1-64 that was
designated for transitional use by the Board at a recent work session. It
had, at one time, been designated for Regional Service use. They propose that
at least some of that property be referenced as being in the interstate
interchange area which they feel is most appropriate for uses associated with
an interstate interchange. There is already an interstate interchange section
in the Comprehensive Plan; and 3) Letter from United Land Corporation dated
April 30~ 1996, regarding the proposal for expansion of the northern growth
area, what is now Piney Mountain, to include upwards of 1000 acres. The
letter provides some justification for that being added to the growth areas.
In regard to the City analysis of the proposed plan, a question was raised
about the Sperry property, and why there was a change from industrial being
proposed for that property.
Mrs. Humphris said in reference to Mr. Huja's comments about the land
use plan, how would the land be developed differently if there were no
political boundary lines at that point. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has never
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
O00'08g
discussed that with the City. Their discussions regarded the southern growth
area expansion possibility, and the additional residential development in that
area and the impacts traffic from that area would place on the City.
Mr. Tucker said he believes staff has been sensitive to existing land
uses in the City. Mrs. Humphris said that is why she was surprised when there
seemed to be a feeling from City residents when the amphitheater was proposed
for the Pantops area that the Board would not be sensitive to the problem it
might present to some of them. That is why she wondered how the areas that
had been brought to the Board's attention would be developed any differently.
If there is a better way, she would like to have a discussion of that at this
time.
Mrs. Thomas said the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has talked
about what will happen if the southern area is developed and transportation is
not available, but she had never thought about the few places where land uses
actually abut the City's boundaries. She mentioned the Stock Yard area, and
said uses such as that impact on nearby City neighborhoods. She agrees with
the City's goals of having increased home ownership in the City. By any
action taken by this Board, she would not want to make any impact on a City
neighborhood so as to decrease home ownership, although she does not know if
any of the situations mentioned would. She also believes the County wants to
protect the natural setting of the greenbelt trail which she thought was
designated in the County's plan.
Mr. Martin said Mr. Huja's letter mentions sand dredging in the River,
but he believes that was a pre-existing use. Mr. Cilimberg said it has been
in place for many years. In this plan, the only change in land use adjacent
to a City boundary (different from that shown in the 1989 plan), is on the
Sperry property which actually abuts the City boundary. The Fifth Street
property is near the City boundary, but is not abutting. Mr. Cilimberg said
there has always been a concern about the southern neighborhood developing
because of transportation issues, and the City acknowledges that the County is
trying to address that issue by having east-west routes in the southern area.
Mrs. Humphris said there was no call for action, but they were pointing
out the sensitive areas. The livestock sales area has been in place for many,
many years, long before the neighborhoods close to it were built. Mr. Benish
said County and City staff met on a couple of occasions and highlighted the
changes that were being considered. There were also two joint meetings
between the County and the City Planning Commissioners to go over the land use
changes that were being proposed.
Mrs. Humphris asked what the Board needed to do next. She said she has
not been able to read the letter delivered today.
Mr. Bowerman said he believes staff's original recommendation to the
Planning Commission for the Sperry property was that it be designated in the
plan as regional service. Mr. Cilimberg said the original recommendation was
for transitional use. Mr. Benish said it was both, but it was a much smaller
area of regional service. Mr. Bowerman asked if in light of what is being
proposed, and in light of some of the traffic analyses, staff feels differ-
ently today than it did when the Planning Commission discussed the recommenda-
tion. Mr. Cilimberg said the rezoning proposal filed is a maximum use of the
site as regional service, and the proposal creates a lot of transportation
issues. Staff had recommended the change in designation to take advantage of
the fact that the property is located on a high traffic corridor, and it is an
in-fill opportunity versus continuing to move further out into the County with
retail and commercial development.
Mr. Cilimberg said the proposal is for almost one-half million square
feet of commercial and retail space. Mr. Bowerman asked the size of Fashion
Square. Mr. Cilimberg said it is between 550,000 and 600,000 square feet.
Seminole Square is estimated to be nearly 450,000 square feet. Two hundred
and fifty thousand square feet is considered under the Regional Service
designation as being of a regional service scale. The traffic impact of what
is being proposed would be significant. The applicants also believe they
need access to Route 29 with a cross-over. That is not something staff
envisioned as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. That is a business
decision for the applicants. From a regional retailing standpoint, they want
access from Route 29. The other thing staff had hoped for, and this developer
did try to achieve, was by designating the corner property for regional
service, there would be an opportunity to integrate the existing commercial
uses with the new commercial uses. The existing commercial concentration is
difficult to access. The developer was not able to get the owners of those
properties to cooperate in that effort.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the staff's original recommendation to the Commis-
sion was for mixed uses, but the Commission ultimately adopted regional
service for the entire area. Mr. Benish said the applicant had requested a
change in the definition of transitional area, but the Commission decided not
to "fiddle with" the transition area. They did feel that the additional
transitional area was more appropriate for the property with the addition of
caveats to express the Commission's concerns about impact to the adjacent
residential areas and road access.
Mr. Bowerman asked what staff had originally envisioned for that ~rea.
Mr. Benish said with the mixture of transition, bordering On the sing~-family
attached units on Commonwealth Drive, the uses would be townhouse or apartment
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
0000
uses, office and limited neighborhood-scale commercial. That would buffer and
create a transition from the high-density neighborhood area into this smaller
pocket of regional service which is basically where the existing ball field
area is located and also beyond the Hydraulic Road access road into the Sperry
property. What the Commission did was to pull back some of the transitional
because the transitional ran along a strip all the way along the back of the
Sperry property to Comdial, down to an area that was more equal to the south
boundary of Sperry.
