1996-03-06March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
000140
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on March 6, 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. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m. by the
Chair, Charlotte Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Presentation: Distinguished Budget Award by Rhu
Harris, President, Virginia GFOA.
Mr. Harris noted that he is Assistant County Administrator in Hanover
County, as well as President of the Virginia Government Finance Officers
Association for the current year. Today he is also representing the Govern-
ment Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada. He would
like to present to the Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors, as well as Ms.
Anne Gulati, the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. This award repre-
sents a significant achievement by Albemarle County and indicates that its
budget document has been reviewed and rated favorably by an expert panel of
independent budgeting professionals.
In order to receive this award, Albemarle County had to satisfy nation-
ally recognized guidelines for effective budget presentation. These guide-
lines were designed to assess how well the budget document fulfills four major
objectives, and he described those objectives. The first objective is that
the budget document should serve as a policy tool; secondly, the budget
document should serve as a clear financial plan; thirdly, the budget document
should serve as a guide to the organization's operations; and finally the
budget document should serve as a communications medium providing a summary of
information about the organization's programs, services and finances in a
manner suitable for use by the media and general public. The budget is
reviewed by a comprehensive evaluation check list and contains 26 criteria
which have to be met to win the award.
Since the inception of the GFOA's Distinguished Budget Presentation
Awards Program in 1984, approximately 700 entities out of more than 4,800
government finance organizational units in the United States and Canada have
won the award, and he emphasized that Albemarle County is one of the elite 700
entities. As far as the State of Virginia is concerned, Albemarle County is
only one of 32 municipalities to win this award. This is truly a tough award
to win, and he thinks the Supervisors should be extremely proud of all the
effort the staff has put forth.
He then presented the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to Mrs.
Humphris and Ms. Gulati.
Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC.
Ms. Mary McLerran, an Albemarle County resident, stated that she wanted
to bring to the Board's attention that while she and some children were on a
walk yesterday, they discovered a field full of litter and dead animals. She
and her husband went back later and found a variety of dead farm animals, such
as goats, cows, and pigs, as well as deer and turkeys. This location is at
Route 781, which is Sunset Avenue Extended. She called the police and made
them aware of the situation and told them that she and the children would be
speaking this morning to make the Supervisors aware of it. The police
informed her that the Supervisors would probably do something about cleaning
it up right away because it is a health hazard. The field is above a creek,
and it is not far from where people live. She noted that Sergeant Richard
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000141
(Page 2)
Martin, the Animal Control Officer, has been alerted, and Officer Linda
Jenkins went out and looked at the field yesterday. Ms. McLerran said she has
been told the Game Warden may have some leads as to who is killing these farm
animals and leaving them close to a residential area.
Miss Emily Wilson stated that while she and others were on a walk
yesterday, they saw lots of garbage in a field, as well as a deer skeleton.
They walked on and saw more garbage and then came to an area with at least 15
dead animals. They saw a pig, a cat and a goat in various stages of rot, and
she is still sick from the smell and sight. It is a beautiful place to walk,
and she asked the Supervisors to get the field cleaned up and stop the people
who are dumping the dead animals.
Miss Ann McLerran reported that she was taking a walk with her friends
yesterday when they came upon what looked as though it was a pile of trash.
However, when they looked closer they saw a bunch of dead animals and counted
two goats -- one which was freshly killed, six cats -- one of them was also
freshly killed, one freshly killed pig -- three deer and one turkey. She
stated that there were thirteen dead animals, as well as lots more, but they
could not see what kind of animals they were. It was not a very good feeling
to be around trash and dead animals. One time she found a dead rabbit in the
middle of the road, and she and her family had a proper burial for it. She
thinks there should be a proper burial for these animals.
A young child who did not give his name stated that he wants to grow up
in a clean world and not a dirty and scummy one. He does not want to wake up
every morning to a dead animal in the neighborhood.
Mr. Harris Tobias, a resident within 20 yards of the dump site, remarked
that he has watched the field fill up with litter over the months. He stated
that all of a sudden domestic animals are appearing there in large quantities,
and it has become a rather frightening situation. He said his daughter waits
alone for the school bus less than 20 yards from the dump site, and he is
concerned about what is behind this slaughtering of animals. He would like to
see the field cleaned up and the perpetrators caught.
Mr. Jack Wilson commented that he hopes someone on the Board of Supervi-
sors, or the County Executive, can ensure the children that at least the
animal carcasses, such as the goats, pigs and calves can be cleaned up today.
He noted that this action will show that a demonstration of government can
work. He also hopes the Police Department can find out why and how this
happened. He would like to speak to a broader issue involving Stribling
Avenue, Extended, which he understands is going to be closed or abandoned. He
hopes the Board of Supervisors will not abandon Stribling Avenue, Extended,
but closing it, if it stops the dumping there, would be helpful. He counted
five sofas in this particular area today. The Neighborhood Association has
worked for years with the landowners, as well as the University of Virginia
Foundation which is developing the Research Park, and it has been helpful, but
there is a continual dumping problem. He mentioned that Old Lynchburg Road
has a similar problem, where there is a culvert under the interstate, and
there is an amazing amount of dumping at this point. He has shown this area
to David Hirschman, who is an excellent Water Resources Manager, but it was
far beyond any of the neighborhoods' capabilities to clean up this property.
He stated that the Old Lynchburg Road, Sunset Avenue and Stribling Avenue,
Extended are major continual dumping grounds. The residents who live in this
vicinity have worked through their Neighborhood Associations, as well as
available County and City resources, without much results. He then suggested
that in addition to addressing the issues the children have brought to the
Supervisors' attention today, that they address these broader issues as well,
so the southern portion of the County is not surrounded by dumping grounds as
it is currently.
Mrs. Humphris thanked everyone for informing the Board members of this
problem. She would like to particularly thank the children because it is a
wonderful thing for them to report what they saw, as well as their feelings
about it. It must have been a very distressing experience, but it is a major
learning experience for them. She went on to say the Supervisors really
appreciate being informed of the situation, because they would not have been
able to do anything about it, if they were not told that the problem existed.
She said reporting this problem is very much in the realm of good citizenship.
Mr. Tucker stated that if the police are aware of the problem, they will
start investigation of it immediately. The County staff will follow up on the
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
000142
matter, and will certainly do everything that can be done today to have the
carcasses removed. He noted that this is the first he has heard about the
problem.
Mrs. Thomas commented that, in general, there are many illegal dumping
areas in the County. Mr. Tucker agreed that Stribling Avenue has been cleaned
up before, but it is a continual dumping area. Mrs. Thomas said there is a
committee that has tried to come uP with some solutions as far as illegal
trash dumping is concerned, but it has not had much success.
Mr. Tucker remarked that public information and media reports of what
has been said today at this meeting are the best ammunition to use because the
people who take advantage of these areas need to be caught, but they also need
to be shamed into stopping this action. He does not know if this will happen,
because there are so many areas in the County which are easily accessible, and
they are on private property. The situation is unfortunate, and a lot of the
dumping is happening even in the County's urban area. He also noted that
areas such as Sunset Avenue and Stribling Avenue are easily accessible to
people who want to do such things.
Mrs. Thomas inquired if any of these areas are on University of Virginia
property. She mentioned that University representatives cleaned up their
property a couple of years ago, and they put up some fences. Mr. Tucker
answered that the Stribling Avenue area is adjacent to some of the University
Foundation's property, and Foundation representatives have been very helpful
to the County in putting up a fence. He said part of the. abandonment issue is
that as long as the right-of-way is considered a public right-of-way for
access, it cannot be closed, and people in early morning or late evening hours
will dump sofas and appliances, etc. This problem can be addressed by closing
some of these access points, but they cannot all be closed. He said if he
could say illegal dumping could be cleared up throughout this County, nobody
would believe him, because it would be impossible. However, County employees
will do what can be done. He emphasized that when they know about it, as they
heard about the situation today, it can be addressed and it can be prevented
from happening at least in a particular area.
Mr. Marshall wondered if an ordinance could be passed which would fine
people heavily for such dumping, because a $50 fine is not significant enough.
He mentioned that people driving in front of his farm today would be amazed at
the amount of trash that has been thrown there in the two weeks he was away,
even though the Highway Department installed a sign indicating that littering
is illegal. People have to be seen littering, and the person who sees them
has to testify against them in court, and the fine is still only $50. He
asked again why an ordinance cannot be passed to increase the fine to deter
these people. He stated that it is worth $50 to use some of the dump sites.
He reiterated that this ordinance is not working, and he asked if this Board
has the authority to increase the fine.
Mrs. Humphris asked if enabling legislation limits the Supervisors, as
far as imposing a fine. Mr. Davis responded that typically a local jurisdic-
tion cannot impose punishments greater than the State can impose for the same
crime. He thinks this is also the case with littering, but there may be some
specific enabling legislation that he can investigate to determine if
Albemarle County can have a stricter ordinance.
Mrs. Humphris suggested that a report be given to this Board after the
incident has been investigated and the carcasses are removed. She is request-
ing this report on behalf of the members of the community who have come
forward. Mr. Tucker concurred that a report will be forthcoming to make the
Board of Supervisors aware of what is happening.
Mrs. Thomas wondered, in addition to the police, who should be contacted
in the County government to get the quickest results. Mr. Tucker replied that
this is usually a zoning violation, so the Zoning Department should be
contacted. This is the way such violations have been processed in the past.
He went on to say, though, that these people are dumping illegally on someone
else's property unbeknown to these people, but the property owners are the
ones who are held responsible to clean it. He then referred to the committee
which Mrs. Thomas mentioned earlier. This committee has looked at these
illegal dump sites and has studied how to deal with the issue, and the County
has put some money aside to try to clean up some of them. However, they are
so numerous in the rural areas of the County that it is very difficult to
clean up all of them. It is probably not even known where they are all
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
000 43
located, unless people come forward and make the County officials aware of
them. The Zoning Administrator is the one to call for such violations,
initially. If it is a zoning violation, someone from that office will contact
the police, if the violator can be prosecuted. The Zoning Administrator will
also work with the Public Works Department to either try to clean up the site
or contract with someone else to do it.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he would like to know why the animals died.
This is a health hazard. Mr. Tucker responded that the police will have to
investigate this issue, t
Mr. Wilson noted that the site is located on Moore's Creek which goes
directly into the Chesapeake Bay.
Mrs. McLerran stated that while listening to the Supervisors discuss
this matter, she was reminded of when her children want more pancakes. She
will give each of them the same amount of pancakes, but she has to look at the
bigger issue of whether one has more pancakes than the other, and whether or
not a certain child needs more pancakes. She will give the child more
pancakes if he or she needs them. The discussion is about punishing the ones
who are dumping, but she wondered why they are dumping. She asked if it is
because they have a sofa they can't use and they can't afford to take it to
the Ivy Landfill and pay the price there. She then referred to a free day at
the Library where books can be brought back with no charge. She wondered if
the Ivy Landfill could do something similar for those people with very low
incomes who are unable to pay the fee. It is costing the County a lot of
money to clean up after them, and she asked if a free day for taking items to
the Ivy Landfill could be publicized.
Mr. Tucker answered that the County will have a similar program, and
although it is not a free day, people will be able to bring products that
someone else can use. The County has a warehouse, which is not yet completed,
where products such as sofas, etc., can be stored. He stated that others can
come in and legally scavenge these types of products. Mrs. McLerran suggested
that this warehouse situation be publicized. She has not heard of it. Mr.
Tucker responded that the program is just being initiated. Mrs. McLerran also
mentioned that something needs to be done about things that are just junk and
can't be used. Mr. Tucker stated that the County would have to have a
different program to allow this type of situation without a fee. Mrs.
McLerran stated that it would be a lot cheaper than what is being done now,
which is cleaning up after a lot of people.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker to pass on Mrs. McLerran's suggestion to
the Solid Waste Authority. She said it might spark some creative ideas among
that group.
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda.
Mrs. Humphris asked that Item 6.6 be moved and discussed with other
items under Agenda Item No. 8d.
Mrs. Thomas said she believes that Item 6.7 deserves more than just
acceptance on the consent agenda. Mr. Tucker suggested it be discussed with
Agenda Item No. 14. The reason the Chris Greene Lake Watershed Report was put
on the Consent Agenda is because the matter will be coming back to this Board.
This is just a status report, and the recommendation is for this Board to
address the whole issue when a reworking of the ordinances that protect the
County's watersheds has been completed. He stated that Mr. Hirschman is
working on this matter and hopes to have it completed sometime in the summer.
This whole issue will come back to this Board at that time.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
approve Items 6.1 through 6.5 and to accept items 6.8 through 6.17 as informa-
tion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
000 .44
Item No. 6.1. ZMA-95-14. Dennis Rooker/Ivy Creek, Inc., Etal. (de-
ferred from February 21, 1996). By the recorded vote set out above, the
following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
ZMA-95-14
IVY CREEK, INC.
WHEREAS, in accordance with section 15.1-431 of the Code of
Virginia and Section 33 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance,
a public hearing was advertised, adjoining property owners noti-
fied, and a hearing scheduled on ZMA-95-14 for rezoning approxi-
mately 214 acres from PRD, Planning Residential Development, to
RA, Rural Areas District, on property more particularly identified
in the zoning application; and
WHEREAS, the Board's review of the application assumes that
the 1994 approval of ZMA-94-10 was premised upon the fact that the
driveway permitted by that approval would be properly gated to
prevent unauthorized access from Ivy Creek Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, this application and the attached proffers are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, good zoning practices, and
the prior approval of ZMA-94-10.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby approves
ZMA-95-14 with proffers, the proffers being attached hereto and
made a part of this approval.
PROFFER FORM
Date: 2/22/96
ZMA # 95-14
Tax Map Parcel(s) # 95A-1 Lots (1-33) and Parcel B
214 Acres to be rezoned from PRD to P~A
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance,
the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily
proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the
property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of
the requested rezoning and it is agreed that the limitations: (1)
are required or arise because of the nature of the property and
the rezoning sought, and (2) have a reasonable relation to the
rezoning requested.
(1) Within 45 days of the rezoning of the property, the
Owners will submit to Albemarle County for approval a revised plat
of the property with a total number of lots not to exceed 14.
(2) Prior to any further development of the property, the
property shall be subdivided in accord with an approved plat
consisting of not more than 14 lots.
(3) Access limited to Broomley Road only, and no access
onto Brook Road. This condition shall not prohibit the connection
of a private driveway from the Broomley Farm property to the roads
serving the Ivy Creek property, provided that the private driveway
is not used for subdivision purposes for so long as it physically
connects the Ivy Creek property to Brook Road.
Lots Owned:
59-A-1 (1, 4, 5-7, 17)
Date Signed: 2-23-96
Owner Signature:
Thomas E. Worrell, Jr.
59-A-1 (2-3, 9-13, 19-33) Ixry Creek, Inc.
Date Signed: 2-23-96 by: Robert M, Smither, Jr., V.P.
59-A-1 (8)
Date Signed:
Keepers, Inc.
2-23-96 by: Robert M. Smither. Jr.. V.P.
59-A-1 (14-16) Worrell Enterprises, Inc.
Date Signed: 2-23-96 by: Robert M. Smither, Jr., V.P.
000 45
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
59-A-1 (18)
Date Signed:
Date Signed:
Feb. 22'96
Feb 22nd '96
Alexandra Welsh
George Welsh
Parcel B
Date Signed:
Ivy Creek Owners' Association, Inc.
2-23-96 By: Robert M. Smither, Jr., V.P.
Item No. 6.2. Proclamation proclaiming May 4, 1996, as Albemarle County
Farm Tour Day, and commending the Albemarle Farm Bureau and the Piedmont
Environmental Council for helping to educate the citizens about the importance
of farming to our community was approved by the recorded vote set out above.
Albemarle County Farm Tour Day
WHEREAS,
the Comprehensive Plan gives highest priority to
agriculture and forestry as a land use in the Rural
Area; and
WHEREAS,
the citizens of Albemarle County in the 1994 Albemarle
County Planning Needs Survey rated ~preserving natural
resources and open space" and ~preserving farmland and
forested land" as the 4th and 5th most important goals
out of a series of 25 broad goals for the future; and
WHEREAS,
agriculture and forestry are major contributors to
Albemarle County's economy through market sales,
employment, and the generation of support activities;
and
WHEREAS,
Albemarle County is among the top 25 counties in
Virginia for the market value of agricultural products
sold; and
WHEREAS,
it is the land resource which provides the true value
of agriculture and forestry to this community, with
related benefits of open space for cleaner air, water-
shed protection, and wildlife habitat; scenic, rural
and historic landscapes which encourage tourism; and
quality of life for all residents; and
WHEREAS,
maintaining agriculture and forestry also enables the
County to grow at a measured and deliberate pace, and
to better plan for services; and
WHEREAS,
the loss of the agricultural and forestal resource
base would permanently damage the County's economic
base and natural environment; and
WHEREAS,
the Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support
Committee recommended that educational programs be
developed for the public, such as:
Improving both the County officials' and the
general public's understanding of agriculture;
Promoting appreciation of the rural area by the
community, and emphasizing the importance of
agricultural and forestal lands to them;
Supporting agricultural education in the class-
room, and implementing a farm day for school
children; and
Implementing an educational tour of County farms
for the general public, County officials and
decision-making staff; and
WHEREAS,
the future of agriculture and forestry in Albemarle
County depends on the actions of the farm and forest
owners, but also on the support of elected officials
and other citizens.
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
000 46
NOW, THEREFORE,
I, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, Albemarle
Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
MAY 4, 1996 as:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FARM TOUR DAY
and commend the Albemarle Farm Bureau and the Piedmont
Environmental Council for helping to educate the
citizens about the importance of farming to our commu-
nity.
Item No. 6.3. Adopt Resolution designating Melvin A. Breeden as County
of Albemarle's Agent regarding FEMA funds for costs incurred durin9 the
Blizzard of 1996.
Staff noted that in response to the January, 1996 Blizzard, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) established certain criteria for recovery
of related costs:
Snow removal only costs for the first 72 hours from the start of
clearing on or about January 6, 1996.
Snow removal only cost for an additional 48 hours from the start of
clearing on or about January 12, 1996.
This is a new simplified method of determining costs and it is believed
that it will result in reduced administrative costs and greater cost recovery
than the old method which required identification of primary snow routes and
receiving funds for clearing one lane only in each direction. Since the
County's primary cost is related to clearing of parking areas and not primary
snow routes, the new method should be an improvement.
In order to receive funding, the County is required to adopt a resolu-
tion authorizing an agent to sign the contract to receive funds. This
resolution must be received by the State no later than March 15th. Staff
recommends adoption of a resolution authorizing Melvin A. Breeden, Director of
Finance, to file and sign all necessary documents to receive these funds.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was
adopted:
DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia that Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, is
hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of Albemarle
County, a public entity established under the laws of the State of
Virginia, this application and to file it in the appropriate State
office for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial
assistance under the Disaster Relief Act (Public Law 288, 93rd
Congress) or otherwise available from the President's Disaster
Relief Fund.
THAT Albemarle County, a public entity established under the
laws of the State of Virginia, hereby authorizes its agent to
provide to the State and to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) for all matters pertaining to such Federal disaster
assistance the assurances and agreements printed on the reverse
side hereof.
Item No. 6.4. Authorize staff to move forward with Classified Employee
Compensation Proposals.
Staff noted that on February 7, 1996, Mr. Charles F. Hendricks of
Hendricks and Associates, Inc. presented recommendations on modifying the
County's Compensation policies for both classified and teacher pay scales. At
that time, the Board of Supervisors accepted the report in principle and
instructed staff to solicit feedback from employees and begin the appeals
process for individuals who feel they have been misclassified. Several group
000:.I.47
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
sessions were held and department heads were trained and asked to hold
departmental staff meetings to answer questions.
In general, employees seem fairly pleased with the study's recommenda-
tions which represent a significant change from existing methodology. This
recommendation seems to be easier for employees to understand and it places
positions within their competitive market. However, there are a significant
number of "nuts and bolts" policy issues that will need to be worked through
prior to implementation. Many of these issues deal with policies that
currently relate to the existing step system; issues such as: how to treat
probationary employees, future reclassifications as employees' duties change,
and promotions. These are some of the decisions that need to be carefully
worked through. Additionally, a transition plan for how scores from the
current evaluation tool will fit into the four level system proposed needs to
be in place in late spring as evaluations are completed on all non-teaching
employees.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to implement the
recommendations in Mr. Hendrick's report for classified employees in conjunc-
tion with School Board approval (being recommended by School staff on March
11. School staff has modified the teachers' compensation plan proposal
slightly and is currently tracking the same March 11 approval date for the
School Board.). This will allow programming changes to the County's payroll
system to begin and will initiate Finance, Information Services, and Human
Resources teams to identify implementation issues that need to be addressed.
Staff recommends that these issues be sent to the Board-appointed Compensation
Committee for recommendation with those requiring policy changes being brought
back to the two Boards for approval.
By the recorded vote set out above, the staff's recommendation was
adopted as set out above.
Item No. 6.5. Appropriation: Revenue Reclassification, (Form #95061).