Mr. Cilimberg said this property has been designated as industrial use
for quite a long time. Staff was told that it is not prime industrial land,
so alternatives were looked for because there are two major roads and a bus
route in the area. A commercial use seemed appropriate as the change. Staff
did not envision one-half million square feet because staff had not seen a
plan. Mr. Benish said the plan submitted shows a relocation of the parking
area in Sperry and at the ball field. Staff had not thought through that
potential because they focused on the undeveloped area, and not on a redevel-
opment of the entire Sperry property.
Mr. Bowerman asked the implication of the redevelopment of the Sperry
area. Mr. Benish said it a larger area than either the staff or the Commis-
sion had envisioned under any specific development proposal.
Mr. Marshall asked where Sperry would expand on the site if this
proposal were approved. Mr. Benish said they have property on the north side
of their building, but topographically it is difficult ~o use. It has long
been designated as "Industrial Service" and is still recommended for that
designation.
Mr. Marshall said if this is approved, he feels it will take away the
possibility of the expansion of Sperry. Mr. Benish said that behind Sperry
they will develop their ball fields, but it would limit the area they could
expand into. Mr. Cilimberg said Sperry has indicated in communications that
the reason they are trying to sell the land and want other uses designated on
the property is that they have no intention of expanding on that site. Mr.
Marshall said his concern is that they are selling off assets and may eventu-
ally take existing jobs out of the community.
Mrs. Humphris said given the history of that company it could belong to
someone else next year who might want to expand, so that is not really an
acceptable answer. She asked if this is something the Board should be
thinking about based on its experience in Crozet when there was the law suit
because the Board did not Choose to grant a rezoning before infrastructure was
available and the court ruled against the Board. She is concerned that if
regional service is shown in the Comprehensive Plan, and the Board is not
prepared to rezone the property, the Board could be taken to court and forced
to do it. Mr. Davis said the Comprehensive Plan is a major factor considered
by the courts in zoning appeals. Another factor is whether the existing
zoning on the property is reasonable under a fairly debatable standard. This
property is zoned industrial so it gives the owners a viable use of the
property. If the Board has no intent of rezoning the property to commercial,
it would be best not to change the Comprehensive Plan designation to protect
the County's legal ability to defend. Mr. Bowerman said he agreed.
Mrs. Thomas said she does not believe the Board can expect the property
to stay as a ball field, and there is talk of in-fill in this area. On this
particular corner, there would also be a major transportation impact created.
That is the aspect that bothers her. What the Board should be thinking of in
that area is something that lets people in the area walk to shopping. She
thinks the proposal filed has gone way past just in-fill and is something that
would bring in traffic and shoppers from the City, County, and outlying coun-
ties. She asked what it should be designated to encourage in-fill. Mr.
Cilimberg said if this area is suggested for service to the area, and not to
the region, then community service, neighborhood service, or a combination of
both, would be appropriate. Staff recommended that part of the area be
transitional, and part be community service, if the Board does not envision
this as being a good location to serve a multi-county area.
Mrs. Thomas asked how many square feet are envisioned in community
service. Mr. Cilimberg said up to 250,000 square feet. There is a designa-
tion on the east side of Route 29 above Rio Road which is shown as community
service. It is envisioned to serve the people commuting beyond the immediate
neighborhood. Mr. Bowerman said it is not to serve as an attractor for people
from far out. Mr. Cilimberg said at this time people from as far as Culpeper
and the Shenandoah Valley are attracted here to shop along Route 29.
Mr. Martin said he read the Planning Commission minutes and the Commis-
sion seemed to be looking more at the in-fill issue and through-traffic
considerations could be overcome. He used to live on Hydraulic Road, and does
not see how the traffic problem could be overcome. Mrs. Humphris said it is a
place you want to avoid, and she cannot image what it would be like with the
proposed development in place. She does not believe the traffic concerns
could be overcome. Adding another stop light on Route 29 would only intensify
the current problem without having an interchange at the corner of Hydraulic
and Route 29. For that reason, she cannot support regional service on that
property. Between transitional and community service or neighborhood service,
she does not know which would be appropriate. Based on the definitions given,
she thinks there could be more high-density housing in the area and other
things that would not be attractions.
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
000084
Mrs. Thomas said there are to be sidewalks in the area, so it seems the
County is contemplating that people will be walking to something. It is the
County's most densely developed area.
Mr. Benish said there are two alternatives the Board could discuss.
Leave the property as industrial service with a text notation outlining the
Board's receptiveness to a possible change to transitional or just specifical-
ly noting it as a transitional zone which provides the most variety in mixed-
use opportunities.
Mr. Marshall said he would like for the property to remain as industri-
al. He does not know the current owners, but all over the country, people buy
these things with a huge leverage, sell off all the assets to get the stock
up, take the money and run. That would leave a lot of local people out of a
job.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board could dispose of this one discussion by
consensus. Mr. Marshall offered motion to leave the property as industrial.
Mr. Martin asked if it is left as light industrial, given its history as
industrial, is the Board actually paying no attention to the in-fill issue at
all?
Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Marshall intended to include the note as
suggested by Mr. Benish'that the County is receptive to mixed uses on this
property. Mrs. Humphris said that would let the Board protect itself legally,
but let it be known that the Board is not closed to another use on the proper-
ty. Mr. Marshall said the intent of the motion is not to take industrial land
out of industrial use, particularly where local jobs could be added. That is
his major concern.
Mrs. Humphris said that is the motion with no qualification. Mrs.
Thomas asked if the asterisk will be allowed. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Marshall
is saying "no", but he (Mr. Bowerman) believes the asterisk should be allowed
at least the possibility of entertaining an application, because it might be
something very appropriate. Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Marshall would accept
the asterisk. Mr. Marshall said "yes". The motion was seconded by Mr.
Bowerman.
Mr. Cilimberg said he wanted to be sure about the wording. When the
Board adopts the final land use plan, wording will be provided, but at this
time, the Board is saying to leave the land as industrial, saying transitional
uses are a possibility because they provide for mixed uses. Mrs. Humphris
said that is acceptable.
Roll was called, and the motion was carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall
and Mr. Martin.
None.
Mr. Bowerman noted that later today under "Other Matters", he is going
to ask the Board to review the site plan for the new high schoOl.
Mr. Martin said he thought this was going to be a short meeting so he
scheduled another meeting at 4:00 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Legal and Personnel Matters.
At 12:30 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs.
Thomas, that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-
344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) regarding a personnel
evaluation and regarding the assignment of specific employees, and under
Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff members regarding
specific legal matters relating to reversion, relating to public safety
agreements, and relating to probable litigation concerning a contract.
Roll was called, and the motion was carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall,
and Mr. Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Executive Session.
At 3:10 p.m. the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was
immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board certify by a recorded vote
that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters
lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom
of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive
session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session.
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
000085
Mrs. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion was
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall,
and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve
the' agreement between Albemarle County and the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire
Department regarding the purchase of an aerial ladder truck and the hiring of
paid firefighters to help man that ladder truck.
Roll was called, and the motion was carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall,
and Mr. Martin.
None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to notify
the City that the Board wishes to discuss the contract for fire service on the
Bypass Company at a contract price of $620,000 this year. He noted that the
contract requires the Board to notify the City by July 30 if the contract is
to be terminated. At this time, the Board does not wish to do that, but does
wish to enter into a discussion of the terms of that agreement for FY 1997-98.
Roll was called, and the motion was carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall,
and Mr. Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan.
At this time, the Board returned to discussion of Agenda Item No. 12.
Work Session: Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board could finish with the small area on
Fifth Street. Mr. Benish said an area of approximately 30 acres at the
intersection of 1-64 and Fifth Street is shown for transitional uses. It was
looked at by the Planning Commission, at the request of a citizen, as a
regional service designation. It was ultimately recommended by the Commission
for that category. The Commission felt there was some advantage to consider-
ing that area as a center of activity in Neighborhoods 4 & 5, and that in the
long term a commercial area may be needed to serve the potential expansion
area to the south, thereby avoiding trips to northern commercial areas along
Route 29 or into the City.
At an earlier work session, the Board raised concerns about that
designation and its conflicts with existing areas in the City. The Board did
recommend the transitional designation to provide for a variety of land uses,
including some limited commercial. It would basically provide for office and
apartment-type development. The Board received a letter from an interested
party about this site, who expressed some acceptance of the transitional
designation, but noted that the property falls within the area identified by
staff in the land use plan in the interchange/interstate policy which does
allow for a greater variety of uses. This person has expressed an interest in
some uses which are more characteristic of those seen at an interchange. The
transitional designation does not permit, motels and gas stations. The
interested party has recommended some text language for Neighborhood 5 that
acknowledges that there are overlapping desires for land use in this area, and
that essentially that notation broadens the types of uses that could be
considered in that area.
Mrs. Thomas said the Board is not dealing with an ordinary interchange
in the middle of virgin territory, but with an interchange that has commercial
near it that just happens to lie in the City. For the County to also put a
commercial area right around the interchange and on the County's side of Route
1-64 impacts what is a long-time residential area there, in a way that is not
desirable, and which is not needed by that residential because of the close-
ness of the commercial in the City.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board has already had this discussion. Mr.
Marshall agreed. Mrs. Thomas said she does not believe the Board should
reopen the issue in the Comprehensive Plan when it was turned down in a
rezoning decision. Mr. Marshall said there were over 300 persons who signed a
petition in opposition to the gas station which was proposed, but who were not
opposed to the bank's petition. Mrs. Thomas said she is receiving a lot of
letters from people in Mill Creek who want to have some commercial in their
neighborhood, and she can understand that, however, the area being discussed
today is not the same because there is a commercial area nearby with a good
variety of uses which just happens to be within the City's limits. Mr.
Marshall said this area lies in his district, and he promised the people in
that area that he would not support the request, and he will not.
(Page 41)
Mrs. Humphris asked the designation of that property now. Mr. Benish
said it is shown for transitional use which does permit neighborhood service
commercial uses~such as convenience shopping, etc., but the designation is
limited to 40,000 square feet.
Mrs. Humphris asked if any member of the Board wanted to see the
designation changed. There were no requests for a change. Mr. Tucker asked
the designation of the property. Mr. Benish said it will remain on the map as
transitional which is what the Board decided at an earlier meeting. Mrs.
Humphris asked if the Board members should take a vote on the issue. Mr.
Benish said the land use map posted on the wall today all ready shows that
designation.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board should move to discussion of the growth
areas.
Mr. Marshall said since the Board is discussing commercial areas, he
suggested the Board discuss the commercial area on Avon Street. He has
received numerous letters and, while he was campaigning in the area last fall,
at least 90 percent of the people expressed a desire to have a shopping center
on that piece of land. The land is directly across the road from Mill Creek
and is 14+ acres.
Mr. Benish said that area has been recommended by the Planning Commis-
sion for Community Service, which is larger in scale than neighborhood
service, but more locally-oriented, and is not intended for regional-type
draws. Mr. Marshall said he will support a community service shopping center
there.
Mrs. Humphris said she believes this request will be before the Board in
a couple of weeks. Mr. Benish said there is a rezoning request which is
scheduled for the Board's review soon for a shopping center. Mr. Tucker said
the property is already shown for a shopping center in the proposed plan, so
unless the Board wants to make some change, no action is needed.
Mrs. Humphris asked for information regarding the growth areas. Mr.