It was noted in the staff's report that the County has traditionally appropri-
ated the Department of Social Services flow-through money as originating
solely from State sources. In actuality, the Department of Social Services is
funded by both Federal and State monies. Each year the external auditors
reclassify the receipts of Social Services between Federal and State sources.
The appropriations are not adjusted which results in a large variance between
Federal and State revenues. The purpose of this appropriation is to recognize
Federal funds for budget and financial statement presentation. It does not
authorize the receipt or expenditure of any funds. Staff recommends approval
of reclassification appropriation #95061.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST:
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95061
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: RECLASSIFICATION OF SOCIAL SERVICE
REVENUES
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$.00
REVENUE
2100024000240110
2100024000240111
2100024000240114
2100033000330020
2100033000330021
2100033000330022
DESCRIPTION
SOCIAL SERVICES-ADMINISTRATION
SOCIAL SERVICES-ASSISTANCE
SOCIAL SERVICES-SERVICES
SOCIAL SERVICES-ADMINISTRATION
SOCIAL SERVICES-ASSISTANCE
SOCIAL SERVICES-SERVICES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
($896,252.00)
(192,360.00)
(285,460.00)
896,252.00
192,360.00
285,460.00
$.00
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
000148
Item No. 6.6. Approval of draft letter to the Department of Transporta-
tion, re: restriction of through tractor-trailer truck traffic on Routes
231/222. Mrs. Humphris asked that this item be discussed with Agenda Item No.
8d.
Item No. 6.7. Chris Greene Lake Watershed Report. It was noted in the
staff's report that on August 2, 1995, the Board requested a report detailing
the watershed protection consequences of designating Chris Greene Lake as a
public water supply reservoir. The request arose due to information made
available in the "Urban Raw Water Management Study," conducted by Black &
Veatch for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. An addendum to the report
outlined the possibility, based on computer models, of augmenting the safe
yield of the North Fork water system by using supplemental releases of water
from Chris Greene Lake. According to the study, the North Fork system could
increase its safe yield from one million gallons per day to approximately two
million gallons per day, which is the current treatment capacity of the North
Fork plant. Supplemental releases from the lake would only be needed during
very rare drought events. Black & Veatch also predicted that supplemental
releases would not effect measurably the recreational use of Chris Greene
Lake.
If the Board designated Chris Greene Lake as a public water supply
reservoir, certain watershed protection ordinances would apply to land that
lies within the lake's watershed. The attached report outlines the conse-
quences of this action. The report alludes to a new consolidated water
resources ordinance that is currently in draft form. If this ordinance is
adopted, it would supplant the current ordinances that pertain to drinking
water reservoir protection. In the event that Chris Greene Lake is designated
as a water supply, confusion related to grandfathering language and ordinance
amendments could be avoided if the designation were handled concurrently with
consideration of the new ordinance. A draft of the new ordinance will be
undergoing internal and external review this spring.
This report is presented for information at this time. Staff' recommends
addressing designation of Chris Greene Lake as a water supply when the new
consolidated water resources ordinance is presented to the Board within the
year.
Mrs. Thomas asked that this item be moved and discussed under Agenda
Item No. 14, Work Session: Comprehensive Plan.
Item No. 6.8. Letter dated February 22, 1996, from Ms. A. G. Tucker,
Resident Highway Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing a copy of
the monthly update on highway improvement projects currently under construc-
tion in Albemarle County, as follows:
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
MARCH 1, 1996
Route Location Status Estimated
No. Comp. Date
29 From Hydraulic Road (Route Construction 98% Jul 96*
743) Complete
to N of Rio Road (Route
631)
240 Route 240 Bridge Replace- Construction 97% Feb 96
ment Complete
Near Intersection of Route
250
29 From N of Rio Road (Route Construction 45% May 97
63i) Complete
To S Fork Rivanna River
671 Bridge Replacement at Construction 90% Apr 96*
Millington Complete
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
682
From Route 250 to 1.7 Mi S
Route 787
* Revised Date
** New Project
000149
Construction
Started Jan 96
Dec 96
Item No. 6.9. Notice from the Department of Transportation of a Citizen
Information/Participation Meeting to be held on March 11, 1996, to review and
discuss alternative alignments within the corridor (Route 29 Bypass project),
received as follows:
"February 21, 1996
Route 29 Bypass
Proj. 0629-002-F22,PE101,RW201,C501
From: 1.12 km (0.70 mi.) N. Route 29/250 Bypass
To: 0.80 km (0.50 mi.) N. of South Fork of Rivanna River
UVA Connector Road
Proj. RUVA-002-101,PE101
From: Route 250 Bypass
To: Massie Road
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Albemarle County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
22902-4596
Dear Mr. Tucker:
There will be a Citizen Information Meeting regarding the subject
projects on Monday, March 11, from 2:00 to 8:00 p.m. in the
Sheraton Inn Charlottesville located at 2350 Seminole Trail in
Albemarle County.
The purpose of the meeting is to provide interested citizens an
opportunity to informally review and discuss the alternative
alignments within the corridor being studies. Representatives of
the consultant ream and the Virginia Department of Transportation
will be present to answer questions.
A copy of the public hearing notice and map is enclosed.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Robert H. Connock, Jr.
District Construction Engineer"
Item No. 6.10. Letter dated February 15, 1996, from Mr. Robert E.
Martinez, Secretary of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, regarding
Board's resolution concerning Department of Transportation's maintenance
facilities, received as follows:
"February 15, 1996
Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk
Office of the Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Dear Ms. Carey:
Governor Allen has asked me to thank you for sending the resol-
ution adopted by the Board of Supervisors regarding the Department
of Transportation's maintenance facilities.
As you know, a study of the Department of Transportation's mainte-
nance supervisory staff statewide was recently completed. No
decisions to move or close maintenance facilities will be made
until all impacts of such activities have been fully investigated.
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
000 50
I appreciate you taking the time to send us the Board's comments.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Robert E. Martinez"
Item No. 6.11. 1995 Fourth Quarter Building Report as prepared by the
Department of Planning and Community Development, was received as information.
Item No. 6.12. 1995 Year End Building Report as prepared by the
Department of Planning and Community Development, was received as information.
Item No. 6.13. Copy the 1996 Strategic Plan of Acme Design Technology,
Co. was received as information and is on file in Clerk's office.
Item No. 6.14. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the
Albemarle County Service Authority for December 21, 1995, and January 18,
1996, received for information.
Item No. 6.15. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority for January 22, 1996, received as information.
Item No. 6.16. Copy of letter dated February 19, 1996, from Ms. Julie
L. Vosmik, Director, Division of Survey and Register, to Mr. James B. Murray,
Jr., providing notice that the State Review Board and Historic Resources Board
will consider Mount Ida (relocation), Albemarle County, for nomination to the
National Register of Historic Places and for inclusion in the Virginia
Landmarks Register, received as information.
Item No. 6.17. Memorandum dated February 27, 1996, from the Office of
Water Research and Standards, Department of Environmental Control, re:
Amendments to the Water Quality Standards Regulation (VR 680-21-00), received
as information and filed in the Clerk's office.
Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: September 15 and November 17,
1993; March 8 and September 19A, 1995.
Mr. Perkins had read September 15, 1993 (pages 1 - 16 at Item #12) and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Marshall had read March 8, 1995, and to the best of his recollection
found them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read September 15, 1993 (page 16 at Item #12 to page
30) and handed the Clerk a list of typographical errors.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve
the minutes which had been read. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 8a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: County
participation in VDOT Revenue Sharing Program.
Mr. Tucker said the County Primary and Secondary Road Fund of the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), "Revenue Sharing Program",
provides the opportunity for the County to receive an additional $500,000 for
road improvements. The program does require a dollar-for-dollar match by the
County. The result is a total commitment of an additional $1.0 million toward
improvements to the local road system. The County has participated in this
Program since 1988. The County must formally request participation in this
program by March 22, 1996. A~ly funds received for FY 96-97 would be used for
000 5
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway from the Charlottesville city
limits to the CSX Railroad.
The Board did plan for participation in the Revenue Sharing Program in
the proposed FY 1996-2001 Capital Improvements Program, and recently reviewed
the proposed FY 96-97 Capital Improvement Budget which included $500,000 in
matching funds for the Revenue Sharing Program. Future revenue sharing
projects include Rio Road, Greenbrier Extended, Georgetown Road, Airport Road,
Old Ivy Road, Old Lynchburg Road and Jarman's Gap Road.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the County participate in the
Revenue Sharing Program consistent with the proposed FY 1996-2001 Capital
Improvements Program and that the Board authorize the Chairman to notify VDOT
of the County's intent to participate in the program.
Mr. Perkins stated that he will not support this recommendation because
he does not believe real estate or personal property taxes should be used to
build highways. If the Transportation Department needs more money for roads
then the gasoline tax should be raised with improvements paid for from this
source.
Mr. Marshall concurred with Mr. Perkins' comments. He will not support
the recommendation for the same reason.
Next, Mrs. Thomas made a motion to participate in the 1996-97 Revenue
Sharing Program consistent with the proposed FY 1996-2001 Capital Improvements
Program, and to authorize the Chairman to notify V DOT of the County's intent
to participate in the program. She said Virginia is very lucky that the State
handles the County's roads, because most counties have this as their total
responsibility. She noted, though, that along with having this luck, it also
means that the County lacks a lot of control. She stated that with revenue
sharing, there is some ability to inform the State that this is not all the
State's money, because some of the County's money is also involved. This is a
psychological ability, rather than a legal one, but it does allow County
officials to have a slight control over what is done in this County. This is
something everybody agrees they want to retain as much as possible.
Mr. Perkins commented that although revenue sharing helps speed up the
Six Year Road Plan, he thinks it is a matter of where the money is coming
from, and he does not think real estate taxes or personal property taxes
should be used to build roads. He pointed out, though, that personal property
taxes come primarily from automobiles, so there is an association there.
However, his concern lies with the use of these taxes because this is not how
they were originally meant to be used, and he would rather see the $500,000
used to pay off other things in the Capital Improvements Program. Roads are
important, and there can never be enough roads built to satisfy everybody. He
emphasized that one cent could be added to the gasoline tax, and it would
accomplish the same thing.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she has always understood Mr. Perkins'
position on this issue which has been consistent over the years, and Mr.
Perkins also knows her position. She has always had the point of view that if
County officials cannot change the way the State officials do their business
to allow a more fair method of taxation for various needs the County has, then
she is always very happy to get $1,000,000 worth of road improvements for a
County investment of $500,000. She will certainly support this recommenda-
tion, as she has every year.
Mr. Bowerman then seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 8b. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Meadow Creek
Parkway.
Mrs. Humphris noted that Mr. Martin is ill and cannot be present today.
He asked the Board to defer this discussion until he can be present. She
asked Mro Tucker how this discussion could be handled°
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13) ·
000 .52
Mr. Tucker reported that the Board members have additional comments and
options to be discussed which relate to concerns raised at the public hearing
held a few weeks ago. Mr. Martin called him this morning and asked if the
Board would consider deferring this item until he could be here. Mr. Tucker
reminded the Board, though, that this project is tied to the March 22 Six Year
Primary Road Plan so any action should be completed before March 22, 1996. He
suggested that unless the Supervisors would like to discuss this with staff
and among themselves today, then perhaps this item could be deferred until the
March 13 meeting, which Mr. Martin should be able to attend.
Mrs. Humphris pointed out that the Clerk has indicated there is time on
the March 13, 1996 agenda for the Meadow Creek Parkway discussion.
Mr. Bowerman offered a motion that discussion on the Meadow Creek
Parkway be deferred until the evening meeting of March 13, 1996.
Mrs. Thomas seconded the motion, and she apologized to the people in the
audience for deferring this discussion from today's meeting. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 8c. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Six Year
Primary Road Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the staff has provided a list of priorities
under the various programs of the State and Federal governments which fund
primary roads in Virginia. He noted that included in the listing is continued
emphasis on the Meadow Creek Parkway subject to this Board's final decisions
regarding the Parkway. This aspect of the report should probably be taken up
after next week's discussion regarding the Parkway. He pointed out that there
is a list of Standard Projects, as well as Safety Improvements and Enhancement
Projects, as far as the staff has been able to identify, based on previous
priorities, questions and concerns raised during the last year. These various
priorities of primary road improvements are to be part of the County's
presentation at the March 22, 1996 VDOT pre-allocation hearing in Culpeper.
He noted that normally after the Board has determined its priorities to be
forwarded to VDOT, a statement is drafted from the Chair or a representative
of the Board noting the major requests and providing a priority list report as
an attachment to be sent to all of the Commonwealth Transportation Board
members.
He then called attention to some differences this year. First, in the
Standard Projects list, a change has been made to Number Six regarding Route
240 in Crozet. He recalled that for some time there was a connector road
between Route 240 and Route 250 shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The County
had asked VDOT several years ago to analyze the Route 240 corridor through
Crozet and provide a report regarding improvements to the corridor, and/or
using the connector road as an alternative, as to how this would fit into the
overall primary system there. He hopes the report will be finished very soon
and forwarded to this Board. The staff has seen some draft information but
the report is still in the development stage. He said Number Six has been
changed to simply say, ~Improve Route 240 in Crozet based on results and
recommendations in the %;DOT corridor study of Route 240." This will be as a
result of this Board's review, comment and recommendation on the study.
Secondly, Mr. Cilimberg called attention to Number One under Safety Improve-
ments where an emphasis has been put on sidewalk construction based on some
requests which have been submitted to the staff, as well as needs the staff
has noted in the community for sidewalks. The sections of roads have been
listed along which sidewalks would be particularly important in the primary
system. He also noted that there is now an effort underway to consider Route
250 both west and east of the City as to ultimate potential improvements to
serve traffic demands on the western and eastern sections of the County. This
is a study which will be underway with VDOT, and results are anticipated from
the study within the next year. Next, Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that under
Enhancement Projects, sidewalks have again been listed along selected primary
road sections as a number one priority. The remaining priorities are as they
have been in the past Six Year Plan priority list, and the items he has
mentioned are the major new emphasis areas on the priority list. The staff
will now answer the Board members' questions, as well as listen to recommenda-
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
tions of anything which should be included in the Six Year Plan priority list
that is not already covered.
Mrs. Humphris stated that the section about sidewalks has triggered a
thought in her mind, although it is not directly related to this priority
position paper. She was amazed to hear that the Bypass Design Committee is
considering sidewalks on the Western Bypass, and she finds this bizarre. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that this is not exactly what the Western Bypass Committee
members are considering. They are actually considering a separate pathway for
bikers and pedestrians. He said it would be in the corridor, and would not be
part of the road.
Mrs. Humphris suggested that this project not be~referred to as side-
walks, because so many people have asked her why sidewalks would be put on a
quasi interstate highway. This project also raises the question in people's
minds as to where people will be walking. Mr. Cilimberg answered that he is
sure the press will make this correction.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned that the word, ~sidewalk," has an urban image to
it. She referred to the walkway on Georgetown Road which is very usable, fits
the community and provides a necessary way to keep people from walking down
the road. She suggested using a different word to create a different image.
Mr. Tucker said pedestrian and bike path has been used as one entity in the
past.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that in some cases it would be a sidewalk based on
the type of project. However, in some cases it may be a path, and he used
Route 20 as an example. He said until Route 20 is improved with the widening
between Route 250 and Wilton Farms, which is also at the entrance to the
Darden Towe Park, the area might be better served by a path.
Mrs. Thomas remarked that if the projects are referred to as walkways,
it may leave the subject open for both the urban type of sidewalks where they
are appropriate, as well as something other than that. Mr. Cilimberg agreed
that this change can be made. Mrs. Thomas indicated that these words make a
difference in the perception by the public.
Mrs. Humphris stated that everybody loves the pathway along Georgetown
Road, and they are all grateful for the sidewalk which is an improvement
because it is raised, etc. She went on to say, though, that they are not as
happy with a regular concrete sidewalk as they would be with a pathway. She
suggested that maybe sidewalks do not always have to be built with curb and
gutter. These projects need to be carefully weighed.
Mr. Marshall asked if Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris are referring to an
asphalt pathway. Mrs. Humphris and Mrs. Thomas answered that an asphalt
pathway is one of the options.
Next, Mrs. Humphris mentioned the subject of the Meadow Creek Parkway
being funded with primary funds. She didn't find this stated as strongly as
it probably should have been, and she doesn't understand what has to happen to
trigger these funds for the Parkway. She remarked that Mr. Cilimberg, Mr.
Bowerman and others have been working on the Task Force to try to reduce the
cost and develop a different plan. She wondered what else has to happen,
other than County officials asking as strongly as they can that the Parkway be
funded with primary funds. Mr. Cilimberg answered that if it is decided to
include the Meadow Creek Parkway in the plan, then the project will be taken
to the MPO for an amendment to include the corridor, as the Board of Supervi-
sors recommends it, in the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study. The
project needs to be in the CATS plan, and the MPO has to make this decision.
VDOT would have to support this decision, but once in CATS, it is a recognized
project eligible under the Transportation Improvement Program for the area.
However, he explained that TIP can only reflect those things which are in the
CATS plan, and this is what sets up the project. The staff had hoped during
the process to get through the Board's decision regarding the Meadow Creek
Parkway and actually get an amendment to CATS done before the preallocation
hearing. He stated, though, that this does not seem very likely now, because
the Board has not made a recommendation to the MPO, yet. Once this decision
has been made, the staff will proceed with the process to get an amendment
into CATS unless the Board stays with the present plan. He also announced
that if this Board would like to put any emphasis on additional things to the
basic report, it should also be reflected in the statement that the Board's
representative makes at the preallocation hearing. If the Supervisors would
000:t54
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
like for any emphasis to be put on the Meadow Creek Parkway project or
anything else, it would be helpful for the staff to be informed, so this
supporting information can be included in the statement.
Mrs. Humphris inquired, if the Board of Supervisors makes such a
decision on the Meadow Creek Parkway, would it be a good idea to indicate that
the process through the MPO for inclusion in the CATS plan will be followed,
so it is a matter of record in the Board's position paper. Mr. Cilimberg
answered affirmatively. He then mentioned the Route 29 Corridor Study to
Warrenton. There is a desire that VDOT hold at least one public hearing in
Albemarle County regarding this study, although it has not been done at this
point. Mr. Tucker informed Mr. Cilimberg that this would be discussed under
the next item on the agenda. Mrs. Humphris stated that this had been notably
absent in the corridor discussion since most people in this community don't
even know about the corridor study.
Mrs. Thomas remarked that there had been a meeting planned, but it was
canceled because of a snow storm. She noted, though, that it was not a public
hearing. Mr. Cilimberg commented that it was a staff and officials meeting,
and he had let a lot of people know about it. However, it has not been
rescheduled.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker if approval of the Six Year Primary Road
Plan should be deferred, since the discussion on Meadow Creek Parkway is not
being held today. Mr. Tucker answered that he thinks this would be an
appropriate thing to do.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
defer discussion of this item until March 13, 1996, after a decision has been
made on the Meadow Creek Parkway project. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 8d. Other Transportation Matters.
Mrs. Angela Tucker clarified that the Annual Preallocation Hearing for
Primary and Interstate highways is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on March 25, 1996
in the Culpeper VDOT offices.
Mrs. Tucker thanked the Clerk for providing her with a written detail of
transportation matters from the last Board meeting. Mrs. Tucker noted that
she has not provided a written response as yet, but she wanted to inform
everyone that the ordinary maintenance concerns which were presented to her
have been considered and scheduled. These concerns involved gravel road
maintenance and breakup of pavement, etc. She also mentioned concerns
regarding the Keene Landfill Road, Old Brook Road and pavement markings on
Branchlands and Hillsdale Drive. She stated that all of these concerns have
been forwarded to the appropriate sections for attention. She is still
awaiting further information to provide Mrs. Thomas with the Morgantown Road
fatality, and she would like to present this to Mrs. Thomas in writing. Since
she had not provided a written response to last month's Board comments, she
wanted to give this update. She is also prepared to discuss the item regard-
ing the Route 29 Corridor Study.
Mr. Tucker stated that there has been much discussion in Madison County
regarding the Route 29 Corridor Study, and he and Mrs. Tucker have been
talking about how this situation might be improved, in terms of getting some
public comment. He has also discussed with the Chair of this Board the idea
of having a public information forum similar to some of VDOT's meetings for
other projects. Another option to be considered is a citizen committee to
study some of these issues and provide feedback to this Board and VDOT before
a public forum is held. He mentioned that other localities are considering
the public forum approach, and the Supervisors may want to follow the same
direction. This would give the public an opportunity to see what is being
proposed by the consultants on the Corridor Study and to provide some comment
at that time.
000 55
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mrs. Humphris remarked that her response to the citizens committee
approach is that hardly anyone in this whole community has any knowledge of
the plan to attempt to make Route 29 corridor a limited access road all the
way. She pointed out that the study has been long ongoing, and she feels it
is only fair for the members of this community to have an opportunity to see
what is planned and to respond to it as the people north of Albemarle County
in the corridor have done. She said this is her position. She reiterated
that before a citizens committee is established, everybody should have an
opportunity to see the possibilities that have already been developed.