Benish said the Planning Commission has recommended to the Board an overall
expansion of the growth areas by approximately 1800 acres. The property lies
in Neighborhoods 4 and 5 south of town, west of Route 20 and mostly east of
Old Lynchburg Road. There is an area of approximately 600 acres that is
located west of Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631). Mr. Benish explained the
Commission's recommendation standing at a map behind the Board table. The
comments were not discernible by the Clerk.
Mr. Marshall asked why the Planning Commission had not recommended an
area for expansion where water and sewer utilities are available, as opposed
to the area they had recommended (south of town). Mr. Benish said staff's
concern had to do with visual impact.
Mr. Marshall asked why the visual impact was greater on one section of
Route 20 as opposed to the area recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr.
Benish said the development could be more linear, and on the larger parcel of
land, development could be more internal. Mr. Marshall asked about develop-
ment impacting on critical slopes. Mr. Cilimberg said there was concern by
one Commission member as to the visual aspect on the east side of Route 20
being at the base of the mountain, and then going up Carter's Mountain. Also,
for part of the area recommended, utilities could be extended out of the
Redfields Development.
Mrs. Thomas said that since the public hearing, she has come up with a
couple of ideas which she has not yet discussed with legal counsel. The idea
that appeals to her is not designating any expansion to the present growth
area in terms of definite "heavy black lines" but having essentially "dotted
lines" with language stating that this is where the Board expects the communi-
ty to grow. Any developer could then bring a proposal for the area, and the
Board will add that area to the growth area if it meets certain carefully
defined standards. The County does not have those standards today. Some
groups have recommended that a task force be put together to draft those
standards, which she does not think would take too long. Things she sees as
being in the standards are: having a greater density, having access, having
necessary utilities, and not leap-frogging over undeveloped areas. Any change
would be dependent on presenting a good proposal as opposed to taking a map
and adding, as the Planning Commission did on a 2/4 vote (she felt this was
the weakest recommendation the Board could have received from the Commission),
new areas. She does think the Commission struggled with something that is
very real. How do you choose the best area to grow into immediately? Long-
term she thinks the Commission agreed to Zhe boundaries shown on the land use
mapf but they could not decide what should happen in the next five years. She
thinks the Board can be fair to the development community by showing outlines
on the map and setting out standards so that any reasonable proposal would
have a good chance of being approved.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff brought to the attention of the Planning
Commission three things which are necessary whether or not there is any
expansion of the land use plan: 1) to identify beyond the existing growth
area boundaries the limits for a possible fifty-year period because of utility
planning aspects; 2) to identify the standards that need to be met in those
areas which will ultimately become an urban area; and 3) to identify a way to
qualify future requests for amendments of the Comprehensive Plan.
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 0000S7
(Page 42 )
Mrs. Thomas said if the County just "does business as usual" and
designates some additional land for the growth area, the County will still get
the usual subdivisions. That type of development is not dense enough. That
will cover more of the County with low density development than has been the
County's goal. There is something wrong with this concept, and part of it is
the "gift" which could be used as a bargaining tool. Mr. Cilimberg said in
establishing the "dotted boundaries" of the urban growth limits, people would
be made aware in those areas that while their property may be designated as
rural area now, it will not be that designation in ten to thirty years.
Mrs. Thomas said one standard could be: if land is adjacent to a
developed subdivision, the new denser subdivision has to have the kind of
design that makes it not impact adversely on the existing subdivision. She
said there is talk about in-fill, but she believes people really mean that the
new areas should be built with a greater density. Mr. Cilimberg said the
second of the three things staff identified as needing to be done is to work
on what makes in-fill work. That will take community participation. Every-
body has to be cognizant of not only the design forces, but the market forces,
and all need to sit down and talk about what will overcome some of the
barriers to in-fill.
Mrs. Thomas said she knows there has to be a designated growth area in
order to have growth take place there. Most people want an attractive
designated growth area so there will not be the rural sprawl that there
otherwise would be. By not designating anything new at this point, the Board
is not saying they want to constrict the growth area, but want somehow to get
it designed better than it has been up to this point.
Mr. Martin said there is a lot of merit to what Mrs. Thomas has said.
He does not know how to "dot" something in and it not be taken by developers
and the public as an area that is drawn for immediate development. He does
not know how to get across the fact, as opposed to the perception. He thinks
it would be nice to do if it can be done. It is time to stop and think about
how to grow. In the northern area, where there are transitional areas, it may
be necessary to talk about reduced densities. He mentioned the Towers
property where it may be denser in the middle, but toward the ends he would
like to see it less dense than Forest Lakes. He thinks the Board should look
at an area and decide how to make the growth and increased densities friendly.
Whether it is a dotted line or a real line, to do as suggested by Mrs. Thomas,
he believes people will still say the Board has promised something, and he
wonders how this would hold up in court should there be a law suit over the
dotted line.
Mrs. Thomas asked for Mr. Davis to respond. Mr. Davis said he believes
Mrs. Thomas is suggesting that an area be designated as a transitional growth
area, and that an area plan to amend the Comprehensive Plan be required before
the Board would amend the zoning map. He has seen other localities where
areas are designated, but they do not clearly define what is wanted there, and
an area plan is required before there is any official designation.
Mrs. Humphris asked if it would be designated as a growth area. Mr.
Davis said it would be designated as a transitional area which is dependent on
approval of an area plan.