Mrs. Tucker stated that she understands this position. She then
explained that the Corridor Study informational meetings have basically been
held in Bealetown in Madison County. However, there has been a request to
hold one in a more local site for Albemarle County, and she believes this
request will be obliged. She said because of the turnout at the public
informational meetings, there were a lot of unanswered questions that were
presented by interested citizens to the Madison County Board of Supervisors.
She stated that the Board of Supervisors requested a sit down workshop, rather
than an advisory committee, with the consultant to get answers to the ques-
tions the citizens brought forth at the public informational meeting. She has
been forwarded a copy of these questions, but she does not have a copy to
leave with the Supervisors today. She will forward those, though, to Mr.
Tucker. She explained that the questions came from citizens of Madison County
to the Madison County Board of Supervisors and then to VDOT's consultant. She
stated that these questions were answered and sent back to the Madison County
Board of Supervisors. The workshop to which she referred may be a one time
only workshop, but it was hoped it would allow an opportunity to get answers
for people who didn't feel that these public information meetings were
sufficiently answering their questions regarding businesses and private homes.
This was a more focused workshop, and because it occurred in Madison County,
the VDOT staff wanted to make certain other counties along this corridor also
had the same opportunity to interface with VDOT's consultant.
Mrs. Humphris inquired if a better public information meeting could be
held now since the consultant has provided answers to these questions. Mrs.
Tucker answered affirmatively. She said unless there are requests for a lot
of these workshops, VDOT will pursue additional public information meetings of
the same general format, but perhaps more focused, to answer questions. She
stated that one of these meetings will be scheduled to be held in Albemarle
County.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned her concern as far as having committees for
various road projects, since it has always been a very delicate issue of
selecting the people who are invited to come. She stated that it is very easy
for a committee to overlook a certain person, a certain group or a certain
property owner who might have a particular interest. It seems to her that
first the meetings should be open to the whole public, with a lot of publicity
so everybody knows about them. Then a smaller group can be formed, so the
unanswered questions can be answered. This process gives everybody an
opportunity to speak, if they think they have a particular issue or concern
which needs to be dealt with by the smaller group.
Mrs. Tucker asked if Mrs. Humphris is suggesting that until a general
public information meeting is held locally, she would prefer not to hold an
informal workshop with the consultant, because it would only be after the
public meeting that true questions would be generated.
Mrs. Humphris replied that this is the way she feels about it. There
will be plans and maps, etc., at the public meeting, and that is what people
need to see. The people need to see all the plans for Route 29, and she
thinks the public should be included in the beginning of the process rather
than excluded. She added, though, that it is the whole Board's decision.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned how frustrating it must be for Mrs. Tucker and the
VDOT staff to try to provide the kinds of public hearings that the community
wants, but the requests keep changing. She then agreed with Mrs. Humphris'
suggestions, although she made it clear that she thinks the Madison County
officials were correct with their process.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she would like for this public information
meeting to be the type where everything is displayed in the halls as it was
done in the past, and everybody has a chance to sit in the auditorium, share
their ideas all together and give VDOT their input. She would much prefer
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
0001ss
this process, but VDOT doesn't have such meetings anymore. It seems to her to
be a much more democratic way to let everybody hear everybody else's input and
questions. She commented that she assumed this was not the process this time,
and people would be coming and going over a long period of time.
Mrs. Tucker answered that it is VDOT's intent to have an open forum
public information meeting. However, she will forward Mrs. Humphris' desire
for a more traditional public hearing to the consultant. She said some of the
VDOT staff members also had to get used to the idea that they were not
actually going to hear the tone of the project the very night it was being
discussed, so she thinks there is an advantage to Mrs. Humphris' suggestion.
Mrs. Humphris commented that the meetings used to be held in this
manner, and she thought it worked well. Mr. Marshall remarked that he likes
the idea of having everything displayed in the lobby and hall and then holding
the meeting in the auditorium. Mrs. Tucker inquired if the Board members
would like a podium style sharing of comments with a five minute limit. Mrs.
Humphris answered affirmatively.
Mrs. Tucker explained that it has always been the intent under the more
recent informal program to have transcripts for public purview.. It is
difficult to know the tone of the project until the transcripts are available
several weeks later. She indicated that there are transcripts available, as
well as 1,000 comments from the Route 29 Bypass Information Meeting held a
couple of years ago. She said it is heavy reading with items one wouldn't
have otherwise noticed had they just heard verbal comments that day.
Mrs. Humphris commented that she thinks a genuine public hearing is when
the officials hear the public and the public hears each other. She said this
is much more valuable. She remarked that if all the maps, etc., were dis-
played in the lobby and halls during the day, and then the public hearing is
held at night, people could come after work and before the meeting. They
could ask their questions and become informed enough to know what questions
they need to ask or what comments they need to make in the public forum. She
really likes this process.
Mrs. Tucker stated that she will forward this request, although she
can't make promises on behalf of the consultant.
Next, Mrs. Tucker said she is available for discussion of the Routes
22/231 through trucks restriction. She also mentioned that there was a letter
to the editor relating to this matter in today's Daily Progress, and she would
share it with the Board members.
Mrs. Thomas remarked that she does not like the idea of Albemarle County
taking an action on one of its roads without meeting with Orange County
representatives or recognizing in some way that this road goes to Orange
County. She stated that Routes 231 and 22 are not just Albemarle County's
roads. She next referred to a statement in a January 16, 1996 letter from Mr.
John P. Moore, a Keswick resident. She is not sure Mr. Moore's insistence
that out of state trucks are not conducting trade inside Virginia has any
validity, because it is not a road people are necessarily going to use if they
want to whisk through the State. She would like for this Board to have
contact with the Orange County Board of Supervisors and discuss this matter.
She stated that Mr. Moore's letter referring to all the other routes which can
be used is probably very valid and probably grave damage to Orange County
won't be done if this particular road is restricted. However, one of the
things she does not like about the Western Bypass is that representatives from
Lynchburg and Culpeper have never talked about their use of the road with
Albemarle County officials, and she does not want to repeat this pre-emptive
action. She said it won't do any good, anyway, because VDOT officials will
probably respond that these people don't know that this is a highway used by
people throughout the State, and one County cannot shut down one road. She
said if VDOT will let Albemarle County take such action, this Board will
appear pre-emptive and yet the action will not be effective. Somehow the
Albemarle County Supervisors will have to get together with the Orange County
Board of Supervisors in a way that hasn't been done yet, if this action is to
be effective.
Mrs. Humphris said this item was first shown on the Consent Agenda, and
it was moved to this point on the regular agenda for discussion and a response
from this Board. She received a letter yesterday from Mr. Moore, dated March
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
1, 1996, respondin9 to State Traffic Engineer Buchner's letter to him of
February 22, 1996. She said Commissioner Gehr had asked Mr. Buchner to
respond, and the important part of his response is that the Commonwealth
Transportation Board's philosophy is that all vehicles should have access to
the roads on which they are legally entitled to travel. Commissioner Gehr
also indicated that travel by any class of vehicles should be restricted only
upon demonstration that it will promote health, safety and welfare of all the
citizens of the Commonwealth. Mr. Moore wrote a letter to the Board of
Supervisors in response to Commissioner Gehr's letter in which he stated that
he thought the philosophy should be to protect the health, safety and welfare
of the citizens, etc., and he asked that this Board take further action. Mr.
Moore also sent a memorandum to Senator Couric, Delegate VanYahres and
Delegate Way asking for action based upon the history of letters relating to
this matter and requesting the legislators to ensure that VDOT officials act
appropriately and in a timely manner. The letter this Board drafted to send
to Commissioner Gehr is outdated. This issue needs to be dealt with in light
of the new correspondence and Mrs. Thomas' remarks, as well as whatever Mrs.
Tucker has to say on the subject.
Mrs. Tucker responded that all she has to share with the Supervisors
today is the hope that the pavement marker delineators between the two yellow
center lines along Routes 22 and 231 will make the road visible under poor
conditions, as well as night time driving. She noted that these markings are
similar to the ones found on Route 53. She went on to say there is basically
no shoulder in some locations and appropriate shoulder in other locations
along this route. It is hoped that by bringing attention to the center line,
traffic will not be pushed off the edge of the pavement. She pointed out that
it is felt the pavement marker delineators are an enhancement that can be
installed in this area. The VDOT philosophy mentioned in Commissioner's
Gehr's letter refers to the through truck restriction on a primary route, but
it is not current policy, and there is a lack of statistical evidence that
Routes 22 and 231 are unsafe.
Mrs. Humphris referred to the recent accidents on these roads mentioned
in Mr. Moore's letter. She pointed out that these accidents will not show up
in the statistics until some future year, but they happened recently. There
are pictures of these accidents which this Board saw, and she feels there is
clear evidence that there is a danger with a lot of the large trucks traveling
these roads. She wondered how the situation can be balanced with what has
already happened when the Traffic Engineer indicates the roads need to be open
to everybody and the statistics don't support making a change.
Mrs. Tucker replied that, when statistics are mentioned, the argument is
not so much that the accidents have not occurred, but rather that the rate
with which they occur happen to fall into a nationally accepted statistical
average for the amount of truck traffic on this route and the amount of
accidents directly attributable to trucks. It has not been shown to VDOT
officials that these accidents are outside the range of normal occurrences on
such roads with like traffic.
Mrs. Humphris inquired if three weeks in a row truck accidents on such a
road is the national norm. She also mentioned an accident a couple of days
ago on Route 22. Mrs. Tucker stated that the most recent accident in that
area of which she is aware happened during a snow storm. She does not have a
comment on the particular range of statistics at this time.
Mrs. Humphris stated that Mr. Moore's letter identifies a two truck
accident at the intersection of Routes 22 and 231 at Cismont in November which
killed three people and injured one; as well as two single truck accidents on
Route 231 two weeks ago where the road was closed for over a day; and another
last week on Route 22 which closed the road for three and one-half hours.
There was also a single vehicle accident a few days ago, but she does not have
the details on it.
Mrs. Tucker stated that the accident which closed the road for the day
was the one to which she referred in regard to the bad weather. She said a
tanker was involved, and it had to be unloaded before it could be set upright
in order to prevent any major leak. She then referred to the fatality
mentioned by Mrs. Humphris. Mrs. Tucker said, in this accident, the passenger
car crossed the center line, and it was a head-on collision, but it was due to
no fault of the truck driver. She is not aware of the details involving any.
other accident in this vicinity.
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19 ) .~
Mrs. Thomas inquired if the Board of Supervisors' resolution developed
in June actually indicated that this route should be closed to trucks. She
thought the resolution asked VDOT officials to continue to investigate and
study the situation. Mr. Tucker clarified that the resolution supported VDOT
moving forward with the necessary steps to consider closing or restricting the
route from truck traffic. He does not recall if the Board's action actually
supported restricting or closing the route, but the resolution certainly
supported VDOT moving forward with the process. He explained that there are
findings which have to be determined to support closing or restricting truck
traffic on any particular road.
Mr. Marshall remarked that the Supervisors were hesitant to move forward
with restrictive actions because they were unsure how the Board of Supervisors
in Orange County and Louisa County felt about the matter. Mr. Tucker stated
that he has discussed the issue with the County Administrator in Orange
County. He said she has indicated opposition to this action, and her Board
has adopted such a resolution. He went on to say Louisa County officials are
considering the same thing because of the Kloeckner-Pentaplast plant. This is
part of the process VDOT has to go through, because this route is an intra-
state highway which serves other counties, as well as Albemarle.
Mrs. Tucker stated that the District Administrator, Don Askew, is hoping
to get a meeting together with County officials, as well as some trucking
officials and possibly other Board officials to discuss this problem. There
are others in VDOT who are reviewing the statistics in more detail, and
perhaps this would be the best time to go over the questions which were
presented today regarding individual accidents. She remarked that if there
can't be a through truck restriction on this route, perhaps there can be other
enhancements for the route.
Mr. Tucker commented that he thinks it would be important if Mr. Moore
and at least one other citizen could be part of the discussion of this matter.
He pointed out that it was the citizenry along Routes 231 and 22 who brought
this matter to the County officials' attention, so it is not just a County
trucking issue. The citizens are the ones with the data and concerns.
Mrs. Tucker responded that the intent is to include Mr. Moore and interested
parties in the discussion.
Mrs. Humphris stated that this issue has been going on a long time, and
she would feel more comfortable if the staff could give this Board a very
brief history of the matter. She said it is getting confusing as far as the
letters which have been received, and who has made certain statements, etc.,
as well as the action taken by this Board. The issue can then be taken up at
the meeting with Don Askew. She senses from the tone of the letters that the
citizens are not satisfied with the VDOT response, and they want to take it
further. She wondered if the next step would be the meeting to which Mrs.
Tucker referred.
At this time, Mr. Tucker informed the Supervisors that Mr. Cilimberg had
provided him with a copy of the minutes of their June 7, 1995 meeting where
they took action regarding this issue. He then read the resolution indicating
that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requested the Commonwealth
Transportation Board to restrict through tractor trailer trucks on Routes
231/22. Mrs. Humphris recalled that this action was taken knowing that
representatives of Kloeckner-Pentaplast had already asked the drivers of the
tractor-trailer trucks serving them not to travel this road. She emphasized
that this Board knew its action was not going to damage their business.
Mr. Tucker next said the resolution indicates that Route 15 from its
intersection with Routes 250 and 22 is a reasonable alternative route for
tractor trailers now traveling Routes 22 and 231. Mrs. Humphris noted that,
at this point, the maps were studied carefully to determine why drivers of
through tractor trailer trucks were using Routes 22/231, and it was found that
they thought they were taking a short cut. Mr. Marshall commented that
traveling is much faster if trucks stay on the interstate and exit at Zion
Crossroads.
Mrs. Thomas stated that she hopes someone can get the attention of the
trucking representatives to recognize that this is a poor selection of a road
for tractor trailer trucks, unless they truly have business at exactly some
point on this route. Perhaps the threat of wanting to close the route totally
will have some effect. She then mentioned that there was one small area in
her district where this process seemed reasonable, but it did not work at all.
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20) ~
000159
She is aware that people can refuse to think about the rational route they
should be taking. She stated that the meeting to which Mrs. Tucker referred
is a good way to get the counties together, because she does not want this
Board to overlook the fact that Louisa and Orange County officials have an
interest in this matter, too.
Mr. Perkins suggested that a solution to this problem might be the
upgrading of Route 15 from 1-64 north to Gordonsville, with possibly a bypass
around Gordonsville which would funnel the traffic onto Route 15, rather than
having it come into Gordonsville. The truck traffic could then go any number
of ways. He mentioned that Route 15 is also just a two lane road, and when a
driver looks at the map and sees a couple of two lane roads, he is going to
take the short cut. Routes 22 and 231 are bad roads, and it is a scenic
route. He said people drive through the area looking at the farms, etc., and
that is when they run off the road and run head-on into a tractor trailer.
Mr. Marshall commented that taking the trucks off this route will help.
He lost a good friend on this road in the 1950s. He stated that it is a
dangerous road, if a people are not paying attention to their driving, whether
or not there are trucks on it.
Mrs. Tucker reminded the Board members that a through truck restriction
does not mean there will be no trucks allowed on the route. The restriction
relates only to trucks traveling through the area, so point destinations would
still be allowed. Mrs. Humphris responded that this was clearly understood by
the Board members when the resolution was adopted.
There were no further comments on the Routes 22/231 issue, so Mrs.
Humphris said the matter would be left in Mrs. Tucker's hands. She also
reminded staff members of the update on the history of the issue which she
requested earlier.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that with the increased truck traffic on 1-64, he
sees more and more trucks using both lanes going up Afton Mountain, which
causes cars to stack up behind them. He has seen signs posted in other areas
restricting trucks to no passing, and he wondered about the process for
getting such a restriction on Afton Mountain. He said signs can be put up to
this effect, although the enforcement of the restriction would be up to the
State Police. Mrs. Tucker responded that her office can support this request
and initiate it, as well.
Mr. Perkins stated that it is much worse on Afton Mountain than it is in
other places where trucks are leaving Charlottesville. The truckers have a
chance to get a head start going up Afton Mountain when they are within the
vicinity of the rest area. He explained that the heavy trucks get up as much
speed as they can when they start up the mountain, and the lighter trucks
drive side by side with them. He said neither one will yield to the other.
Mr. Marshall referred to Route 708 between Blenheim and Woodridge where
paving is scheduled to take place. He stated that a man by the name of Mr.
Jones lives near the Blenheim intersection, and he has been vacillating about
donating his right-of-way. Mr. Marshall said everybody else on the road has
donated their rights-of-way, and he would like to find out if this gentleman
has done so. He wants to find out if the road is going to be completed and
whether or not Mr. Jones can back out of the donation of the right-of-way in
the future. He asked Mrs. Tucker to check on the status of this situation.
Mrs. Tucker agreed that she can check on the status of the improvement
to Route 708. She said it is on the Six Year Plan, but she is not aware of
individual property status regarding rights-of-way.
Mr. Marshall stated that the paving of this section of Route 708 is
supposed to take place later this year or early 1997. He has been dealing
with this issue for four or five years, and it has been in the Six Year Plan
for several years. He indicated that the neighbors are asking him about the
situation now, and they are wondering if Mr. Jones has backed out of the deal.
Mr. Perkins explained that Mr. Jones cannot get out of the deal if he
has already signed the agreement.
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
O00 .GO
Mr. Marshall said he would like to know if Mr. Jones has, in fact,
signed the agreement to donate his right-of-way.
Mr. Wilson Cropp inquired if there would be any time open for the public
to comment about highways. Mr. Tucker informed Mr. Cropp that such comments
are usually handled under a separate agenda item relating to other matters not
listed on the agenda from the public. Mrs. Tucker said she had inadvertently
told Mr. Cropp this was the proper time for his comments.
Board members agreed that they had approximately ten minutes before the
first public hearing was scheduled to be held. Mrs. Humphris said if Mr.
Cropp had been told this was the proper time for his comments,, then the
Supervisors would listen to what he had to say.
Mr. Cropp stated that he lives on Rocky Hollow Road, which is Route 769.
He usually addresses the condition of this road at least once a year to the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. He would challenge the Supervisors by
saying he believes this is the worse road in the State of Virginia highway
system, that is within the shortest distance to a metropolitan area, with as
many residents per linear square foot. He also posed this challenge to one of
the employees of the Highway Department in Culpeper, and that person couldn't
challenge him. Mr. Cropp referred to the Routes 22/231 situation, and he is
unsure how many accidents happen on Route 769. He pointed out that they are
not fatalities, but he would guess there are 12 to 20 accidents per year
there, because a great deal of it is impossible for two vehicles to pass. He
has sympathy for the concerns about tractor trailers, but one couldn't fit on
his road, so it is not a worry. The main issue is that this road is a bad
business deal, and he knows there are some business people on this Board who
can appreciate his statement. He remarked that each year he sees thousands of
dollars and hundreds of truckloads of gravel put on the road to patch it so it
will remain somewhat passable, but it is a waste of money. He stated that
hundreds of loads of gravel have been put down in the few years he has lived
there, and it disappears and washes away, and the road continues to be in
horrible condition.
He thinks surface treatment would be a solution to this bad business
deal. He knows of a resident on this road who has strong political clout, and
it has been her life's ambition to keep Rocky Hollow Road as a gravel road.
However, he noted that she lives at the front of the road instead of the back,
as he does. The road will never get on the Six Year Plan, but it could be
fixed in a fashion where it would be a better business deal. He pointed out
that he has been involved in building a number of roads. If the road was
surface treated, the water would run off, and it wouldn't have to be graded a
dozen times a year, and the hundreds of truck loads of gravel wouldn't have to
be continuously applied. It would also be a better business deal, it would be
a lot safer road, and it would be somewhat tolerable, if it was surface
treated. He challenged any of the Supervisors to drive down the road today,
although he said the car would have to be extensively cleaned after the trip.
He said anyone making this trip should also make sure their insurance premium
was in good order. He remarked that it is a tough road on which to live, and
when he originally bought in that area, he realized this fact. He has lived
on a number of gravel roads before, and it hasn't really bothered him.
However, the population has at least doubled on this road, but this doesn't
bother him either, because that is the nature of his business. He said,
though, the road could be safer and cheaper for the State to maintain and
certainly a lot better for the residents. He noted that there are more lots
becoming available with more houses being built this year. He again said
Rocky Hollow Road is the worse road in the State of Virginia.
Mr. Perkins inquired if spot improvements have been done on the road.
Mr. Cropp answered affirmatively. He said there was some drainage work done,
and it was a tremendous improvement when a six lot subdivision was built, and
the developer corrected one of the blind curves on the road. This improvement
from the private sector was by far the greatest improvement ever made on this
road, and he believes this improvement alleviated at least fivH accidents per
year. When he refers to accidents, he is speaking of fenders getting knocked
off and a side of a car being bashed in, etc. He went on to say there is
usually one school bus fender bender per year.
Mr. Marshall wondered what the Supervisors can do to improve the
situation, since the County is not in the road business. He inquired if VDOT
is willing to do anything. Mrs. Tucker answered that VDOT is not allowed to
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) O001Gl
(page 22)
take halfway measures toward stabilizing roads which involve liability with
regard to something less than current standards. This leaves the gravel road
program in the hands of the Six Year Plan, and while there is now the option
of using a Three R Standard which is not quite as damaging as the older
standards, it still requires sufficient rights-of-way dedication, minimum 18
foot pavement widths, proper shoulders, and proper ditch lines.
Mr. Marshall asked if the County, through eminent domain, has any power
to condemn the land in any way, given the fact that there is not 100 percent
rights-of-way dedication. Mrs. Tucker responded that the eminent domain issue
involves the purchase of rights-of-way, and it usually involves going to court
as well as formulating plans. The costs usually skyrocket. Mr. Marshall
pointed out that this was done on Buck Mountain. Mrs. Humphris noted that
County officials had said they didn't want to do this again.
Mr. Perkins said he has heard for the last five or six years that the
American Association of Civil Engineers has recommended that road standards be
lowered. He recalled a meeting at the Homestead where representatives from
VDOT were present, and they talked about the lowering of road standards in
subdivisions. He said it seems as though there is no longer the desire to
build superhighways as was being done a few years ago, and the standards are
being lowered. He asked if the lower standard roads could work in places such
as Rocky Hollow Road, and perhaps there wouldn't have to be a tremendous
right-ofTway required as was the case in Sugar Hollow. He said utilities have
to be set back, and usually there is a phone line involved. Once this wire is
dug up, and the power poles are moved back, then the costs increase. There
are many gravel roads in this County where he thinks all that would have to be
done to improve them would be to clear the ditches, put down a good base of
stone and put the blacktop on them. If the road is straight, he doesn't see
why this can't be done.
(Mr. Bowerman left at 10:18 a.m.)
Mr. Tucker noted that whether or not an improvement is cost effective
has to be considered. He said although money is probably being wasted by
putting gravel down over and over, the liability issue is still there for
VDOT. He stated that in terms of designing and building roads, VDOT officials
do not like to spend this kind of money when they could still be held liable
for accidents if the roads are not built to an acceptable standard. He
referred to Mr. Perkins' comments that there could now be acceptable standards
for these types of roads. He said from a cost benefit perspective, VDOT
representatives might consider this fact, as well.
Mr. Marshall inquired about VDOT's liability on gravel roads. Mr.
Tucker said the courts have basically determined that once money is spent and
improvements are made, there is the danger of liability issues. He suggested
that Mr. Davis could speak more specifically to this matter.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned the County's policy of encouraging people to build
and live in areas where they can count on the roads being funded. Mr. Perkins
remarked that a lot of times people think they can get the land cheaper if it
is located on a gravel road, and then they can put on the pressure to get the
road paved.
Mrs. Tucker stated that a lot of the public's reluctance to dedicate
rights-of-way may have to do with ignorance of the program and of the system.
She is trying to help this situation by talking to property owners herself so
they can see the whole picture, as well as the costs involved, and the fact
that this is VDOT's one main option toward improving these roads. She
recalled working through a situation where there was a holdout on a right-of-
way by a property owner on Route 610. She advised that sometimes VDOT can
work around a property owner.
Mrs. Thomas inquired if there was any problem with the Route 712
project. Mrs. Tucker answered that there have not been full rights-of-way
established for the Route 712 project, but there will probably be a public
meeting. She stated that this is a neighborhood which she thinks needs group
binding. In her conversations with people, there is so much distress about
the agency taking the land anyway, that they don't appreciate the fact for an
opportunity not to pay taxes on a strip of land which can't be used within a
15 foot prescriptive easement from the center of the road that the public can
use. There is a positive way to look at the situation, and the VDOT staff is
trying to work with property owners. She noted that some people do not want
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
the character of a stabilized road, regardless of the other issues. She
stated that the liability issue came about in the 1970s with tort liability
when VDOT stopped stabilizing roads as they lay. She explained that VDOT
became involved with formal federal standards, and it became an all or nothing
improvement program.
(Mr. Bowerman returned at 10:28 a.m.) (Mr. Perkins left at 10:28 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing to solicit input on the proposed
Community Development Block Grant application to be submitted to the Virginia
Department of Housing and Community Development on theEsmont Housing Rehabil-
itation Project. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 19 and
February 26, 1996.)
Ms. Ginny McDonald, Housing Coordinator, stated that only additional
public comments will be received today. Normally at this time this Board
would act on authorizing the resolution, but she is not prepared for the
Supervisors to do this today. She went on to say at the last minute, thanks
to Mr. Cilimberg's vigilance, it was discovered that the special use permit
for Habitat for Humanity had expired. When she met with County staff members
in February, they thought the special use permit was still active and rele-
vant. She stated, though, that while'she was proceeding with getting the
final numbers together for this project, she was told by Mr. Cilimberg that
the special use permit had expired. She said her group's representatives
tried to rethink whether or not this situation would hurt this application and
whether they should move forward without it. She commented that knowing the
approval for the permit would again have to come before this Board, they could
not see any reason why it would not be approved. She pointed out that it was
a unanimous vote in 1994, and there have been no regulatory or policy changes
affecting this decision. She said Habitat for Humanity has indicated in
correspondence that its representatives have been meeting with the residents
of Esmont and inviting them to participate in the subdivision design. She
will be back hopefully at the March 13, 1996 Board of Supervisors meeting for
the authorizing of the resolution for the 35 housing rehabilitation projects,
of which three will be rental. This is two units less than the 1995 applica-
tion, because AHIP has been able to go ahead with other funds for two of the
units from her project. She has received a request in her office for informa-
tion on the draft plan, which was representative of the newly forming legisla-
ture. She talked with June Cox about the proposal, but she has not received
any other requests, other than that.
Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing and asked if anyone was present
who wished to speak to the block grant housing rehabilitation in Esmont.
No one came forward, so Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing. She
then referred to Ms. McDonald's comments regarding deferral of this item until
March 13, 1996.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to defer a
decision on this matter until March 13, 1996. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
Mrs. Thomas commented that she learned that the CDBG program is 22 years
old this year, and there is a nationwide plan to publicize the kinds of
projects which have been funded by this program. It is one of the programs
that comes to the neighborhoods, and it has had a tremendous impact on a lot
of the neighborhoods in Albemarle County. There is always the concern that
the program will be cut by Congress, so this is the purpose of the advertis-
ing.
(Mr. Perkins returned at 10:34 a.m.)
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24) ~ ~
000:1.63
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-95-04. University of Virginia Real Estate
Foundation (deferred from February 21, 1996).
Mr. Tucker told the Board members that they have been given a letter
from Mr. Steve Blaine regarding this matter in which he has requested, on
behalf of UREF, to remand their application back to the Planning Commission.
He noted that Mr. Blaine is present at this meeting, and he asked him if he,
wanted to expand upon anything that was in his letter to this Board.
Mr. Blaine said he would speak on anything at the Board members'
request. He is present on behalf of the applicant.
There were no questions for Mr. Blaine.
Mrs. Thomas pointed out that Mr. Blaine's letter included the request
that this Board try to meet jointly with the Planning Commission, which is not
something that is usually done. She said, though, it certainly makes sense
for everyone, because there is hardly anyone who wants to come out twice to
separate meetings. She inquired how this joint meeting could be handled,
since it has not been done before.
Mrs. Humphris noted that a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors
and Planning Commission has been held before, but it was extremely awkward.
The Commissioners are reluctant to speak and ask questions, and nobody is sure
of the protocol. She referred to the awkwardness of some of the joint
meetings with the School Board, and she mentioned that there are new commis-
sioners who are just beginning on the Commission. She has already talked to
one of the Commissioners, and Mrs. Humphris thinks it would be a very awkward
situation, although she understands it would be easier for the public to have
to come to just one meeting. The Supervisors depend so much on the discovery
done by the commissioners to give them a starting point for their discussion.
She said it seems to her it would be better to have the hearings separately.
She also mentioned that the Planning Commission meeting, as well as the Board
of Supervisors meeting, would both go much faster if they are done separately.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the Supervisors need to communicate the
procedures to the Planning Commission. The Commissioners are expected to
conduct the meeting as a regular Planning Commission meeting in terms of the
inquiries they can make of the applicant. The Supervisors can choose to sit
in the audience and hold their comments until the matter is before them, if
they so desire. He went on to say he thinks the problem of not being quite
sure what to do can be addressed, and although joint meetings have not been a
good idea in the past, now there is a new Planning Commission. He said it is
more appropriate to address the problems in the beginning and let the commis-
sioners and public know what is going to happen at the outset of the meeting.
He emphasized that he does not think this Board should be deterred from having
such a meeting, simply because ~t has been awkward in th~ past.
Mrs. Humphris commented that she feels the Commissioners are going to
feel very awkward with the Supervisors in the audience observing them while
they are doing their job. She does not think they will feel as free to do
their job as they would if the Supervisors were not watching them.
Mrs. Thomas stated that she has sat in the audience before at Planning
Commission meetings, and it certainly hasn't affected the commissioners.
Mrs. Humphris responded that one Supervisor sitting in on a Planning
Commission meeting is not the same situation as having all six of the Supervi-
sors in the audience. This is her feeling about the matter from the point of
view of how people feel and act about such things. She stated that it would
certainly be more expeditious to have the meeting the quick way, but she is
not sure the quick way is the best way in terms of the Planning Commission
being able to do its job.
Mr. Marshall commented that Mr. Bowerman was a Planning Commission
member for years, and he asked him how he felt about the matter.
Mro Bowerman concurred with Mrs. Humphris' remarks that anything new is
awkward° He said her comments are well taken, but they are manageable, and
they can be addressed.
Mrs. Thomas stated that quite a few people in the community have put a
lot of thought and effort into this issue, and she emphasized that she is not
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25) ·
just interested in speeding up the process from the applicant's point of view.
This idea appeals to her because it will not require the public to have to
come out twice and repeat themselves. She indicated that there will probably
not be a lot of new information presented, and although she hopes there are
new proffers, etc., she does not think there will be much done between the
Planning Commission meeting and the Board of Supervisors meeting. She stated,
though, that usually this is the time when it has been very useful to make
sure the public hearing is continued.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she hopes the public will make an effort to
limit their comments to any new proffers. She then asked the other Board
members what they wanted to do. She said it was up to them as to how this
matter is handled.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he thinks some ground rules can be estab-
lished. He said both the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission
have had public hearings on this matter in the past, but the reason the item
is going back to the Planning Commission is because there is some concern
about notification on the site and new proffers are expected. He stated that
there could be some ground rules relating to the fact that neither the
Planning Commission nor this Board need to hear things again which have been
discussed in the past. He said it could be emphasized that this is the manner
in which the public hearing is intended to be conducted.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Plannin9 Commission will conduct the public
hearing. Mr. Bowerman stated that it will be the Planning Commission's public
hearing with the Board of Supervisors' attendance.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the legal aspect of conducting a joint
meeting. Mr. Davis answered that legally both the Commission and this Board
need to meet and hold a public hearing, but who runs the public hearing is up
to this Board to decide. He went on to explain that each body can ask
questions, and it can be conducted as any other public hearing with both
bodies sitting together.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the Board of Supervisors and the Planning
Commission have to call the meeting to order and, in this case, the Planning
Commission would have other things on its agenda. Mr. Davis responded that
the public hearing could be held either at the Planning Commission meeting or
the Board of Supervisors' meeting. He said it would work either way.
Mrs. Humphris stated that this decision needs to be made now, and the
date and format need to be set. Mr. Bowerman wondered when the Planning
Commission would be able to hold such a meeting. Mr. Cilimberg replied that
the Planning Commission could not have the public hearing any earlier than
April 2, and it is hoped that the proffers can be put into their final form
with advertising done prior to this hearing. He has talked to Mr. Blaine, and
he feels this can be achieved within the next week. Mr. Cilimberg stated that
if this is the case, then the matter can be brought to the Planning Commission
on April 2, 1996. However, he emphasized that he does not want to say for
sure this will be the date, since the formal form of the proffers has not been
submitted. As far as advertising is concerned, he informed the Board members
that there is a posting requirement, and there has to be two consecutive
Monday advertisements in the newspaper which need to appear not more than 20
and not less than six days before the meeting.
Mrs. Thomas asked if a motion can be made deferring this matter to the
Planning Commission with the request to the Planning Commission that this
Board would prefer a joint hearing if it is possible. She inquired if the
Supervisors will just defer the matter back to the Planning Commission and not
set a date at this time. Mr. Davis answered affirmatively. He stated that
this Board can defer the matter to the Planning Commission, and the commis-
sioners can set a date and advise the Supervisors. He said before it is
advertised, though, a decision will have to be made as to whether or not it
will be a joint public hearing on a Planning Commission meeting date.
Mrs. Thomas said it would seem more courteous for the Supervisors to go
to the Commissioners' meeting.
Mr. Marshall asked if this matter would be voted on at that time. Mr.
Tucker answered, "no." Next, Mr. Marshall asked if another advertisement has
to be done. Mr. Tucker answered negatively.
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26) ·
Mr. Davis explained that the Planning Commission will not necessarily
take action on the application at the public hearing, and the Supervisors
could take up the matter at their next meeting.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the Planning Commission will take its action before
the Board of Supervisors takes such action. The Commissioners' advice is
still needed. Mr. Davis stated that the Planning Commission would still have
to give a recommendation prior to this Board's action. Mr. Marshall commented
that, if this Board so chooses, it could take action when it meets on April 3,
1996. Mr. Davis agreed assuming the Planning Commission has given its
recommendation. He said, though, this may not be possible if the Planning
Commission does not act on the night of the public hearing.
Next, Mrs. Humphris went over the steps involved with the application.
She said first the proffers shall be in their final form and then this Board
will defer the matter back to the Planning Commission. She stated that
appropriate advertising will be done, and the Planning Commission will set a
tentative date, and contact this Board as to when the joint meeting will be
held.
Mr. Davis suggested that if there are Tuesdays which are unsuitable for
the Supervisors to meet with the Commissioners, then this needs to be communi-
cated to them. He explained that in order to hold a public hearing, a quorum
is needed.
Mrs. Humphris asked for a response from the Board members if there is a
Tuesday they cannot meet with the Planning Commission. Mr. Davis reminded the
Board members that the earliest date the hearing can be held is April 2, 1996.
Mr. Marshall commented that he could have a conflict on Tuesday, April
2, 1996, although he is unsure of his plans, at this time.
Mr. Bowerman suggested a more realistic date be selected such as April
9, 1996.
Mrs. Thomas reminded Mr. Bowerman that it is still uncertain as to when
the proffers will be ready. The Supervisors cannot set a date today, but she
thinks they should indicate any Tuesdays when they could not have a quorum.
Mr. Davis said April 9 can be selected as the date contingent upon the
proffers being in their final form prior to the advertising deadline.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she will be away on Tuesday, April 22, 1996.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to
refer ZMA-95-04 back to the Planning Commission and advise the Planning
Commission that the Board of ~UPervisors~refers that a joint public hearing
be held with April 9, 1996 as a target date.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Tucker stated that he would like for the County Attorney and Mr.
Cilimberg to work out some logistics with him, because it is awkward when two
boards sit on the same dais. He stated that it may look and appear to be
easier for the board members to hear, but that is where the awkwardness
begins. He said if the Chair of the Board of Supervisors calls the meeting to
order, and the Supervisors are sitting in the audience for the hearing, then
it should be less awkward.
Mr. Marshall asked if the meeting will be held in the auditorium. Mr.
Tucker answered that the public hearing will probably be held in the audito-
rium because Room 241 was full before when just the Board of Supervisors'
public hearing was held. The Supervisors will also be sitting in the audi-
ence, so he thinks the auditorium should be considered, unless it is already
reserved. Mr. Marshall mentioned that there would be 11 Supervisors and
Commissioners sitting in the audience.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that the Planning Commission could sit on the
dais, and the Supervisors could sit in the first row of seats on either side
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000166
(Page 27)
of the auditorium. Mr. Tucker agreed. The staff would work out such an
arrangement and have it all set up before the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Donations to pay Site Plan Review fees
to Christworks Food Ministries and Claudius Crozet Park.
Mr. Tucker said that Christworks Food Ministries and Claudius Crozet
Park, Inc., are organizations which are eligible to receive donations from the
County. Each has pending or proposed site plans for facilities necessary for
them to provide their services to the community. Although requests for
donations have typically been considered during the budget process, there is
no legal prohibition stopping the Board from considering such requests.
Mr. Tucker said staff has prepared resolutions for the Board's consider-
ation which would authorize the appropriation and donation of funds to either
organization equal to the amount of the site plan fees. Other development
fees outlined by the Zoning Administrator are not included in the proposed
resolution but can be included at the Board's discretion. The proposed
resolution caps the donations at $2,000.
If the Board desires to make the donations, it would be appropriate to
adopt the appropriate resolution for either or both organizations. An
appropriation of more than $500 requires the concurrence of at least four
Board members.
Mr. Perkins said he brought this matter to the Board's attention, and he
would first talk about Christworks Food Ministries. He remarked that this
organization is very helpful in providing food and other things to the
community. A tremendous amount of money is spent in the County's social
programs and food banks, etc. This organization goes beyond that, because the
people involved with Christworks Food Ministries are really providing these
services on their own. He noted that they do not have much money in their
budget, and a donation of this nature really has a large impact on them. He
emphasized that he believes it is appropriate for the County to help them with
this donation. As far as Crozet Park is concerned, Mr. Perkins pointed out
that the Park Board is made up of volunteers, and there are fund raising
projects where most of the money has been raised to build the new swimming
pool, etc. He mentioned that the Park provides recreational opportunities for
citizens of the County. Volunteers work on weekends to make that money. In
his opinion, to pay that money back to the County for site plan review fees is
like treading water and being swept backward. He thinks it would be very
beneficial to these two organizations if they did not have to pay the site
plan review fees, and he doesn't think it would hurt the County very much. He
realizes this action would open the door for others to request the same thing,
but consideration has to be given to the way other organizations are funded,
as well as their purposes, etc.
Mr. Bowerman asked for an explanation of the difference between this
request and a request from JABA for the same consideration when its new adult
day care center is built. He said as far as fees for site plans are con-
cerned, this would fall into the same realm as the other two organizations.
Mr. Perkins responded that JABA has a paid staff and funding sources, although
he is unsure what those sources are.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he is trying to understand what this Board is
embarking on if it decides to approve these requests. Mr. Tucker commented
that the Park and Christworks Food Ministries have all volunteers, and JABA
has a significant funding source through Federal and State funds, as well as
the County. He noted that it would be hard to compare JABA to these two
organizations.
Mrs. Thomas pointed out that there are some comparable organizations in
the County, and she referred to the Agency Budget Review Team Booklet where
the Shelter for Runaway Teenagers is a $900 item. She was searching for small
items because she thinks it would be better to say that organizations request-
ing donations should go through a regular process. She stated that one reason
she was looking for items less than $2,000 is because she wanted to make sure
she was not being ridiculous if she said this was such a small item that more
County staff time is being spent than it is worth. She brought out the fact
that a lot of items from the agencies are in the $2,000 range, so if they
would have to go through an agency review process, it wouldn't be ridiculous
in terms of the amount of staff time spent. She then reported that she had
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
000 67
contacted a County staff member to see if there was anyone in the Social
Services Department or elsewhere in the County who knew anything about
Christworks Food Ministries, and she learned that no one had heard of it. She
emphasized that she is a little hesitant to give local tax dollars to an
organization, even though it is doing a very good thing in giving out food,
when she does not know where this fits in the realm of the needs in this
community. She could probably stand in front of her house and give away food,
and even though she lives next to a fine, up scale subdivision, she could
probably give it all away.
Mr. Perkins stated that the County government won't let people perform
such a service, which is Christworks Food Ministries' problem. He emphasized
that this is exactly what the people involved with the program were doing.
Mrs. Thomas said she is not sure the County's tax dollars should go into
this program, because she is unsure if it would be meeting a real need. She
feels this way because she does not know enough about the organization and not
because she doubts what it does. She suspects it is a very good organization
and meets a very real need. However, she does not have the basis for actually
knowing if this is true, because this organization has not gone through the
process that every other organization goes through in order to receive money
from the County.
Mr. Bowerman referred to Mrs. Thomas' search of the Agency Budget Review
Team Booklet, and he wondered if the small items to which Mrs. Thomas referred
were one time items or if they were recurring. He noted that these are one
time items for the two organizations in question, but most of the others are
continuing. Mrs. Humphris responded that these two organizations are making
one time requests, but they are precedent setting. Mr. Bowerman commented
that he realizes this, but he is trying to go back to Mrs. Thomas' remarks as
far as making a requirement based on other requests. He asked again if the
organizations are recurrent.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that her concern does not relate to the value of
the groups making the requests but, instead, it is the setting of a precedent.