Mr. Marshall said he believes the Board will lose sight of why there is
a Comprehensive Plan by doing this. He believes the Board is avoiding the
real subject. If the Board wants to preserve the rural areas, it has to
concentrate growth in the urban ring. If it is to be concentrated in the
urban ring, it has to be concentrated where there is the infrastructure. The
thing that is driving growth south is the proposed new high school. Otherwise
he does not believe there would be the pressure for growth in that area. On
Route 29 North, growth is going in that direction because of the industries,
shopping, etc. He knows that in order to preserve the rural areas, growth has
to be concentrated as has long been the plan. He does not know how to do it,
but he thinks the area on the north where utilities are already in place
should be put back in the plan, and some area taken out on the south.
Mr. Marshall said he will take himself out of the vote on the land to
the south because he owns property in that area, however, his property is not
developable, so it can be deleted and that is fine with him. But, there is
other property in the area which is developable because it has access to water
and sewer. He noted that in southern Albemarle there is a concentration of
very small houses on very small acreages. That is fine because it is afford-
able housing and it is needed. He also wants some intermediate type of
housing without having to destroy all of the rural land.
Mro Marshall said the man who owns most of the property on Route 29
North has 100+ development rights and that will use up a lot of land. He said
the County might allow him to develop it according to the kind of plan
mentioned by Mr. Davis. That is a good idea. Someone wants to develop the
land next to his farm, and he (Mr. Marshall) does not want to see a lot of
little houses and a large number of people there. In this case, he is looking
at it from the property owner's point of view, and not as a Supervisor. He
asked where the Board wanted to go with the Commission's recommendation. He
thinks the first recommendation the Commission staff gave to the Commission
was a good one, and if the Board goes along with that and incorporates some of
these other ideas, the Board will get what it wants without having everything
(Page 43)
really high density. How does the Board provide for what people want, and at
the same time protect the County? He said there is no way to stop growth, or
to prevent people from moving to Albemarle.
Mrs. Thomas said she and Mr. Marshall agree almost totally on what they
want for the County. It is a matter of strategy as to how to do it. She was
suggesting a way that provides more ability to get what they both want.
Mr. Benish said the Planning Commission had a hard time deciding on
where they wanted to designate growth areas, but the one thing they were
unanimous about was the holding area concept Mrs. Thomas has spoken about.
They were in agreement as to in-fill development and what was soon referred to
as a "horizon plan". They agreed to the following language in the Action
Agenda:
Development of a program to implement in-fill development
initiatives.
Study the feasibility and designate, if appropriate, "hold-
ing areas" to provide a long-range vision (20 to 50-year
planning horizon) for Growth Area designation. Develop
guidelines that indicate appropriate conditions that must
exist in order for these "holding areas" to be considered
for inclusion into the Growth Area.
3 o
Continued development of Neighborhood Plans for the desig-
nated Growth Areas.
Pursue with adjacent counties joint studies of border areas
of common interest (Gordonsville, Zion Crossroads, Schuyler
and the Piney Mountain/Ruckersville/Route 29 corridor
areas).
Mr. Benish said this is similar to what the Board has expressed today.
However, some members of the Planning Commission wanted to go ahead and
designate some areas now to address a shorter term need. This is a work item
to be addressed by staff once the Comprehensive Plan is adopted, however, if
the Board would prefer not to adopt the land use plan until this work is
completed, it will delay the process somewhat.
Mr. Bowerman said there is another alternative. The Board can adopt
part of the Plan now, defer adopting anything on the growth areas, and do the
work mentioned during the next six or seven months. That could then be the
guidelines for the new growth area from the beginning. The effect of it is
the same timing wise, but staff might be able to look at the rural areas at
the same time and do the rest of the plan all at once, if the Board can agree
on the commercial and the urban changes. The Board could also be looking at
the in-fill characteristics in the action plan at the same time. Maybe
everybody is talking about the same thing. The effect is the same. He thinks
it will take from six months to a year to complete.
Mr. Tucker said staff has discussed the idea of having a joint session
with the Planning Commission in June to talk about the rural areas. Maybe the
issue with the growth areas could be discussed with them at the same time.
Mr. Bowerman said the public has mentioned several times that the Board
has the ability to adopt into its ordinance something dealing with low- and
moderate-cost housing. He thinks that needs to be looked at also when looking
at any large-scale area for commercial, village center, and residential. He
thinks many of the Board members feel that better standards and guidelines are
needed so that what is brought to the County incorporates those standards
before it is approved.
Mrs. Thomas said she knows some people who are gathering information on
the changes needed in County ordinances in order to have denser development.
It has not all been put together yet.
Mr. Martin said there will be pressure on the north side whether or not
the area is designated for growth. There will be growth in that area whether
or not it is designated. There is not a lot the Board can do to stop that
growth. The same thing will occur on the south side because of the new high
school. In the north, he feels there is no need to rush and designate more
land for growth because the Towers property has already been approved, and
Forest Lakes South is not completely developed. He thinks the Board needs to
slow down and decide how the County should grow, and how to protect what is
already in place.
Mr. Martin said he came to this idea believing the Planning staff did
the right thing in its original proposal to the Commission, and that the
Commission actually did the wrong thing. That is where he started, but he has
been convinced by the logic (not the emotions) of his constituents when they
say there has been fast growth in the area during the last five years, and
now they want a chance to see if it can be done in a better way. He said the
pressure is still there, and the area will continue to grow, but he believes
the Board can take the time to do it right.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the work session with the Planning Commission
could be a brainstorming work session with no expectation that there would be
a product at the end of the meeting.
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
000089
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County has enough personnel resources to do
the type of planning that is being discussed, both in construction of a
comprehensive plan document with standards, as well as some strategies for in-
fill, along with the regular workload. He thinks the public-and development
community and the Board members have articulated some things and there is an
agreement about what the members don't want to see, and a lot of agreement
about the types of things the members would like to see. He is not sure of
the specifics, and the staff will have to play a large role in that.