She mentioned that Albemarle County has so many people who are working as
volunteers, and they are doing a lot of good in so many different areas. Her
concern is that if the door is open to everybody with a request, but who have
not gone through a review process to be weighed, measured and compared with
other groups, then this Board could be flooded once the word gets out that
Albemarle County's coffers are open to worthy enterprises. This same thing
has happened in many other situations when she wonders how this Board can make
such decisions, and that is why there is a program review. She realizes this
is a one time request from both of these groups, but the program review is
intended just for the purpose of making sure every organization is examined
under the same criteria. She also mentioned her lack of knowledge about the
Christworks Food Ministries program. She said, though, if this Board approves
these requests, as wonderful as both of these organizations might be, the door
has been opened, and she wondered how the Supervisors will know when to say
yes or when to say no to other requests. She feels uncomfortable with this
situation.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if the door shouldn't be opened, because it seems
to him to be the type of thing County officials are trying to encourage. He
said it is a situation disassociated from government and in a Volunteer way,
it is doing more things for the community.
Mrs. Humphris inquired if there should be money earmarked for this
purpose, if this is the direction the Board will be taking. The requests
could be considered as contingency items occurring during the year, and County
officials could be willing to spend up to a certain amount of money. She
stated that there could be a limit on the total number of dollars instead of
the total number of dollars per group's request.
Mrs. Thomas referred to the Charlottesville Free Clinic where the County
gave a one time donation on the capital cost. She wondered if Charlottesville
officials waived the fees for the building of the clinic. Mr. Tucker said he
does not know the answer to Mrs. Thomas' question.
Mr. Perkins commented that most of the things being referred to are for
operations of programs that are recurring year after year. He pointed out
that this is a one time request for site plan reviews and permits required by
the County.
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
000 68
Mrs. Thomas remarked that she hopes the Christworks Food Ministries is
an ongoing program, but this statement brings to her mind a bit of doubt. She
remarked that the program could be given $2,000 and the two people involved
could quit the program at any time. They don't have a basis for continuing
with the program. Mr. Perkins explained that a piece of ground has been
purchased where the Christworks Food Ministries' operations will be moved. He
said once the fees are waived, the County cannot get the money back, if it is
not used. He stated that this is certainly not the case with the Park.
Mrs. Thomas remarked that she sees the Park request as being different
from the request of Christworks Food Ministries. The Park organization goes
through a certain process, and everybody is very aware of what its members are
doing. There are also set priorities indicating that outdoor recreation is
important to the people in the County. She is much more comfortable with
assisting the Park, because the County is already giving money to this
organization, and Christworks Food Ministries is an unknown group. On the
other hand, though, she feels that County officials should encourage two
individuals who would go to all this work to do nothing but try and give away
food. She said it is a wonderful thing to do.
Mr. Perkins explained that Mr. and Mrs. Beard are the two people who
started the program, but there are a lot of other volunteer help who assist
them.
Mr. Marshall stated that everything the other Board members have said
has merit, but he is trying to find some way to help Mr. Perkins. He ex-
plained his feelings by saying that the Supervisor bringing a proposal before
this Board is a constitutionally elected official who represents the people in
his area, and he has to consider seriously what the supervisor is requesting.
He would do this for any of the Supervisors, and he hopes the others would do
the same for him. He went on to say that even though there are some uncer-
tainties, Mr. Perkins is supporting this request. If Mr. Perkins is support-
ing the request, then he feels as though he has to support him, because Mr.
Perkins represents those people in his district. Mr. Marshall pointed out
that this is a one time situation, and it is uncertain as to whether or not it
is setting a precedent. It could be setting a precedent, but the fact that it
has strong support from a supervisor lends a lot of validity to it. He will
support the request.
Mr. Perkins said the Christworks Food Ministries people were shocked to
learn the site plan process and that they had to pay site plan fees to the
County. He stated that they couldn't understand why because they had found a
nice piece of level land where all they had to do was put down some gravel,
and they would be ready to operate. He pointed out, though, that they have to
go through the process the County has established before these things can be
done. They were really taken aback by the size of the fees, etc., that they
would have to pay to the County to provide this service. Mr. Perkins ex-
plained that the question is whether or not the whole site plan can be waived
entirely. He has talked to Mr. Davis and the site plan cannot be waived, but
the County can make a donation to help pay for it. He said it might be easier
if the site plan process could be waived, but apparently this can't be done,
because of laws, etc.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the Board could err on the side of reasonable
use, and if it didn't work out, then the Supervisors are under no obligation
to continue such a practice for any other group in the future. He has
accurately heard the concern involving setting a precedent but, on the other
hand, if $10,000 can be spent to get $100,000 of benefit to the community,
then maybe it should be done. If this Board made a mistake and donated fees
to some organization that did not survive, or took advantage of the situation,
or the benefit was less than it was reported to be, then the Supervisors would
be able to address the situation in a sense of not repeating it.
Mrs. Humphris stated that the resolutions apply to the two entities, so
this situation is limited to Christworks Food Ministries and Crozet Park,
Inc., even though it is precedent establishing.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Christworks Food Ministries was the first organi-
zation to request the donation, and the Crozet Park issue was brought up at
the same time. Mr. Perkins responded that the Crozet Park request was before
the one from Christworks Food Ministries. He said when discussions were held
about building the pool, the people involved hoped the possibility would exist
for waiving the fees.
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
000&69
At this time motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Mar-
shall, to adopt the following resolution authorizing a donation, not to exceed
$2,000, to the Claudius Crozet Park, Inc., to be used for preliminary and
final site plan review fees. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DONATION TO
CLAUDIUS CROZET PARK, INC.
WHEREAS, Claudius Crozet Park is an entity permitted under
the Code of Virginia to receive donations of money or property
from the County of Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds it is in the public interest to
donate funds to support the development of facilities necessary
for this entity to provide services to the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors hereby appropriates and donates to Claudius
Crozet Park, Inc. an amount equal to the fees charged by Albemarle
for preliminary and final site plan review for the Crozet Park
project, provided, however, the amount shall not exceed $2,000.
Upon certification by the appropriate development review depart-
ment, such funds shall be transferred by the Department of Finance
to the revenue accounts of that department or directly to Claudius
Crozet Park, Inc. if the fee has already been paid to the County.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to
adopt a resolution authorizing a donation, not to exceed $2,000, to the
Christworks Food Ministries to be used for preliminary and final site plan
review fees.
Mrs. Thomas stated that, although it seems inconsistent, she will not
support the motion for a donation to Christworks Food Ministries because she
does not know enough about the organization. She trusts Mr. Perkins' opinion
that this is a very worthwhile thing, but she does not quite share Mr.
Marshall's operating principle. She would not expect the other Board members
to support something she brought forward in this manner. She explained her
position by saying she is not certain enough about the organization because it
has not gone through the County's review process. She noted that the County
has a review process it could have gone through, and Crozet Park, Inc. has
gone through it quite a few times.
Mr. Marshall said he looks at the situation from the point of view that
if a supervisor brings such a matter to this Board, then the supervisor has
checked it out thoroughly when he hasn't been able to do so. He stated that
he feels as though he must trust the supervisor as his constituents trusted
him when they elected him to this position.
Mrs. Humphris concurred with Mrs. Thomas' remarks. Mrs. Humphris said
she is sure Christworks Food Ministries is a very good organization, but while
the County has been closely related to Crozet Park, nothing is known about
Christworks Food Ministries. She stated that it is probably a wonderful
service, but it is a different situation. She has mixed feelings, because she
is delighted that there are people in the County who will work so hard to
provide such a service. However, on the other hand, she wonders why the
County's own Social Services people don't know about this organization. She
stated that there must be a huge unmet need in this area that these people are
meeting, and the County must not be providing services that are supposed to be
provided to people who have a need. She really thinks the matter should be
examined to see if there is something the County people should know that is
currently unknown. She can't support the motion.
Roll w~s then called, and the motion carried failed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris.
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
000 ?0
Mr. Perkins referred to Mr. Davis' comment that it would take four votes
to pass this resolution.
Mr. Davis stated that the Constitution requires a majority of the
elected members of the Board to approve any appropriation greater than $500.
He said without the fourth vote, the donation cannot be appropriated.
Mrs. Thomas asked if any member of the Board can ask for reconsidera-
tion, and if the request has to take place during this meeting. She mentioned
the fact that Mr. Martin is not present.
Mr. Davis said the Rules of Procedure indicate that any reconsideration
of this Board's action can be rescinded at a future meeting by a majority
vote, since this is not a zoning matter or an ordinance. If Mr. Martin wishes
to support this matter, then it is another path that can be taken.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that the Board could vote on suspending the
rules. Mr. Davis said the matter can be handled either way.
Agenda Item No. 12. Presentation: Report on Historic Architectural
Survey of Albemarle County Villages.
Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner, gave a brief overview of the
Historic Architectural Survey of Albemarle County Villages, and she indicated
that the Board members should already have received copies of this report.
The purpose of this presentation is to generate interest in these historical
sources and to show how this report fits into the overall historic preserva-
tion program in Albemarle County. The report is the end product of an
architectural survey of twelve villages. She pointed out that there have been
several major surveys in Albemarle County, but the major one was done in the
late 1970s or early 1980s when Jeff O'Dell did a comprehensive reconnaissance
survey of approximately 1,400 to 1,600 resources in the County. She indicated
that this survey provides the base line data for preservation activities. She
noted that later a survey of the Southwest Mountain area was performed by a
consultant, and it included 31,000 acres and resulted in the Southwest
Mountain National Register Rural Historic District. She explained that it was
called the rural historic district, because it included the landscape as well
as the structure. She said surveys have also been done by students at the UVA
School of Architecture, and there was some recent survey work in connection
with the Route 29 Bypass Study. The surveys were organized into themes in the
previous report such as religion, commerce, domestic and time periods, and the
Supervisors also received copies of this report. This was a cost share
project with the State, as was this village survey, which was phase two of the
project. She explained that in 1995, 12 villages were chosen because they had
not previously been surveyed by Jeff O'Dell in his comprehensive survey,
although he had circled them on a map indicating he would come back to them,
but he never did so. The staff thought it was important to complete this
survey and have the 12 villages included. She mentioned other villages which
were not included, such as Keswick, Cismont and Cobham, but they had already
been done in the Southwest Mountains survey. It is hoped the other villages
can be done in the future. The best thing about this survey report is that it
was developed by Dames and Moore which subcontracted with Melinda Frierson,
who was the previous Executive Director of the Albemarle County Historical
Society.
Ms. Scala said Ms. Frierson actually researched and wrote the context
report, so it has been done very well. Ms. Scala also noted that the field
work was done by Jeff Henry who has local connections, too. She remarked that
the main finding of the study is that seven of the 12 villages are potentially
eligible for the National Register. To put this fact into context, 58
National Register individual structures were currently noted; as well As four
districts including Southwest Mountains, two UVA districts and the Scottsville
Historic District; and four national historic landmarks including Monticello,
the Rotunda, Shack Mountain and the UVA Historic District. The seven dis-
tricts recommended for the National Register are Advance Mills, Batesville,
Crozet, Proffit, White Hall and Yancey Mills, and Greenwood was recommended as
a National Register District similar to the Southwest Mountain District. She
went on to say Milton and Advance Mills were also recommended for additional
survey due to their archeological significance. She remarked that the other
five villages not recommended potentially eligible were Covesville, Cross-
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
roads, Free Union, Ivy and Milton, but they have individual resources which
are potentially eligible. She explained that no historical context was
written for Crossroads because Milton was substituted in the middle of the
project.
Ms. Scala said Chapter Five of the report gives a good historic overview
of the County's history, and it talks about the beginnings of several towns
and villages which were established by the mid 1870s for a variety of reasons.
She reported that Chapter Six of the report gives a description of each
village which she will summarize in the slides she will show the Board. She
pointed out that Chapter Nine gives the boundaries of the potential districts
and tells why they are significant. Chapter 10 shows recommendations, and she
directed the Supervisors' attention to Section 10.5 called, "Local Preserva-
tion Plan." This recommendation gives a preview of the historic committees'
recommendations which will be coming to this Board soon. She noted that the
next step in the process is that residents within these villages could sponsor
the preparation of a nOmination report to have their individual village listed
on the National Register and Virginia Register. This is a two step process,
and there has already been some interest from the people in Advance Mills who
are trying to get this organized. She also noted some interest in Batesville,
White Hall and Crozet. She then showed the Board members slides of the
individual villages, and gave a brief history of all the sites shown. She
mentioned that there are copies of the report available in the Planning
Department for the public upon request, and the cost is $10.
(Mr. Bowerman left at 11:30 a.m. and returned at 11:35 a.m.)
Mrs. Humphris thanked Ms. Scala. She said it was a wonderful tour of
the County which shows the valuable historic resources that are in the County.
Mr. Marshall inquired as to when the stone house in Alberene was built.
He noted that the whole house is made of slate, even the fixtures in it. Ms.
Scala replied that she does not know, but she will be happy to find out. Mr.
Marshall said he would have thought the Alberene House would have been part of
this survey. Ms. Scala answered that it has probably already been surveyed
during the comprehensive survey of the whole County. Although certain areas
such as Alberene were not surveyed as a village, individual structures in that
area were surveyed. Mr. Marshall stated that most of the homes in this area
were small houses that were built for the workers who worked there. Ms. Scala
commented that these are very interesting structures.
Mrs. Thomas asked if Miller School has already been surveyed. Ms. Scala
replied that Miller School is already included in the National Register.
There were no further questions for Ms. Scala.
Agenda Item No. 13.. Presentation: Financial Report for the Fiscal Year
Ended June 30, 1996.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, said the 1994/95 Audit has been
completed and is submitted for the Board's review. Field work and audit
testing was completed by Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, the County's
external auditors. The General Purpose Financial Statements and the Compara-
tive 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 inclusion of a letter of transmittal 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.
This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was submitted to the
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the Certificate of Excel-
lence 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 Accountin~ Standards Board: This Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report reflects a change in reporting standards required by the
Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 10. This Statement
requires Public Entity Risk Pools to report Health Insurance Funds as Internal
Service Funds.
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
000172
Component Unit: The County School System is required to be reported as
a component unit and as such has a significant impact on the way information
is reported when compared to previous years. Prior to the 1993/94 fiscal
year, 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 operations. 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
$500,000 and Interest $800,000. General Fund experienced expenditure savings
under budget of $780,000. The primary sources of savings were: Public Safety
$149,000, Public Works (Landfill) $278,000, and Community Development
$145,000.
School Fund: The School Fund revenues exceed budget by $153.000. The
School Fund experienced expenditure savings under budget of $683,000. The
primary sources of savings were: Executive Services $119,000, Building
Services $128,000 and Self-Sustaining Funds $195,000.
Fund Balance: The Fund Balance Report show 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.
Mrs. Thomas remarked that she found a figure which was very helpful to
her in last year's report, but she has not found it in this Audit. She then
asked where the figure was located which represented the growth in the number
of new businesses. The last report indicated that there were over 300 new
businesses in Albemarle County. Mr. Breeden suggested that the figure is
probably in the statistical section. He said while Mr. Farmer is making his
comments, he will look for this information.
Mrs. Thomas had noticed that, at the time, there was a tremendous
increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax, and it seemed to be growing by
approximately 10 or 11 percent a year. She then asked the status of this
legislation. Mr. Tucker indicated that the legislation has passed, but the
amendments need to be reviewed. The legislation allowed Albemarle , Prince
William York and Loudoun to increase its Transient Occupancy Tax, but there
are some caveats in the amendments of the actual legislation which will limit
the use to tourism type activities.
Mr. Tucker then indicated that Mr. Farmer had found the figure to which
Mrs. Thomas referred on Page 115 of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that Note 16 on Page 37 of the report mentions
the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Education, when it should be the Thomas Jeffer-
son Memorial Foundation. Mr. Breeden said he will see that this correction is
made.
Mr. Farmer stated that Mr. Breeden has done an excellent job of giving
the Supervisors an overview of the operations for last year, and he encouraged
them to read the Financial Statements. The opinion on the Financial State-
ments is referred to as an unqualified opinion on the financial affairs. He
called attention to the Compliance Section which is the last section of the
report and dealing with internal control matters and/or compliance matters as
they relate to federal financial assistance. He said if this particular
schedule is examined, it will indicate that the County received approximately
$7,500,000 in Federal funds. He explained that as part of the financial
audit, there has to be a review under the particular programs for purposes of
compliance that the funds were expended in accordance with the Federal
regulations. He is pleased to report there were no findings or questions on
any of the Federal funding programs, and there is, again, a clean opinion on
the County's compliance matters. He mentioned that Schedules One and Two of
the financial statements are extremely important, and they give an overview of
operations. They show the actual revenues by major categories compared to the
County's anticipated budget as well as on the expenditure side. He went on to
say a review of these two schedules can give a good highlight of major sources
of revenues compared to the budget process. He liked the statistical section
of the financial statement because it is a very capsule form of financial
information plus it gives a ten year overview, so a trend is shown as to what
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000173
(Page 34)
is taking place in the County. He then mentioned Note 17 to the financial
statements relating to retirement. He said it covers six pages, and it is
extremely interesting. He reiterated that he hoped the Supervisors would
review the Notes to the Financial Statement because they are a good narrative
overview of a lot of the financial information in the flow of operations
within the County, itself.
Mrs. Thomas referred to the trouble that Orange County, California got
into with its investments. She remarked that Albemarle County has a nice
return on its investments this year, which is supposed to make people less
nervous and to reassure them. She asked if this is handled through the
Virginia Association of Counties or elsewhere. Mr. Breeden responded that the
majority of the County's investments are with the State Local Government
Investment Program, which are approved investments under State guidelines.
The County has not gotten into any sophisticated derivatives or things of this
nature. He stated that an expert would probably make other investments and
earn a little more money, but he thinks the investments are safer where they
are now.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned that the County's delinquent taxes stay at a
fairly even six, seven or eight percent level. It is better this year than
the year before, but she wondered if the County has to resign itself to this
particular level of delinquency. Mr. Breeden responded that some efforts have
been made during the last couple of years to collect some of the older
delinquencies, and an outside collection agency is now being used. He said,
though, anytime there is a mobile community, such as this one with the
University, there will be a higher delinquency rate. He stated that in
reality, while the County can try to collect them all, it is not cost effec-
tive. He said certain actions can be taken, and some improvements made, but
the delinquency rate will probably stay in its current range. This range has
been standard for a number of years. Mr. Farmer said the real point is that
it is personal property, and it is not the real estate tax base, which he
thinks is extremely important. Mr. Breeden stated that there is probably less
than $100,000 in real estate taxes owed to the County of Albemarle over the
last two year period.
Mr. Farmer reported that Albemarle County is exemplary with other
localities in the Commonwealth when the real estate collection rate is
considered.
Mr. Marshall asked if the County has technology in place to take care of
the future, since taxes will be collected twice a year. Mr. Breeden replied
that a lot has been done in this area. Me referred to the split billing of
personal property taxes two years ago where two staff members were added for
this workload. He anticipates that as far as the split billing process for
real estate, the County has automated to the extent that he does not think any
additional employees will have to be added. The lock box process was used for
the December collections, and this involves mailing in tax payments to a post
office box in Richmond. He explained that Central Fidelity Bank is currently
the County's banking institution. Employees of Central Fidelity Bank pick up
the payments, process them and directly deposit them into the County's bank
account. His office is sent a computer tape or the amount of the deposits are
transmitted over the telephone lines for automatic posting to the County's tax
receivable accounts. The staff was really impressed with the process this
year, and it allows his staff to be utilized to wait on the customers, etc.
One of the biggest complaints throughout the years has been the staff's
inability to respond to telephone calls in a timely manner, and there have
been a lot less complaints this past year. He also pointed out that changes
on the decal process have been discussed. Hopefully next year the decals will
automatically be mailed out in January to those people who have paid their
taxes, and the amount of the decal will be included on the June personal
property tax bill. Me stated that consideration was given to putting the
decal cost on the December tax bill, but there was concern that people would
not want to pay ahead of time, or that it would be one more thing for people
to pay at Christmas. He does not think it will be much of a problem to
collect the amount of the decal in June.
Mr. Marshall inquired if prorated refunds would be done or eliminated.
Mr. Breeden answered that a process is in place for prorated refunds for
decals. However, he noted that there won't be much of a refund because the
billing is taking place almost six months after their issuance. There will be
some adjustments, as well as problems. He was talking to someone recently who
had a good example of what will probably happen in some instances. He said
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 0001'74
(Page 35)
sometimes a person will go to a dealer to trade a vehicle. The decal is taken
off the windshield of the old car and put on the new vehicle without anybody
being told about it. He remarked that information on the new vehicle gets to
the County from DMV, but there is never any information that the old vehicle
was sold. It is very possible next year that the person will get two decals
and be billed for two of them, and corrections will have to be made.
Next, Mr. Marshall asked how accurate are the County's assessments to
the market value on its real estate. He also wondered about the County's
present percentage of market value. Mr. Breeden responded that the County is
at the 96 to 97 percent range according to State studies. A Sales Ratio Study
will be given to the Supervisors soon, if it has not already been given to
them, with this type of information. It has been found, with the reassessment
process that is going on now, that the County is reasonably close. He said
some increase in commercial properties is being shown and land values are
showing increases. As far as residential building values are concerned, there
is only an average of one and one-half to two percent increase at the most,
except for certain areas.
Mr. Marshall pointed out that building costs have increased substan-
tially, and he wondered if this is reflected in the County's assessments.
Mr. Breeden responded that the building costs would not be a direct influence
on the assessments, but the sale of a house has an influence.
Mr. Marshall mentioned that it costs $65 to $70 a square foot today to
build a house as opposed to $40 to $50 a square foot previously. He asked if
this is reflected only in new houses. Mr. Breeden replied that it will
reflect in the total market because the square footage used for the appraisal
process is based on the sales that occur whether they are older or newer
properties. He said increase in the cost of materials has to be considered,
and the profit margin the contractor or developer takes will have a large
influence on the cost of the house. In the past a contractor may have made
$20,000 on a house but, if times are hard, he may be satisfied with $15,000.
If this is the case, the house would still be selling at the same level even
if the construction materials increased.
Mr. Marshall remarked that there has actually been a depreciation in
property values and a large amount of the County's tax increase during the
last ten years has come from increased assessed value of real estate. He
noted that the tax rate has not had to be increased because of this situation,
but in effect people's taxes are being increased all along. He does not want
Albemarle County to get in the same position as Loudoun County.
Mr. Tucker reminded Mr. Marshall that Loudoun County officials had over
built in the office area, and people are still declaring bankruptcy from this
situation. He noted that Fairfax County is currently in the same situation
and is having major difficulties, but Loudoun County is beginning to get over
some of its problems.
Mr. Breeden said the one stabilizing factor in this region is the
University of Virginia. He stated that the school and students are here, and
even in years when other areas experienced major economy swings, this locality
did not have it as bad as others.
Mrs. Thomas remarked that the answer to her question about the number of
new businesses is not on the page to which Mr. Farmer referred. This figure
deals with construction, and these were new businesses counted through the
County's professional licensing process. She would be interested if there are
any records of these new businesses. Mr. Breeden answered that he can get
some figures together for Mrs. Thomas, although he indicated he was never
aware this number had ever shown up in the Audit. However, he said it may
have been in the narrative portion at the front of the Audit last year. Mrs.
Thomas concurred that she believes this figure was in the narrative portion of
the Audit. She went on to say when people are talking about UVA laying off or
not replacing large numbers of people who are retiring, they are interested in
the number of new businesses.
Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 12:00 noon, 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) to consider a personnel
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
matter concerning an authority, and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal
counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion and
specific legal matters relating to insurance.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Executive Session. At 2:25 p.m., motion
was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to certify that to the
best of each Board members's knowledge only public business matters lawfully
exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session
were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 14. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Benish noted that since this is the Board's last opportunity for a
work session on the Comprehensive Plan before the public hearing, the staff
will respond to any questions or areas the Supervisors would like to cover.
The only area the staff has not gone over in detail is the Community Facili-
ties and Transportation section, and he will give a general overview of the
changes in those areas. He recalled that one Board member requested him to
identify the more significant changes in this version of the Plan compared to
the existing Plan. He stated that he can briefly do this, also.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to how the significant changes differ from
going through each neighborhood as was done last time.
Mr. Benish stated that he was planning to focus on everything other than
the growth area profiles. He asked for the Board members' help in reading
through the neighborhood sections to make sure the recommendations for the
land use changes reflect their intentions. However, the map changes have
already been discussed. Today he would like to point out the format changes
and substantive language changes in the Plan. He inquired if he could proceed
in this fashion.
Mrs. Humphris asked if this process was suitable with the Supervisors,
and she got an affirmative response.
Mr. Benish continued.with his presentation and requested the Board
members to look at Page Five dealing with Growth Management and Facilities
Planning Goals. He called attention to Letter A which identifies the elements
of the rural areas. There are no substantive changes but the language has
been changed to break down the elements since they were previously identified
as four and now there are six. In terms of format, he said the staff has
tried to make this Plan more reader friendly so every major sub-component of
the Land Use Plan is started with a page divider. The intent is to have the
whole Comprehensive Plan done in this fashion because it makes it easier to
find the sections.
Mr. Benish then referred to Page 11, under the Functional Descriptions
of Growth Areas. He stated that here the major change has been in Villages
where there is a fairly detailed description of design guidelines. He said,
based on the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Villages and the
Land Use Plan, the Rivanna Village is the only one designated in the Plan now.
He added that the Commission foresaw any new village designations to be based
on public request in the same fashion the Rivanna Village was designated. The
effort was to provide much more detail in the expectations for a new Village.
He said whereas the function and description of urban areas in the communities
are fairly concise, the villages go beyond this in their description and
design, and this is different from the existing Plan.
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37) .,
000i'76
Next, Mr. Benish noted that the use of general principles throughout the
Plan is a general format change. He mentioned, though, that this also has
some substantive implications. He called attention to Page 13 dealing with
the General Principles Governing Land Use in Designated Growth Areas. The
Commission was interested in this concept because the purpose of the general
principles is to identify general policies and guidelines that imply how the
goals and objectives are going to be implemented. He stated that where there
is a growth management goal and there are various objectives for implementing
it, the basis for those goals and objectives in the evaluation of this Land
Use Plan are identified in these general principles. He gave an example by
calling attention to the first and third bullets on Page 13 dealing with
accommodating new growth in the County within growth areas and encouraging
infill development. The Commission members felt that the general principles
laid out their thinking and their assumptions which go into the goals,
objectives and strategies. He stated that this concept has been incorporated
throughout the Land Use Plan.
On Page 14, a new section of the Comprehensive Plan begins. However,
according to Mr. Benish, this has been discussed in earlier work sessions.
This section deals with developing and adopting an infill policy for the
County, and a major component and recommendation of the Planning Commission is
to emphasize infill development. He stated that this section establishes the
purpose for infill development, as well as strategies and recommendations for
implementing an infill development policy.
Mrs. Thomas asked if it is anticipated that this is an area needing
further development. Mr. Benish answered affirmatively. He said the things
showing up in the strategies and recommendations set the pace for further
developing and implementing an infill development program. He mentioned that
at the back of the Land Use Plan, there is an Action Agenda section, and under
the Land Use component shown there, infill is identified as the highest
priority item.
Mr. Benish then referred to Page 16 relating to land use standards for
designated growth areas. He stated that a set of general land use standards
has been established applying to both residential and nonresidential develop-
ment instead of having separate sets for each one that have redundancies.
There are a total of ten general standards which will apply to any develop-
ment. He mentioned that Number Three on Page 16 is the first notation to try
to encourage interconnections of neighborhoods whether they are residential or
nonresidential. He said Number Six on Page 17 represents a new standard which
tries to encourage the reduction of excessive building of impervious surfaces
in both residential and nonresidential development. He then referred to the
bottom of Page 17 relating to residential densities. He said the emphasis of
the Planning Commission is to encourage the maximization of the development
potential in growth areas. He stated that Number One on this page is specifi-
cally stated to try to encourage as high a density as reasonably possible
given terrain and other constraints. The last sentence in Number One provides
a statement which gives the County something to stand on if there is an
overriding of affordable housing benefit providing there are no significant
detrimental implications.
Mr. Benish referred to Number One on Page 21 under the Neighborhood
Density Residential subheading. He mentioned the last hyphen under this
section which indicates that within any existing subdivision new development
shall be in keeping with the scale and density of the existing development.
He said, for example, if there were two lots in Carrsbrook, it would not be
appropriate to recommend something that was clearly inconsistent with the
neighborhood. However, there may be vacant undeveloped land adjacent to the
area where looking at the overriding community goals of maximizing a growth
area, it may be desirable to approve an area with densities higher than the
existing neighborhood. This is a change to help in the review processes in
implementing the infill initiative. He pointed out that the bottom of Page 21
has the outline for transitional land use designation. He stated that this
section has already been discussed, and he won't go over it again, although it
is a new designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
Next, Mr. Benish called attention to the bottom of Page 24, under
Industrial Service. The first hyphen outlines the type of uses expected in
the Industrial Service designation, including the Office Service designation.
He explained that uses allowed under the Office Service designation involve
employment centers with limited production activities and marketing of
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 0001~7
(Page 38)
products, corporate major office parks, research development and information
systems.
Mrs. Thomas inquired if this whole Industrial Service section is new.
Mr. Benish replied that the Industrial Service designation is not new. He
explained that the information shown at the last hyphen, as well as uses
allowed under Office Service, more clearly defines the fact that the Indus-
trial Service area is a broad employment designation and allows various
characters of employment centers and offices as well as manufacturing type of
uses.
Mrs. Thomas stated that it appears that a lot of industry, in terms of
the type of employment, is now taking place under the Office Service designa-
tion. Mr. Benish concurred. He said, though, the intent is not to allow
doctors' offices in Industrial Services, but it is to recognize that office
buildings and corporate activities often have various levels of uses and, in
terms of the local economy, they are basic employers and provide basic jobs.
Mr. Benish then pointed out an area on the map to the right of Page 3
which is the old Landfill site on Avon Street, north of 1-64. The previous
plan showed this as an open space category. He stated that the property owner
had requested that some delineation be given to this property because without
delineation it fails to be shown in several State listings of available land
for industrial development. The Commission proposed to color this area for
Industrial Service designation and add the hatching over top of it. He
informed Board members, though, that the notation in the neighborhood profiles
is exactly the same as the previous plan. He explained that the notation
indicates that this is an old landfill site and may be unsuitable for certain
development. The only difference is that the Industrial Service color has
been put on property where previous land use property had been shown as open
space.
Mr. Marshall said he did not know how anybody would ever be able to use
this piece of land. Mr. Benish stated that there is a building located on
this property now, but there have been some problems with it. Mr. Marshall
agreed that there have been a lot of problems there. Mr. Benish commented
that there are probably some uses or activities that could be done on the
surface of the property. Mr. Marshall stated that he does not think buildings
can be put there. Mr. Benish said the staff members and Commission had some
concern about the area, but they are more comfortable with this situation. He
added that even though the coloring is on the map, the notation is still
there, alerting people of what had previously been located on this site. He
stated that the Commission felt this would be a reasonable compromise, and he
apologized for not bringing up this matter when the maps were examined
earlier.
Mrs. Humphris wondered if just a portion of the area is hatched. Mr.
Benish replied that the hatched area does not include the entire pink area.
The hatched area relates just to the property that was involved with the
landfill. He explained that there is a portion of the property that is 500
feet from Avon Street which has zoning. He said beyond the 500 feet is the
rural areas designation.
Mr. Benish noted that he is going to skip the utilities section of the
Comprehensive Plan, because some time has already been spent on it. However,
he said if there were any questions, he would come back to this section for
discussion. He then referred to Page 86 relating to the Community Facilities
section, and he stated that no significant changes have been recommended for
this section. He said in 1992, the Community Facilities Plan was adopted, and
the Commission and staff feel comfortable with the Plan at this time. He went
on to say that the Land Use Plan takes into consideration that the Community
Facilities Plan exists, it is referenced, and the general principles are
identified. The overriding service standards for the major services are
identified and covered in the Community Facilities Plan, such as schools, fire
and rescue, police, administrative offices, parks and recreation, as well as
solid waste facilities.
Mrs. Thomas called attention to the first bullet under the Recommenda-
tions section which states that the County should develop an aggressive
program to extend the life of the Ivy Landfill. She added that she had always
looked at the 1988 Comprehensive Plan, which is the last Comprehensive Plan
adopted~ when she was considering the County's plans for the Ivy Landfill.
The 1988 Plan states that the Landfill has a life of ten years, but in 1992 a
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39) .~ ~.
000Z'75
plan was adopted to aggressively work to extend the life of the Ivy Landfill.
She commented that she would have a lot of trouble with this statement today,
and she really did not realize that the statement existed, so it is quite
embarrassing.
Mr. Perkins stated that such things as grinding up stumps and construc-
tion debris to be used for mulch, as well as the recycling program, etc., have
extended the life of the Landfill. Mrs. Thomas remarked that the way to most
aggressively extend the life of the Ivy Landfill is to build very high unlined
cells, which the State now allows. This law was put into effect in 1994 to
help the small rural counties that were finding that the change in Federal
Law, as to their responsibilities for landfills, had put them in such an
untenable position they were having to give up their landfills. She added
that the General Assembly responded by allowing continual piling of trash in
unlined areas in landfills. She said, in essence, more trash is being piled
on top of the problems. She mentioned that engineers may be able to say this
is not a bad thing as long as the area is ultimately going to be capped, but
conventional wisdom is that more trash is not added on top of old problems.
She pointed out that if the recommendation was adopted in 1992, the law
allowing trash to be piled as high as it could physically be piled on top of
unlined cells was not in effect. However, if this policy was followed, given
the change in the State Law, the County would be doing something that intu-
itively is not a good thing to do. She reiterated that engineers may be able
to convince County officials that they are not doing anything bad by piling
more trash on top of problems, but it would not be just that more lined cells
were being built. She emphasized that trash would be piled on top of unlined
cells. This matter should be discussed, because it is a part of the Compre-
hensive Plan that should not just be bypassed.
Mr. Tucker stated that the ability to increase the height of the unlined
cells brought about this whole issue. He reminded Board members, though,
about the Task Force which has been established to examine other areas. He
suggested that a recommendation might be included in this Plan which could be
revisited, or it could be taken out until a recommendation comes from the Task
Force.
Mr. Benish recalled the Commission's and this Board's discussion in
1992. The ultimate decision was that the County had a facility, and the
alternative was to replace this facility, unless it is aggressively maintained
in some fashion. He stated that the notion and impact of a new landfill was
as scary and difficult to deal with as it was to maximize the utility of the
one the County already had. There are some potential changes in circumstances
now, so perhaps the language needs to be qualified. With regard to Mr.
Perkins' remarks about recycling, etc., the thinking at the time involved
aggressive recycling and aggressive management techniques, but building up on
the site certainly isn't precluded by this language. He pointed out that the
next recommendation is to study a new landfill site and in the Action Agenda,
and as Mr. Tucker pointed out, there is a Task Force on the way to evaluate
the potential for various landfilling or disposal methods. He referred to the
third item on Page 122 of the Action Agenda which recommended initiating a
study under the Solid Waste Authority to locate a new landfill site or
alternative means for waste disposal, including multi-jurisdictional and
regional alternatives. He suggested that perhaps the recommendations don't
qualify the meaning of an aggressive program, but it was felt there was a
process under way to determine the ultimate long term decision for landfills
and waste disposal.
Mrs. Thomas inquired if she could suggest a rewording of the recommenda-
tion at the next Board of Supervisors meeting. Mr. Benish answered that this
would be acceptable, if it is the Board's direction. Mrs. Thomas noted that
the other Supervisors don't have to accept her rewording, but she would like
to make a suggestion. Mr. Perkins mentioned the possibility of an environmen-
tally sensitive program to extend the life of the Landfill. Mrs. Thomas
agreed that something of this nature might work. Mr. Benish stated that he
understands Mrs. Thomas' concern.
Mr. Marshall referred to the map on the back of page 87. The transfer
station at Keene is still shown on this map. He added that he knows the
County has six acres of land there, but the money to be used for the transfer
station has already been spent. Mr. Benish replied that this is a good point.
He said almost all of the maps used for this Plan need to be updated. He also
mentioned that although the staff tried to make this document look as good as
possible, it is just a draft. He stated that the staff wanted to make sure
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
000 79
all the recommendations were consistent, so the maps were drawn only one time.
He said, though, this map will definitely be corrected.
Next, Mr. Benish discussed the Transportation section beginning on Page
102. He stated that again the general principles concept was used, and the
Planning Commission has identified its general principles for transportation
planning. He said in effect, the Commission has adopted the overriding goals
of the qualitative section of the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study's
(CATS) updated plan which was adopted last spring. He called attention to the
first asterisk on the bottom of Page 102 which he said is literally verbatim
on regional goals for transportation. This is followed by the local goals
relating to growth management, roads, traffic reduction and transportation
systems. He stated that the remaining principles reflect the existing
objectives shown in the Comprehensive Plan previously, and other than includ-
ing the regional goals, there are no significant changes in the County's
emphasis in transportation planning.
Mr. Benish said Strategies for Transportation Planning shown on Page 105
is a continuation of the last plan. He stated that this section does not have
a major change, but the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) is recognized as the transportation body for the region,
and with input from the localities, it should take a leading role, particu-
larly in transit and transportation service issues.
Discussion of the County's major road corridors is shown on Page 108 of
the Comprehensive Plan, and Mr. Benish pointed out that there is a strategy to
construct the Meadow Creek Parkway and the Western Bypass to provide more
direct access to the urban area and the City. He said recent actions were
acknowledged, but the Meadow Creek Parkway issue is still not finalized, so
this matter will have to be revisited. He added, though, a specific statement
has been included regarding the Western Bypass.
Mrs. Thomas inquired about the last sentence on Page 107 which indicates
that VDOT is currently coordinating a study of Route 250 East and Route 250
West. This morning the Board was told that this study would probably take
place some time this year, so she wondered if the wording on Page 107 was
correct. She asked if the study is definitely going to be done. Mr. Benish
answered affirmatively.
Mr. Benish then called attention to the General Design Standards for
Roads shown on Page 110. He stated that these standards have changed rather
significantly, and they have been simplified from the previous listing of
standards. He referred to the first hyphen on Page 111 which encourages
sidewalks or pathways to be provided along all arterials, collectors and local
through roads in the growth areas. This emphasizes that sidewalks need to be
built on almost all roads in the urban areas and incorporated in any design on
those roads. He stated that if the roads are four lanes or more, sidewalks
need to be on both sides of the road. The third hyphen indicating that where
rights-of-way are reasonably available, paved shoulders on shoulder and ditch
designed roads and wider outside lanes on curb and gutter designed roads
should be encouraged, if possible. He commented that this would make the
roads more bicycle accessible, even if they are not designated for actual
bicycle routes. He said it provides additional spacing to deal with the
friction between bicycles and autos. He next mentioned Number Seven on the
bottom of Page 111 which indicates that the interconnection of adjacent
developments and neighborhoods should be required for developments within
Growth Areas and where appropriate in Rural Area development.
Mrs. Thomas recommended that Number Four on Page 11 would be an obvious
place to indicate that street lighting should face downward only, and not be
glaring and wasteful of light. She noted that there are millions of dollars
lost by lighting going upward in this country. Mr. Benish responded that he
is fairly certain there is a statement relating to downward lighting in the
designs for land use. He agreed, though, such a statement should be included
here as well.
Mr. Benish mentioned the second asterisk on Page 115 under the Strate-
gies category. This is a strategy which specifically recommends expanding
transit service in the Urban Area and to the Hollymead and Piney Mountain
Communities.
Mr. Benish then called attention to Page 120 where a statement had been
made about rail travel to make crossings safer on railroads and to monitor
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~0
(Page 41)
potential abandonment efforts. However, he said a statement is lacking as far
as encouraging additional passenger service to the area. He noted that this
was brought to his attention by some outside interests, but it could affect
the County. There are initiatives under way to provide additional service
here, so it is one thing that could be added to this draft. He stated that
this would be recommended, and it could actually be added to the third
strategy on Page 120. He said any monitoring of railroad abandonment should
be evaluated as to whether it would be preferred to have the abandonment or
not. This would be dovetailed into a whole monitoring of rail service.
Mrs. Humphris suggested that it might be a good idea to first put the
encouragement of additional passenger service here. This could be followed by
the monitoring of all potential abandonment, and then a listing of the
possible uses of abandoned rail beds. Mr. Benish concurred. He went on to
say there are not many significant changes in other portions of the Transpor-
tation section of the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Map identifies the
roads which the staff feels need to be evaluated or would be impacted by
development and need to be considered for some levels of improvement. He
stated that the staff tries not to delineate what these improvements will be
in the Plan, but there are not many changes from the previous Land Use Plan.
He then mentioned the roads and intersections to be considered for improvement
and study, and he specifically stated that the Route 240 and Route 250
connector road continues to be shown. He said at one point the Commission was
interested in downgrading this type of road from what had previously been
assumed to be a four lane divided roadway. The Commission, based on public
comment, decided to recommend that this road be a two lane road.
Mr. Marshall wondered if there is a proposed Community Service location
on Avon Street. Mr. Benish pointed out a small red area on a map which he
reported to be the Community Service location to which Mr. Marshall referred.
Mr. Tucker asked how many acres this area involved. Mr. Benish replied that
the area is approximately 15 acres in size.
Mrs. Thomas asked for Mr. Benish to point out Fifth Street Extended on
the map. She stated that she is interested in not duplicating commercial
activities in the County when they are already on the edge of the City. She
said it is assumed the County neighborhoods don't want these activities, and
the City needs them, so it is not very reasonable to duplicate them.
Mr. Marshall asked for an explanation of the area to which Mrs. Thomas
referred. Mr. Benish answered that the Planning Commission has recommended a
Regional Service designation on Fifth Street Extended just south and adjacent
to Interstate 64. Mr. Marshall stated that he thought this designation was
not approved, because the neighborhoods did not want it. Mrs. Thomas ex-
plained that this Board did not approve the portion of the application the
neighbors did not want. She went on to say the area is right across the
interstate from where the City has lots of commercial service.