Mr. Tucker said staff had wanted to have this meeting on June 5 to
coordinate it with a presentation that the Planning District Commission
(TJPDC) is to make on the "build-out" proposal that they have just finished.
He asked Mr. Cilimberg if staff could start a draft of some criteria for the
in-fill. He would like to have a round table discussion with citizens and the
building community on what that criteria should be. Let that group brainstorm
and then bring those ideas to the two bodies in June.
Mr. Cilimberg said all of that cannot happen by June 5 (the Commission
members have expressed a concern about meeting in the day time hours because a
lot of them work and cannot attend), but staff can lay out the primary issues
for the Board and Commission to discuss to get some feel for exactly what each
is looking for. He has heard different approaches today that could work. Mr.
Cilimberg said the build-out information developed by the TJPDC mentions what
could happen in the rural areas, as well as what is expected to happen in the
growth areas. That has already been done, and it is clear as to how it could
evolve. Staff has discussed this with the Commission, and they are at a point
where they know several things which need to be done, but they also know it is
going to take some time to do it. When this whole process started a year or
more ago, there was to be little or no change in the rural areas. There may
need to be some rethinking of that idea.
Second, staff needs the Board's and the Commission's ideas on what the
in-fill issues are and what the growth area criteria issues are. Staff has
quarterly development round tables, and the next one can be used as a way to
do what the Board has been discussing. As to whether there is sufficient
staff to take this idea the whole distance, depends on when the Board wants
the final result, and how much outside expertise might be needed. He said
there are other communities in the country which have focused on this type of
idea. Portland, Oregon, is a prime example of a place where this concept has
been laid out in a grand plan for that area. What works under the enabling
legislation in Virginia is something that staff must always consider. Mr.
Bowerman suggested helping to meet current needs if the Board is comfortable
with the land use designations on the map for existing growth areas. If
action could be taken to get that in place with the text that goes with it,
then staff has something to work from in dealing with current needs. It adds
no acreage to the growth areas. It would only give staff the capability of
advising applicants what is acceptable. Some of the plans being presented now
are not in compliance with the 1989 plan because these people believe a new
plan will be adopted.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the Board has discussed everything that is recom-
mended for change from the last plan. Mr. Benish said staff has gone through
all of the sections and all of the changes. There were some changes this
Board recommended during the work sessions and staff will need to present a
new draft containing those changes.
(Note: Mr. Perkins left the meeting at 4:05 p.m.)
Mrs. Thomas said before a vote is taken, she would like to go over the
changes one more time just to be sure what she is agreeing to. Mr. Bowerman
and Mr. Martin concurred. Mrs. Humphris said she believes the Board will be
able to deal with that step as soon as staff has the final version of those
changes available.
Mr. Benish said he could not recall if the Board members collectively
agreed to deletion of the villages, North Garden and Earlysville. Mrs. Thomas
said "yes", as did Mr. Martin.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board will then proceed with a discussion of the
growth areas.
Mrs. Thomas said she believes all Board members know the growth areas
must be expanded. She would not want anybody to think this is a decision
where the Board is trying to freeze the County's borders. The growth area
borders have to be expanded, but "giving it away" today is not what she thinks
is the smartest thing to do.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Board is going along with the Planning staff's
original recommendations to the Commission. Mrs. Humphris said "no" Mr.
Benish said the staff's original recommendation was to look at the sort of
concept discussed today. The Commission was not comfortable with that idea,
so staff then pushed for expansion areas. The staff is very comfortable with
the position the Board has taken today. Mr. Marshall said he does not know
what position he has taken today. He assumed the Board would look at the
whole growth area as originally presented to the Commission which is what the
Board instructed staff to do a year ago to protect the rural areas.
Mr. Cilimberg said what he thought the Board wanted to do was to take a
two-pronged approach. One is to take, without Earlysville and without North
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
0000.90
Oarden, existing growth areas as the boundaries currently exist in the
Comprehensive Plan of 1989, and to implement the new land use designations for
those areas and do that immediately so staff will have that to work with for
proposals that are filed for existing growth areas. Second, look at the areas
staff identified as expansion areas, and start talking about the criteria
under which they might expand, as well as to talk about how in-fill can be
achieved, and what needs to be done to accomplish in-fill, in combination with
another look at the whole rural area concept. That will be on the discussion
level first with several months before staff will bring back the second prong
of the plan for approval. Mr. Cilimberg said for the next several months, it
will be a new land use plan on an old growth area boundary.
Mrs. Humphris asked in what time frame that will be done. Mr. Cilimberg
said staff can have something back in about four weeks, or the June 5 meeting.
NOT DOCKETED: Mr. Bowerman said that while Mr. Wendell Wood is in
attendance at this meeting, he would like to present him with a Certificate of
Appreciation for his donation of land along Berkmar Drive for its construc-
tion, as well as the easements for the new thirty-inch waterline. He thanked
Mr. Wood for his contribution to the community.
(Note: Mr. Martin left the meeting at 4:12 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments. There were no names offered for
appointment.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned children who attended a meeting two months ago
regarding the dead animals found while walking with their mother. She said
certain staff and police, as well as landowners, have worked hard to clean up
such items as sofas and refrigerators from their property. She does not
believe VDOT had completed their portion of the work. Ms. Jo Higgins,
Director of Engineering and Public Works, said the work had been completed
Friday with Highway Department equipment, County manpower, and Joint Security
Complex staff. Mrs. Thomas said these are never complete success stories
because there are always illegal dumpers in our midst, but if there is a
success story in the making, this is one. She said the County did a good job
also in letting people know where to get help. If a person calls 9-1-1, they
will now be directed to the proper person. Ail emergency numbers have also
been listed in the County's "FYI" newsletter. Mrs. Thomas thanked everyone
involved for their hard work.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board received a note from Mrs. Rellen Perry
thanking the Board for the acknowledgement she received during the Fair
Housing Day which was held at the Albemarle County Office Building.
Mrs. Humphris handed to Mr. Tucker an article from the International
Dark Sky Association newsletter about sports lighting and how this type of
lighting was better for the playing fields.
Mrs. Humphris said there would be a meeting of the Route 29 North
Corridor Study Steering and Technical Committees on Monday, May 6, 1996, at
10:00 a.m. She said the meeting was open to anyone who wants to attend.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board had received a post card from the Planning
District regarding the report of the Solid Waste Task Force. She said the
card is to be returned as soon as possible giving available dates to hear the
presentation which will be the last week of June.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Tucker to contact Mr. John Purcell and ask him to
install a gate in front of the property on Route 20 South. Citizens in
Marshall Manor have called because the area is becoming a dumping area.
Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission has asked to review the site
plan for the Monticello High School. He said a meeting would take place on
May 14, 1996. He asked staff to review the lay out of the site plan so the
Board would be able to address concerns, such as the number of soccer fields
and the location of the football field.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner, who is responsible for
reviewing the site plan, was present along with Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of
Parks and Recreation, and Ms. Jo Higgins, Director of Engineering, to answer
any concerns the Board may have.
Mr. Lilley handed out the latest version of the site plan and gave a
brief review from the area maps. He said the site plan is to go to the
Planning Commission on May 14, 1996. Staff has gone through the site review
with this plan. He said the high school will be located on the north side of
May ld 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
bO009
the connector road, with the main building located on the east side of the
property; soccer and practice fields will be located on the north side,
adjoining the Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) property; base-
ball/softball fields, auxiliary parking and the football stadium and parking
area will be located on the south-western portion of the property. The
possibility of a community pool would be located on the far western portion of
the property. Revisions have been submitted and those revisions are being
studied by all of the agencies involved. Comments are due back by the end of
this week. The Planning Commission is looking at the rezoning that the Board
had initiated with the understanding that an R-15 district is needed for the
height limits on this school building.
Mr. Bowerman said concerns had been expressed to him because this high
school had been planned with a sustainable design in terms of its energy usage
and its siting, but yet the site seems to be so intensively used, it detracts
from the concept of a sustainable high school. He asked Mr. Lilley to comment
on utilization of the site in the terms of its intensity.
Mr. Lilley said that the County has tried to make an efficient and
complete use of the property, since the site is located in a growth area.
Mr. Cilimberg said the intensity of use of a site is governed primarily
by meeting all of the ordinance requirements. He said the Planning Commission
makes the judgement on waivers and modifications and this particular site goes
through the site review committee process so that every agency is able to
comment on their concerns.
Mr. Tucker said there may be a conflict trying to meet the needs of the
community for recreation while sustainability issues are still a concern.
Mr. Bowerman said the specific issue was whether the need for site
facilities has caused certain areas to be developed in a way which is not
· sensitive to the topography. He said he was not criticizing, but is just
asking questions. He believes the Planning Commission would like to get some
sense of what transpires so they have a sense of the policy questions, what is
planned for the site plan and how it was accommodated.
Mrs. Thomas said if she were staff, she would say the Board was saying
to build everything possible onto the site and utilize all of the land. She
said she was not an expert on good use of land, nor was she a landscape
architect, but when people who are take a look at this site plan and say that
what is being done is terracing and filling in swales, and essentially making
this into a "Wal-Mart piece of property" with no feeling for the land, while
the County is bragging about a high school which is being planned to address
environmentally sensitive issues, that is one reason she felt the discussion
today would be helpful to all.
Ms. Higgins said that last summer, a group called the Learning Specifi-
cations Design Team {LSDT), which included Ms. Marsha Joseph, Architectural
Review Board landscape architect, Mr. Jay Schlothauer, Building Inspections,
high level administrators from Schools, PVCC staff, University of Virginia
staff, (I/VA), and parents started with three different plans. One plan was
similar to the Virginia Forestry Building which was to have been built on 26
acres of the site where the high school will be located. A second plan had a
stadium in the vicinity. Ms. Higgins said she spent a couple of hours on site
with Ms. Marcia Joseph, Bart Svoboda of the Zoning Department, and Mr. David
Holly, State District Forester. She said Mr. Holly stressed to protect a
linear part of the pond and forested areas rather than taking the fragmented
appr()ach. Ms. Higgins said that the submitted site plan started with six
regul.ation-sized playing field. Three playing fields were now made slightly
short,er and narrower so the grading could be pulled out of the peripheral area
of the pond in order to diminish the grading needed. Whether the paving was
perwi.ous or not became an issue of sustainability, and also with the County's
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance to provide enough parking spaces to
supp()rt the 180,000 square foot building.
Ms. Higgins said there was one area on the site with steep slopes that
also contains a spring. The building was taken out of this area, so there is
less impact than is shown on the plan before the Board today. The maximum 2:1
slop,'~ is used instead of the 3:1 slope shown on the plan today. The sewer
line will come through this area and the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACS2~Q has agreed to an easement that would be modified so the land does not
have to be fully cleared, only certain trees would be removed.
Ms. Higgins said the fields will go in an area that is mostly grassed
and 'the scrub cedars in the area are not trees that need to be saved. There
are significant trees in other areas which need to be saved. The most impact
on the site as far as ecology is concerned, is in an area where it was marked
as having an intermittent stream, when in actuality it is a stormwater swale.
The swale has been eroded by a pipe that was put in the area draining to the
farm pond created by a dam. If this were being newly created, it would not be
of such magnitude to serve just stormwater purposes, but the pond does serve
the whole area and it is a stormwater facility subject to a maintenance agree-
ment. Staff will try and protect it. Lighted facilities have been grouped
together on the site. The facilities are in lower elevations of the site, and
this was done to minimize the impact on adjacent residential properties.