Mr~ Marshall remarked that he is opposed to this designation. He noted
that a lot of the neighbors in that area are long time homeowners who don't
want a commercial development there. He said it is not needed, because
directly across the interstate is the City's commercial service. Mr. Benish
stated that as the area is expanded and the Growth Area expansion is approved,
there will be a place for commercial service. Mrs. Thomas responded that the
City will probably have space for it. Mr. Benish answered that the City's
commercial area may not be sufficient to adequately serve this area, and a
center for services and employment is under consideration. He also mentioned
Willoughby Square where there are some services nearby.
Mrs. Humphris said the application previously before this Board did not
seem to fit the County's policy of things to be located directly off of
interstates within a residential neighborhood. This situation needs more
study. Mr. Benish replied that if the Board members are not comfortable with
a Regional Service designation, then this area should probably be reconsidered
for a residential area, unless it can be evaluated for office use or an
employment center. He noted that a Jefferson National Bank site was recently
approved on 13 acres across the street from this area.
Mr. Marshall remarked that the neighborhood was not opposed to the bank
site° He said perhaps an office designation, or something of this nature,
would be suitable in that area, but the neighbors do not want retail estab-
lishments. He stated that the residents are against businesses with bright
March 6, 1.996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
000 2.
lights or are high traffic producing businesses which might disturb the
neighborhood of 30 or more years.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned that Regional Service doesn't seem to describe
that particular area. Mr. Marshall wondered if a Community Service area would
be suitable at this location. Mr. Benish explained that Community Service
areas typically have a supermarket, service stations and discount stores, etc.
He stated that the maximum size of these areas is 65,000 square feet. Mr.
Marshall said he still does not think this type of service area would fit into
that particular neighborhood.
Mrs. Humphris asked for an explanation of a Neighborhood Service
designation. Mr. Benish replied that a Neighborhood Service area usually
includes neighborhood shopping centers, specialty shops, professional offices
and mixed use neighborhood developments.
Mrs. Thomas then referred to the description of Transitional Land Use
which she thinks would be good for the Fifth Street Extended area. This
designation includes offices; neighborhood scale commercial businesses,
excluding gas stations; and attached residential and/or multi family units in
a planned development concept. Mr. Benish responded that this category
provides the most flexibility.
Mr. Marshall said the Transitional Land Use category is the most
agreeable to him for the Fifth Street location. Mr. Benish asked, since the
Supervisors seem to be in agreement about the Transitional Land Use category,
if this change needs to be made before the public hearing. Mr. Marshall
stated that the Neighborhood Association members delegated him to convey their
feelings to this Board.
Mrs. Humphris stated that it seems more logical for the area to have the
transitional category. She would rather the Supervisors go to public hearing
with how they think the category should be, rather than how they think it
ought not to be.
Mr. Perkins called attention to an area between the railroad track and
Route 240 next to Highlands in Crozet. He asked if all of this area is
supposed to be in industrial use. Mr. Benish answered affirmatively. This is
reflective of the existing plan. However, he pointed out a small area on the
map, which was taken out of the industrial designation, that is reflective of
the new section of Highlands where some of its residential development was
actually in a portion of the industrial region. This boundary has been
adjusted slightly. He stated that the area is within he existing Land Use
Plan, and the only other change in the industrial area is that it was moved
slightly to include the lumber yard business.
Mr. Perkins responded that he would like to wait to see what the public
comment is about this matter, but he thinks the area should be a residential
designation. He thinks the industrial area could go as far as where the
bridge has been constructed, but the rest should be residential from there to
Highlands. Mr. Benish stated that the staff needs to examine this area again.
He mentioned a trucking company in this vicinity. Mr. Perkins noted that the
trucking company is located close to Acme and ConAgra Frozen Foods.
Mrs. Thomas inquired as to the chances of having some type of major
employment and industrial development in that area. She stated that it would
be nice if the people in Crozet didn't have to commute.
Mr. Perkins noted that some of the area has already been targeted for
the Martha Jefferson Hospital to build a clinic there. He assumes the road
that is shown is where the bridge has been constructed. Mr. Benish replied
that the bridge is in the general vicinity.
Mr. Perkins noted that there is some land on both sides of the road
which would be light industrial, office or transitional use. He said it seems
to him it should be zoned for transitional use because the zoning is going
from residential at Highlands to industrial. He stated that the road would be
a more logical place to cut off the zoning. Mr. Benish responded that one
reason significant changes were not considered for industrial use in this area
is because of adjacent land use. Although it would be an expensive undertak-
ing to get a site on some of this property because of the topography, the
potential is there. He emphasized that it is not available in any other part
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
000:1.82
of the County except for the Town of Scottsville. He said some interest has
been expressed in this use, although it has not been significant.
Mrs. Humphris thanked Mr. Benish and told him his remarks were very
helpful. She asked if the Supervisors should now set a public hearing. Mr.
Tucker answered affirmatively. The staff has tentatively set aside April 17
for the public hearing date, and if this date is agreeable with the Board
members, a motion should be made to that effect.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to set a
public hearing date on the revised Comprehensive Plan for April 17, 1996.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Tucker then mentioned the Consent Agenda Item relating to Chris
Greene Lake referred to by Mrs. Thomas. He asked if Mrs. Thomas wanted to
discuss this item with Mr. Hirschman, at this time. Mr. Tucker commented that
this item was on the Consent Agenda strictly for information. He said Mr.
Hirschman has recommended that before the Supervisors take any action, they
consider types of watershed protection in this area. He stated that Mr.
Hirschman is working on consolidating some ordinances along those lines, and
this information will come to the Supervisors either this summer or early
fall. He said that is when the Supervisors should discuss this matter and
take action.
Mrs. Thomas asked for a better description of what will happen if Chris
Greene Lake is used as a water impoundment, and it has to be drawn down in
drought events. She referred to the monthly reports about the levels of the
reservoirs at Ragged Mountain and Sugar Hollow, where it is common for them to
be drawn down five to eight feet. This is not at all alarming when it is a
reservoir. She stated, though, when it is a recreational area with a sloping
beach, and the water is down five or eight feet, people are in mud before they
get to the water. She wanted a better picture of this situation, if the
thought is to use the lake for water, as well as a recreational area. She
added that she believes the members of the public will be upset when the lake
is drawn down five feet.
Mr. Hirschman replied that there was an addendum to the addendum of the
Urban Rural Water Management Study to specifically address this question
because obviously there cannot be a recreational area if there are such big
fluctuations. He said based on a computer model and historic weather records
back to the 1940s, the prediction is that a drawdown of a foot would accom-
plish the 2,000,000 gallons a day goal. He explained that the capacity of the
plant created the goal.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the total drawdown would be a foot. Mr.
Hirschman answered affirmatively. He added that in order to get through some
of the historic droughts, the extra foot of water would be needed.
Mr. Tucker reported that over the time period considered, there were
only two times the weather had reached the point where this drawdown would
have to occur. Mr. Hirschman corrected Mr. Tucker's statement by saying the
drawdown would have had to occur four times during this particular time period
instead of two. The most severe weather involved a foot drawdown, and the
other three periods required less than a foot. He reiterated, though, that
this is based on a computer model, but he thinks it could be an operating
parameter that a foot drawdown could be expected during drought times. He
stated that this is why the recommendation was made that the two uses were not
incompatible. The swimming facility could still be operated with this type of
drawdown.
Mr. Tucker stated that the addendum to the addendum was done because the
staff was concerned that if there was a major drawdown, the two facilities
would not be able to coexist. The staff felt as though a foot maximum
drawdown would not be a concern~ especially when the model showed the need for
such a drawdown occurring only four times over 40 or 50 years.
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44) ~
Mr. Perkins asked when the facility is open for swimming. Mr. Tucker
responded that swimming can take place at Chris Greene Lake from Memorial Day
to Labor Day.
Mrs. Thomas inquired if the report would be further examined and sent to
this Board within a year. Mr. Tucker replied, ~yes." He said Mr. Hirschman
is recommending that no action be taken on the protection side of the issue
until he can consolidate the work on the ordinances. Mr. Hirschman stated
that it is best not to put a lot of amendments on an ordinance which is about
to be changed. Mrs. Humphris said Board members agreed with Mr. Hirschman.
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mrs. Thomas commented that a lot of her constituents get the impression
that there is nothing happening and no one is paying any attention to those
who live around the Ivy Landfill, so she would like to share with the other
Supervisors a type of progress report. She explained that she does not have
inside knowledge, but she has been paying attention and asking a lot of
questions. She said all Board members get letters about the Ivy Landfill, but
she feels she has to answer most of them. She went on to report that the
Solid Waste Task Force has been working for four or five months, and its
members have decided to look at all possible alternatives. They will apply
some questions to each of the alternatives, from environmental questions and
social questions to the impact of an alternative on another alternative. She
gave an example of how incineration would impact the idea that recycling is
also desired, and she said all of these things are quite inter-related.
She stated that the Task Force members will have a public hearing when
they develop some recommendations, and they will present their recommendations
to this Board sometime in June or July. She noted that it is an exceedingly
diverse group and it may be very difficult for them to come up with a consen-
sus. She reported, though, that they are just as hard working as this Board
thought they would be when they were appointed. They are very serious about
this matter, and they have been meeting more than once a month, and they will
be meeting weekly when they get close to finishing their work. She remarked
that there is a lot going on, but the Supervisors can't say much publicly,
because they don't want to undercut a Task Force which is looking at all the
alternatives.
Mrs. Thomas referred to the people managing the Landfill, and she said
they are doing a tremendous amount to change and improve what is happening
there. She noted that all the vents have activated carbon filters on them,
for example, which capture the volatile biological items which might be Coming
up from the Landfill. The filters are being monitored before and after to see
what they are catching, and it is not just to dilute the smell. She stated
that wells are being drilled, and bad chemicals are being found inside the
Landfill. She reported that deeper wells are being drilled to see if any of
these things are going down far enough to affect any wells in the vicinity.
She added that so far nothing has been found which has spread in a worrisome
way off of the site, but the final judgment is still out on some of these
things, because it is known that there are some bad chemicals inside the
Landfill.
She then called attention to a pink sheet claiming that there are over
3,000,000 gallons of documented toxic waste including known carcinogens and an
unknown amount of other possibly toxic carcinogenic chemicals in unlined
leaking cells. However, she noted that the author of this information
indicates this was a major error on his part. She said it is closer to
100,000 gallons of toxic waste, but it is far from being documented, because
this information comes from the memories of a couple of people who were
working at the Landfill at the time.
Mr. Bowerman asked the source of the pink sheet. Mrs. Thomas replied
that the Steering Committee of the Ivy neighbors developed the pink sheet
information. She just got it in the mail a couple of days ago, but it has
been agreed upon that this is no longer accurate. She stated that the pink
sheet is referring to what was called the Paint Pit, but drilling has been
done around it, and nothing is leaking out of it. She said it is all solidi-
fied and there is nothing to be found now, so it has been capped. She added
that the Paint Pit is probably not the source of the bad items, which is good
news as well as bad news. She explained that at one time when the Paint Pit
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45) ...........
000' S4
was thought to be the source, it could have been dealt with, but now the bad
chemicals are coming from somewhere else. She pointed out that the County is
legally required to deal with any environmental hazards and leachate created
there and will be responsible for the next 30 years. However, morally it
probably will never end. She said if any hazardous waste has to be removed,
it could involve tens of millions of dollars, and she mentioned Franklin
County which has spent more on its solid waste than on anything except for its
schools and police. She went on to say if any portion of the Landfill is
closed and the municipal waste is going someplace else, or if BFI entices
everyone away, then there won't be enough in tipping fees to deal with these
expenses. She remarked that tax dollars or some form of taxation will have to
be used in order to pay largely for the mistakes made during the past 30 years
on that Landfill if any type of remediation is done.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to whom would be responsible for the
remediation. Mrs. Thomas replied that some people think the City of Char-
lottesville should assume the total responsibility, because the City was
managing the Landfill when the bad chemicals were put there. The Authority is
the owner of the Landfill, though, and bought the Landfill for $1.00 with
$20,000,000 of liability. She added that she believes Albemarle County will
have to assume some of the responsibility.
Mr. Tucker stated that it is a joint responsibility between the City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
Mrs. Thomas remarked that it was early in the 1990s when the new Federal
Law indicated that every jurisdiction which has a landfill is responsible in a
much greater way for the environmental hazards coming out of the landfill than
they ever were in the past. She said a lot of localities closed their
landfills. However, the General Assembly in Virginia changed the law to try
to help the small rural counties that were going to have to close their
landfills, since they didn't have any alternatives. This is when the law came
into being stating that unlined cells could be added to, and trash could be
stacked into the air over the unlined areas. She added that it was determined
landfills did not have to be expanded only by putting in the double lined
cells which, otherwise, is the only way the landfills can be expanded. She
mentioned that lining is expensive, but it forms a clay and plastic sandwich,
including proper drainage, that encloses the trash. She said it is supposed
to keep trash as impervious as possible, as far as having rain water wash in
and sending out leachete.
She reiterated that the law indicates trash can be piled on top of the
unlined areas without lining them, and it was in the face of this change in
the law that the consultant developed the proposal which would expand the life
of the Ivy Landfill by 40 years. This is when the neighbors got very upset,
and there are three reasons why the neighbors are disturbed. First, the
Landfill is actually getting larger and more intrusive every day. She said it
isa big area, and there are more people who can see it than in the past from
Peacock Hills or elsewhere. She remarked that most of what the people see is
a green area, and most of them could have lived with that, except for the
other two factors. She stated that realtors have promised these people that
the Landfill would not be there much longer, and suddenly there is talk of
extending it by 40 years. She explained that she traced back to see why these
neighbors are saying there is a promise, with the help of David Booth, who is
the Steering Committee Chair and the person who has done a great deal of
research on this issue.
She mentioned that in the 1960s when the City was having to close its
Landfill, it was desperate for another location. The City officials asked for
permission to use the Ivy Landfill, and the County officials were not eager
for this to happen, so the conversations went back and forth. She noted that
these are captured in newspaper articles more than in meeting minutes. She
stated that a lot of people asked that the County let the City use the Ivy
Landfill for just a little while. This ended with a person making a comment
such as the City and County having a moral commitment to the people of Ivy
that the City will not dump there on a permanent basis. She quoted from
another person who indicated that he personally felt he made a binding promise
to the Ivy residents to use the Landfill only until a permanent site can be
found. She went on to say the neighbors have picked up on these statements
because they were both quoted in the Daily Progress by Francis Fife and Mitch
Van Yahres. However she noted that they are not what she would call a
governmental promise, and there is nothing she can find where the Board of
Supervisors ever said it promises this Landfill will only be used temporarily.
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
000 85
She explained that the City and County officials could not agree on this
issue, so in 1974 it was taken to court. She added that it was decided in
court that the County had to let the City use the Ivy Landfill and there was
nothing to the argument about a promise of this situation being temporary.
She said as far as what can legally be pinned down and what previous members
of this Board did, there is no promise, but there are all of these statements
in the newspaper which are the basis for people feeling the Landfill wasn't
going to be there very long, and that everyone agreed it was supposed to be a
temporary thing. She added that the County and the Authority have come up
with studies over the years, and all of these studies indicate that for
planning purposes this Landfill should not be considered to have any more than
ten years of life. She emphasized that the ten years of life started quite a
ways back, and it has been a moving target. The difference between. 10 years
and 40 years is one of the things making'the feelings come to the surface.
She reported that in 1968, there was a write-in candidate from the
Samuel Miller District, running solely on the platform of closing down the Ivy
Landfill, so that is how long ago this has been a political issue in Ivy. She
noted, too, that he got a lot of votes. She stated that realtors can cer-
tainly be blamed for exaggerating the time of closure, but she thinks County
officials need to be sympathetic to those people who thought the Landfill was
not going to be there very long, because when they looked they found these
statements by politicians indicating it would be closed. The third thing
which has happened is that the Authority has been doing the test wells, and
bad chemicals are being found. She remarked that people surrounding the
Landfill all depend on their wells and a lot of the wells are having quantity
problems. She said now, though, they are having to worry about quality
problems, which adds to the anxiety. She stated that she believes this is why
there have been some impatient and nasty letters written about this issue,
because the people are truly anxious about what is going on there. She
pointed out that the Authority withdrew its plan to add trash up to the height
of 920 feet in elevation, and she does not think this idea will ever come
back, because of the reaction to this plan. She mentioned that the Rivanna
Authority officials are doing some very interesting things such as getting
some composting started. They are grinding up stumps, which was over half of
the debris going into the Landfill in the past. She stated that this was
construction debris, but none of that is going into the Landfill currently,
because it is all being ground up, and that which is reusable is being shipped
to places to be resold or used in some other way. She said it may be found
that the area could be turned into a transfer station, with Albemarle County
using another Landfill someplace else other than in this County. She noted
that this is one of the options the Solid Waste Task Force is considering.
She added that there will be the problem of items already in the Landfill for
a long time, and anything that is done other than having it continue the same
way it is being used now is going to send it back to being a tax supported
management. She recalled attending a session two days ago on how people are
financing their solid waste facilities, because it has become much more
difficult now that Congress hasn't allowed localities to get control of their
waste stream. There are all sorts of fantastical ways people are taxing
households in order to get the money to build solid waste sites, but they are
all very difficult. She stated that if the County officials could get out of
the Ivy Landfill without getting into the business of building expensive
facilities, they will have done well.
Mrs. Humphris told Mrs. Thomas that this is a very important story for
the other Supervisors to hear. She stated that this involved a tremendous
amount of research and effort on Mrs. Thomas' part. She feels as though this
Board is caught in the middle, because the Supervisors keep getting the
letters demanding something be done. She added that the Supervisors are in
the position of having turned the responsibility for researching and recom-
mending to the Task Force, and they should not interfere with the work the
Task Force is doing. She stated that this Board is asked to do something, it
cannot do. The Supervisors will just have to wait until the recommendations
are forthcoming.
Nexts Mrs. Humphris called attention to the Proclamation from this Board
proclaiming Albemarle County Farm Tour Day because agriculture and forestry
are so important in this County. She said everybody depends so much on the
actions of farm and forest owners that the Supervisors are giving their
support to Albemarle County Farm Tour Day and are commending the Albemarle
County Farm Bureau and the Piedmont Environmental Council for all of their
efforts in helping to educate citizens about the importance of farming to the
March 6, 1996 (Regular DaYMeeting) " 000~6
(Page 47)
communities. This proclamation has been approved and signed. She noted that
she was remiss earlier in the meeting when she did not make this announcement.
She explained that she thought it would be part of the regular agenda but,
instead, it was approved on the final Consent Agenda.
Next, Mrs. Humphris said the Supervisors need to be aware that the
telecommunications bill in Congress seems to uphold the authority of local
governments over decisions regarding the placement, construction and modifica-
tion of cellular towers. She stated that this is of utmost importance to this
Board, and although there were a lot of caveats to this bill, she thinks local
governments came out of this all right.
Mrs. Humphris then remarked that everybody needs to be aware of the
Monday, March 11, 1996 Citizens Information Meeting on the Route 29 Western
Bypass at the Sheraton between 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. She understands there
are four alternatives, and citizens are asked to study the maps and give their
comments. She explained that it will be the same format of stenographers and
written comment sheets, and there will be ten days after the date of the
meeting to turn these comments into VDoT. She emphasized that this is a very
important meeting.
Mrs. Humphris announced that March 11, 1996 is also the date of the
graduation ceremony and reception honoring all of the Albemarle County
employees who participated in the Quality Improvement Program. The ceremony
will be held in the County Office Building auditorium at 3:30 p.m.
Mr. Marshall stated that Mayor Thacker came to see him yesterday, and he
also got a call from Terry Hawkins, asking that the Sheriff's budget be
postponed until after the Sheriff gets back on the 22nd. This means this item
will have to be considered on Monday, March 25, 1996. Mr. Tucker responded
that this matter can be decided during the Supervisors work session on the
budget. Mr. Marshall noted that the Mayor asked if the item is postponed, to
please inform him, because he and the Town Council want to be present. He
asked if a member of the staff could inform Mayor Thacker. Mr. Tucker
answered that the staff can inform the Mayor that the matter will be post-
poned, but he will not be able to give him a definite date, at this time. He
would prefer to see how the work sessions go before a time is set.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Marshall is referring to the two deputy
positions for Scottsville that were only supposed to be for one year. She
cannot remember the details or how it affected the County. Mr. Tucker
responded that the agreement for these positions is running out at the end of
this fiscal year. He said all of th~s information is in the budget, and was
scheduled to be discussed at Monday's work session of this Board.
Mrs. Humphris stated that this matter could be handled without Sheriff
Hawkins being present. Mr. Marshall commented that the Mayor wanted Sheriff
Hawkins at the meeting for support to present the case that these two posi-
tions would not be there if he and Sheriff Hawkins had not gone before the
State Compensation Board for this purpose. He said it was not an action of
this Board which created the positions, but it was the Scottsville Town
Council and the Sheriff who got the money for them. He stated that they put
out all of the effort, and he would like to see the positions continued for at
least another year.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she feels as though the budget schedule is
fairly fixed, and the Supervisors can deal with the facts of the situation, no
matter who promotes an item. She stated that this Board will make its
decision based on the facts provided by the County Executive, and she thinks
it can be done fairly. Mr. Marshall said if this if the pleasure of the other
Board members, it is fine with him. He suggested, though, that someone needs
to call Mayor Thacker and tell him the matter will be taken up on Monday.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that a letter be drafted from the Chair of this
Board addressed to the President of the Litton Corporation regarding its
purchase of Sperry Marine, Inc. He asked that this letter include positive
statements as far as the importance of Sperry to this community as an em-
ployer. He said Sperry has always been a good corporate citizen, and he hopes
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
000 ?
this business can stay in the area. HOwever, he added that he has no other
information about this situation.