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
000092
Ms. Higgins said the County purchased 107 acres, and there was one plan
developed which showed the facility scattered over the entire site. Forty-
five usable acres are required for the high school, and some of that is in the
pond, and some in the sloped areas which are being saved. Two fields and
associated lighting have been added for a park facility. That brings the
total for the school up to 65 or 70 acres. The school could be spread out to
the point where students could not make use of the site during the day.
Ms. Higgins said that Mr. David Hirschmann, Water Resources Manager, did
the wetlands delineation. There are wetlands in two different areas. She
thinks staff has "gone through all the hoops", but if the Board desires to
diminish the intensity of use on the site, that is a possibility.
Mr. Tucker asked if the two multi-function fields, that would be used
for recreation, were going to be moved across the road to the County-owned
land. Ms. Higgins said the grouping of the fields was a function of personnel
from the physical education departments, and Parks and Recreation. She does
not think Parks and Recreation needed to have the fields together; however, it
is helpful having them where the students can use them and they are not where
they can interact with inappropriate people during the day.
Mr. Mullaney said he talked with Mr. Reaser about the number of fields,
and the idea that there could be two fields which could be used for recre-
ation. In reality, the six multi-purpose fields would used for the high
school programs in the spring. If one of those fields was taken away,
students would be bussed to another school, which will cut down considerably
on recreation use. Mr. Reaser said he wanted to avoid a situation such as
that at Western Albemarle and Henley, where the students now must cross the
road, and that creates a liability issue.
Ms. Higgins said another issue was parking. With the fields presently
located as they are, the faculty parking can be used at night. On another
part of the site, there would have to be an entrance and parking added. She
said the fields are immediately adjacent to the softball fields at PVCC. Ms.
Higgins lives adjacent to that use, and can say that the use of those fields
goes until after 10:00 p.m., and the fields are lighted completely.
Mrs. Humphris said she had talked with the architect, Mr. Jack Clark,
about the number of fields.' She said he mentioned that Albemarle and Western
Albemarle High Schools have one of the highest percentages of participation in
field sports compared to other high schools in the state; therefore we have
the need for the fields. She said the other concern was the location of the
stadium in the swale. Mr. Clark and another architect explained the problems
that would be involved if the stadium were located up on the hill, which they
felt would be worse.
Ms. Higgins said this was a stormwater swale, and even if you did not
have something in this area, you would still need to have access across it.
(NOTE: At 4:44 p.m., Mr. Marshall left the meeting, thus destroying the
quorum. The other Board member continued since the item being discussed was
for informational purposes only.)
Mrs. Humphris mentioned conversations with Mrs. Brandt, adjoining
landowner, about the buffer between the County's property and the Willow Lakes
development. She asked if anything could be done about the fence Mrs. Brandt
requested, and about firming up the buffer better.
Ms. Higgins said there is actually only one house in Willow Lakes whose
backyard touches the County's boundary. She has met with Mr. Griffin, the
owner of the property. None of the other properties actually touch the
County's property, but there is a triangular portion of property which is
designated as open space for the Willow Lake development. At Mrs. Brandt's
townhouse, the site plan has been revised to drop the playing fields in such a
way as to create a berm, which is the best kind of buffer to have. There are
100 feet of trees traveling south, but right in front of Mrs. Brandt's
townhouse, there is an open area where trees will have to be planted. Then
the natural trees pick up again and go behind the Griffin's where they have
cleared away all the underbrush. She has written a letter to the Griffin's
giving them all the options available for fencing (open/closed, green/brown,
on the County's property boundary/top of the slope). Dirt will be moved in
that area to cut the fields into terraces. Ms. Brandt does have an end unit
and has done landscaping on her slope (actually it is over the property
boundary onto the Count's property), and it is a nice bird sanctuary, but the
Griffin's have asked for some screening plants to put on their side of the
fence because they are almost at the parking lot.
Ms. Higgins said there is a time factor involved. Dirt is to be moved
from the building site beginning in late May or early June until September 1,
and then from other areas after that. Putting up a fence early would diminish
the impact of the construction equipment.
Mr. Bowerman said if all staff members are present when the Planning
Commission reviews this plan, and the public is allowed to ask questions,
there will be a full discussion of why the site is planned as it is planned.
People who know what they are talking about can disagree over the specifics of
a site plan. That happens all the time. What is not so apparent is having an
open discussion of all the alternatives, why certain things were selected,
what the benefits are, what the negatives are, and why trade-offs were done.
May 1, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000093
(Page 48)
Moving the school from the one location because it cut down on the impervious
surface is an important criteria because it does not come readily to mind when
one visits the site.
Mr. Tucker said he looks at this as an in-filling, but for field space.
If the fields are moved, they must be put in another spot and the Board knows
-- that, if they are placed anywhere in a rural area, people will not want a
field next to them. There would be a problem locating these fields in certain
areas, and they are needed.
Mrs. Thomas said she does not know enough to comment, however, she
agrees with Mr. Bowerman that the question will get a full and open discussion
before the Planning Commission. She has been asked by the public why the
County is not sharing more facilities with PVCC. Having served on the
committee for the school, she has been telling them that the County is
sharing. She asked if that is true. Mr. Reaser said PVCC was not willing to
share. They feel that their fields are over used for their needs and the
public needs. They were not willing to offer any sharing there, but the
County's new tennis courts will be placed on the PVCC site, so there will be
sharing there.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the auditorium will not be shared. Mr. Reaser said
"yes".
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mrs. Thomas thanked all who had partici-
pated in this presentation, saying it was very helpful.
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:53 p.m.