Agenda Item No. 18. The Board recessed at 3:41 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 19. The Board reconvened in the Auditorium at 7:05
P.M., at which time the Chairman called the meeting back to order.
Agenda Item No. 20. Public Hearing on staff's proposed FY 1996-97
County budget.
Mr. Tucker presented an overview of the proposed FY 1996-97 budget and
described the process for developing it up to this point. He noted that this
is the first public hearing on the budget, but over the next couple of weeks
there will be work sessions, and then a final public hearing will be held on
April 3, 1996. At this time, he reported that new revenue projections
amounted to approximately $5,700,000. The debt service has not increased, but
the capital projects and debt reserve increased by approximately $200,000. He
also noted an increase in the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City of
Charlottesville of $121,000. He next explained that the Board of Directors
for the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System gave a cost of living increase
to all retirees. He said pre-funding of this increase will be spread over
several years, and there were six different options for funding being consid-
ered. He pointed out that the funding options ranged from $90,000 to
$1,900,000 for Albemarle County, so a reserve of $500,000 was set aside for
this purpose. However, he emphasized that it is now known that the VSRS Board
has chosen the least expensive option which will make the reserve funding
available for other uses.
Mr. Tucker reported that the Board of Supervisors' reserve fund was
increased by $634,000 with the remaining funds being allocated between the
schools and local government in the 60/40 split. He added that total revenues
amount to approximately $117,400,000, with local property taxes accounting for
almost 50 percent of this figure. He said other local taxes account for 20
percent; self-sustaining funds account for approximately 5.4 percent; federal
funds account for 2.2 percent; and state funds account for approximately 23.1
percent. Mr. Tucker commented that in 1988 the County's total revenue
consisted of approximately 37 percent of State and Federal funds. These funds
decreased significantly to 28 percent, and local revenues had to increase to
allow for the difference. The County has an anomaly this year with the State
and Federal funds, and he went on to explain that the schools took quite a
significant reduction in State funds due to the change in the Composite Index.
The anomaly is that on the local government side, for the first time since
1988, fairly significant increases in State and Federal funds were received,
but they are tied to certain programs. He explained that, for example, some
of the funds have to be used for welfare reform, and there are significant
funds available to implement the Governor's Juvenile Crime Act.
Mr. Tucker next explained the expenditure pie graph which showed School
Division Operations making up 61 percent, the School Debt at 5.8 percent, and
the Capital Program representing 2.8 percent. The schools make up approxi-
mately 70 percent of the total budget, with General Government operations
representing approximately 24.5 percent. He added that Revenue Sharing
amounts to 4.4 percent of the budget, and the Board's reserve involves only
one and one-half percent. He then noted that the cost of services provided to
Albemarle County's citizenry has been fairly flat since 1988, but costs of
growth and inflation continue to drive the major expenditures of the budget.
Mr. Tucker referred to some of the budget highlights which provide for
$2,170,000 in local funding for school operations aimed at funding 23.3 new
teachers and 10.5 classified positions; $121,000 for revenue sharing with the
City of Charlottesville; an increase in the debt in Capital Reserve by
$200,000; and six new police officers; as well as 3.3 new social workers. He
said approximately three percent on average increase for agencies outside of
local government and schools has been targeted, with a 2.5 percent increase on
average for departmental operations.
Next, Mr. Tucker mentioned State funding for the school division where
in FY 1994, the school division received a little less than $1,000,000. He
explained that in FY 1995 the amount increased to approximately $1,300,000,
but for the current year, the amount decreased again to $1,000,000. He noted
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting
(Page 49) .
00'01SS
that for FY 1997, the school division will receive $600,000 less than the year
before. This amounts to a loss of $1,600,000 in one year from the State for
the school division. He pointed out that the School Board's recommended
budget amounts to approximately $67,000,000, but with fair budget based on the
school system's allocations, it would only be $65,200,000, with the allocation
of 60 percent of local revenue. This provides a shortfall of approximately
$1,900,000. He stated that one way of funding the shortfall would be with the
Board's Reserve Fund, the Jail Reserve Fund, and the VSRS Reserve Fund which
amounts to $1,700,000. He said $200,000 is being retained in the Jail
Reserve, though, to help with the jail expansion, which leaves a net reserve
of $1,500,000. He then proposed that some carry-over funds be used for non-
recurring costs in the schools for such things as textbooks, language arts and
the Governor's Standard of Learning curriculum materials. The item costs are
approximately $500,000, which leaves available funds remaining to the Board of
approximately $2,000,000. He added that the school system could be funded
with the $1,880,000 submitted with its unbalanced budget/ leaving a remaining
Board reserve of approximately $176,000.
Mr. Tucker stated that he would like for Albemarle County's citizenry to
be cognizant of some items of importance, and he compared Albemarle County
with other localities in the Commonwealth, as far as per capita expenditures
based on the functional categories provided by local government and schools.
He noted that in every category, except for miscellaneous, Albemarle County is
below the State average in expenditure per capita. He also pointed out that
the miscellaneous category is representative of the revenue sharing agreement
Albemarle County has with the City of Charlottesville, and no other county in
the Commonwealth has such an agreement. He then discussed the staffing ratio
of local government which indicated that in FY 1985 there were 4.25 employees
per thousand residents. He said over this 12 year period, there has been an
increase of 1.05 employees per thousand residents. He also reported that the
Police Department is the County's fastest growing agency, with regard to
staffing, and it has only increased by one-third of an employee over the same
period.
Mr. Tucker then talked about the real property tax rate, where in 1982
prior to the revenue sharing agreement, the County's tax rate was 67 cents per
hundred dollar valuation. He said with the referendum that was approved
during that period, the County's taxes went up 10 cents to cover the cost of
the revenue sharing agreement. He stated that a 77 cent tax rate was carried
for several years, but in 1988 the rate decreased and remained relatively
level at 72 cents per hundred dollar valuation.
As far as the personal property tax rate is concerned, Mr. Tucker
reported that in 1982 the personal property tax rate was at $5.00. However,
it has decreased since then to $4.28 and has remained at that figure for the
last ten years.
Mr. Tucker said Albemarle County has a 72 cents tax rate, but he
reminded everyone that the County actually operates on a 62 cents tax rate,
because the top ten cents of the tax rate must go directly to the City to
honor the Revenue Sharing Agreement. He compared this rate to the top 20 most
populated counties in Virginia and pointed out that the average rate for these
counties is 85 cents per hundred dollar valuation. The average of all
Virginia counties is at 69 cents per hundred dollar valuation, and he reiter-
ated that Albemarle County actually operates on a 62 cents tax rate. He
stated that compared to the average for all Virginia cities at $1.03 per
hundred dollar valuation, Albemarle County does quite well.
Mr. Tucker finalized his presentation by quoting from his transmittal
letter indicating that his goal has always been basically to attempt to
provide a balance between the projected growth of this area and community and
a fiscally responsible framework for meeting the County's demands for ser-
vices. The County is fortunate, this year, that the balance between resources
and demands has been met without affecting those citizens that may be least
able to afford further tax increases. He stated that he feels with this
Board's support, as well as the citizenry's support, the County of Albemarle
will continue to remain a leader in balanced growth and fiscal management.
Mrs. Humphris thanked Mr. Tucker for his presentation. She then noted
that there was a sign up sheet outside the room for people who wished to speak
about the budget. The intent is to allow five minutes per speaker. She also
advised that the Supervisors would like to encourage all the speakers to be as
specific as possible about their requests, because it will help the Board
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50) -~
0001 9
members when they go through their budget work sessions if they know specific
things of interest to the citizens. She would call out a few names from the
list at a time, so the people can move to the front of the room and be
prepared to speak.
Mr. Roland Stanton commented that he would like to talk about the 1997-
98 Albemarle County budget. He pointed out that although this hearing relates
to the 1996-97 budget, there are three good reasons why he has chosen to talk
about a future budget. He then mentioned that a new school will be built next
summer, another new school will open in the fall of 1997, and reductions in
State and Federal government funding will continue to be seen, but a plan does
not exist. He referred to 1994-95 when he told this Board that the most
effective way of budgeting was to combine long and short range planning. He
also suggested that any time people provide this Board with a request for
money, the Supervisors should ask them for their goals, as well as their
plans, and they should inquire of them as to how they will manage the money
being requested. He noted that after years of putting up with the inevitable,
the decision was made to build a new school, but the future will be robbed in
order to pay for part of it. He stated that split billing is not found money.
He reiterated that it is robbing the future, because the money would have come
anyway, but it would come in the future. He added that additional deficit
dollars will be spent to incorporate features which cannot pay for themselves
in the lifetime of the equipment being installed. He asked if the School
Administration truly believes it needs all of the funds being requested. He
thinks it really does. He added that a child standing in a candy shop with a
quarter and demands another quarter so he can buy what he wants rather than
what he can afford is just like the school system. He wondered if the
Supervisors have asked the School Administration for a copy of its goals, or
if they have seen the plan for school improvement and what is expected from
it. He asked if the Supervisors understand how they will manage to measure
the achievements from the 1996-97 school budget. He said if the Supervisors
have seen these things, he would be surprised, because they don't exist. Yet,
he stated that not only are the Supervisors passing the school system's base
budget, but they are giving the school system another $2,000,000 which
includes 33 new people. He emphasized that the County will be responsible for
paying these people in 1997-98, too, plus whatever it costs to start up the
new schools. He inquired if he is the only person seeing these things, or is
he one of a few who is looking for a solution rather than just a willingness
to compromise on how to spend money. He referred to the people who spoke at
the School Board public hearing, and they have a ~me" image clouding their
objectivity. He went on to say he suspects the ones speaking tonight will
have the same problem. He stated that they are willing to trade off approval
of what they want for something someone else wants. The Board of Supervisors'
task is to rise above this, look at the community and ask what it is that the
community needs. He remarked that the Supervisors need to find out if
everything in the budget is needed and if the money is being spent wisely. He
then asked if the County's past investments in the school system have been
worthwhile, and he wondered how this success can be measured. He added,
though, that no one is trying to measure it. He also asked how the success of
the 1996-97 budget will be measured. He noted that there are no plans or
goals, and there is no way to assess it, and he wondered again if the school
system representatives were asked for these things. He has asked for such
things, but he has not seen them. He added that without goals there cannot be
effective planning and without plans there cannot be a comprehensive budget.
He stated that without a comprehensive budget, it is just throwing money away.
He told the Board to demand goals, plans and accountability, and only then
should the funds the people are asking for be allocated.
Mr. Marshall Chase, speaking on behalf of the Albemarle Education
Association, thanked the Albemarle County School Board for its support of
public education. The budget received originally was one which was a decrease
in effort, and the School Board saw it was inappropriate to decrease staffing
for special education children. He stated that such a decrease would harm not
only the neediest of the County's children, but their classmates, as well.
The School Board members rejected any decrease in staffing, particularly at a
time of increasing enrollment. He added that they were prudent in their
willingness to study alternatives for opening times and then proceeded to add
funds to the budget to maintain buildings, become competitive in hiring
substitute teachers, pay school secretaries for the hours they actually work,
continue the proven success in adaptive physical education, begin aid to
schools overrun with students' medical needs and begin replacing outdated
curriculum materials. He stated that the School Board's action did not
represent a rejection of Dr. Castner's budget. He said Dr. Castner, himself,
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51) . ....
0001 0
was uncomfortable with its implications and his staff worked well with what
they were given. He went on to say the Albemarle Education Association
supports the County Executive's budget which fully funds the School Board's
request, but the Association believes that now it is time to look for long
term solutions to a perennial problem.
He mentioned that next year the County is projecting an increased
enrollment of 237 students, which is an equivalent of adding one new elemen-
tary school. He emphasized that last year saw a similar increase. He said
school administrators are currently in the midst of planning additions to
schools to accommodate future increases and already burgeoning populations.
He stated that it is also the school system's contention that if it is good
planning to prepare physical plants to handle more children, ~it is also wise
to prepare for the increased expenses they bring with them. He commented that
every year the County is faced with great uncertainties at budget time, and
the school division as a whole and the individual buildings individually,
scramble to cut corners. This year they nearly wound up with a circle, and
the human cost of this situation is dear. He stated that as a result of this
year's budget uncertainty, many teachers and assistants have been sent notices
informing them that they may not be rehired next year, not because of a
reduction in enrollment, but because the County is not sure their positions
can be funded. He asked the Board members to imagine one of these letters in
their hands, and to think of what it is like to get several of these letters
during their career. He said it is unacceptable that Albemarle County treats
its employees this way, and it must end, and the only way it will end is for
the County and school division staffs to work together to guarantee a base
level of funding and to create a process which responds in advance to enroll-
ment projections. He stated that this is not difficult to do, and it will
show employees and the children of this County the loyalty they deserve. This
problem is not going to be solved by the County Executive's budget, because
next year it will be worse. He added that it seems the cry against taxes has
resonated in Washington and Richmond and now Government officials have heard
the call, and the answer is to pay for it locally. He said like it or not
that is what has to be done. He added that for every ambiguous tale of woe,
he has ten documented success stories to tell.
He then referred to the recent Daily Progress editorial touting the
incredible art work created by the County's children. He remarked that people
who have not seen this display should go to the mall and look closely. He
commented that they will not only see fantastic works of art, but the talents
and abilities of the County's children and educators. They will see art
created for its own sake, as well as art in conjunction with mathematics,
paintings inspired by cellular biology, sculpture used with literature and
writing and some ink brush paintings done by his students in their study of
Japan. He stated that the County's students reach excellence in a thousand
quiet ways every day, but this year in particular, it inspired the local paper
to tell the citizens they should recognize the creativity, joy and intelli-
gence of the County's public school children. He went on to say this is what
is placed at risk every February, and it must never be forgotten that the
future of these children is what is important. He said it must be protected
vigilantly, with a guarantee that Albemarle County schools will never be
anything less than they are today and in fact will strive for greater heights
in the future. He emphasized that it is time to plan for this future now.
Mrs. Humphris thanked Mr. Chase for mentioning the art exhibit at the
mall. She said it is wonderful.
Mr. John Carter, of Earlysville, stated that as the Board members busy
themselves with the thankless task of deciding who gets what and how much, he
would like to remind them of a frequently overlooked fact. Those additional
revenues pouring into the County coffers each and every year is money the
County did not ask for or seek. He added that it happened automatically as a
result of rising property values and economic growth. He commented that for
reasons unknown and perhaps unknowable, every cent of that same money is
transformed when it finds its way into the County budget. It is then and only
then that it becomes desperately needed. He went on to say a major responsi-
bility of elected officials has always been to make sure money taken from
their constituents is spent on government needs and not wasted on government
wants. He stated, though, that it seems this Board has become little more
than a mediator between parceling out money to a hoard of competing government
agencies whose needs are insatiable and whose wants are invisible. He
remarked that this should not be, and need not be, and to correct it is
absurdly simple. He said before the next budget process even begins, and as
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52) ..
000igi
soon as it is known how much money is available, the County should be informed
not to spend all of its increased income on itself, but rather return a
portion of it to the public. He stated that this will not adversely affect
the County's abilities to meet the demands of its clamoring clientele because,
after all, the claims of need did not surface until more money became avail-
able to spend. He then asked the Board members to heed the words of
Albemarle's most famous citizen, Thomas Jefferson, who suggested having a wise
and frugal government that shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it
has earned.
Miss Denise Scott, a 14 year old, noted she has been in the Camp Horizon
Program since she was in the fifth grade. She stated that this program has
helped her and other youths, because it helps young people to look toward the
future and lets them understand about life. She reported that the program's
staff members ask questions the young people have never even thought of, and
they guide them in the direction in which they want to go. She knows what
this program has meant to her, and she feels that such programs are needed in
places other than Charlottesville. She added that she knows there are other
children who face the same issues that are discussed in the program, and they
need someone to point them in the right direction. They need a chance such as
she has been given. She told the Board members that she hopes they will fund
the Beating the Odds Program.
Mr. Jerry"Jones, the Board of Supervisors' appointee to the Jefferson
Madison Regional Library Board, announced that he is accompanied tonight by
the Board's other two appointees, Marion Schwartz and Jacqueline Rice. He
then requested the Supervisors' support for the Library's FY 1996-97 budget
request, and he pointed out that a letter supporting this request has been
delivered to the Clerk of this Board. He said in the first six months of the
current fiscal year, the funds provided from Albemarle County to the Regional
Library System have resulted in the completed renovations of the Central
Library. He stated that this involved a long overdue roof replacement, a
heating, ventilation and air conditioning upgrade and a major renovation to
the mezzanine where the Monticello Avenue Internet access has been installed,
which was done with City and County CIP funding. He said since Monticello
Avenue, the community information service, was opened, this Library System has
become a national leader in information technology. He also noted that an
African American collection has recently been opened at the Gordon Avenue
Branch, which has been extremely well received. He next referred to a signed
agreement from Nelson County which brings it into the Regional Library System
as a full member. Mr. Jones said, to date, the System is doing well in the
State's ongoing budget process with regard to State aid to public libraries,
and it is in line to receive the second highest amount in aid in the Common-
wealth. He remarked that this year the Library System received $613,000. He
then requested a County budget increase of approximately 4.65 percent to
address a four percent fund increase in salaries to continue the Pay for
Performance Program and to progress toward market and target rates for the
long term Library System employees. He mentioned a variety of other charges
due to inflation such as service charges for work stations and line charges
for the Monticello Avenue service, as well as an upgrading of the current
circulation system which is an on line catalog to better serve the public
access. He reported that the Jefferson Madison Regional Library is in good
health, and more and more people are using the Library. He stated that the
number of new borrowers in Albemarle County grew at a rate of 10.7 percent,
and more people are reading books and borrowing other items. He said circula-
tion for Albemarle County was up 9.6 percent last year, and the bookmobile
circulation grew over 10 percent. He stated that Albemarle County residents
are using the Library resources in far greater numbers than any other regional
member, and the Library's success would not be possible without this Board's
support in the past. He emphasized that he hopes this support can be contin-
ued this year.
Mrs. Humphris thanked Mr. Jones for his remarks. She also acknowledged
the service that the Library Board members perform, and she conveyed her
appreciation for their presence at this meeting.
Mr. Jim Howe, from Earlysville, stated that he has spoken to the
Supervisors before because he has followed the budget process closely for the
last four years. He has been a PTO President for two years and served as a
Vice President for two years prior to that, so he has been particularly
interested in the school system's perspective. He added that every year when
he has followed the budget's process, he has come to the same sort of frus-
trated conclusion that there is simply not enough money in this County to go
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53 ) ·
000 92
around. He said every year 90 percent of the effort, in terms of the School
Board's budget, is what to do with the last ten percent. He noted that every
year the Supervisors are generous, and they increase the budget by $2,000,000
or several percent. However, by the time growth is funded, etc., there is not
much left for new initiatives, which are things really needed to make top
quality schools. He went on to say the reason for this is that people look at
the budget, and they think the school system takes 60 percent of the County's
revenue, so, therefore, the school system is getting too much money. He said
consideration needs to be given to why the schools are getting 60 percent, and
if people realize that it is because the pie is so small, then it is not a
problem. He referred to Mr. Tucker's comments about the low tax rate in
Albemarle County. This is great, but the problem is that there is not enough
money to go around. He stated that the schools are always coming up short,
and every year people come to these public hearings and fight for their
causes. He said, though, consideration needs to be given to a long term
solution to the problem. He commented that it is apparent the State and
Federal funding will continue to decrease, and there has to be a long term
solution to this problem. He suggested that one way is to raise the tax rate
or approve a meals tax, because this County has got to have more money so the
schools can be funded at a proper level. He does not think cutbacks in the
schools is the answer. He stated that this has been tried, and about 80
percent of the expenditures go directly into instruction, five percent into
administration, and the remainder into the operation of the schools. There
are not a lot of extra things included. He added that being associated with
the school system, he can see this, and there is no waste. He said well
trained students are the end product, and he thinks this is something of which
to be proud. This school system needs to be watched and nurtured because
these children are the future, and there needs to be some long term planning
to provide for them. He remarked that the only way he sees this happening is
to increase the tax rate in this County.
Ms. Diane Behrens, Tri Chair of the Albemarle County Principals Associa-
tion, spoke on behalf of the principals and the assistant and associate
principals of the 23 public schools in this County. She said Dr. Castner was
challenged to develop a balanced budget with a projected increase of 237
students and a reduction in funds from the State and Federal Governments of
$886,989. She stated that with the input and involvement from the principals
and the Leadership Team, the restructuring strategies represented careful
thought, creativity, and sensitivity, but the budget Dr. Castner presented to
the School Board was a decrease in effort. The School Board members listened
to very positive support for at least a maintenance of effort budget, and
speakers reminded them that the education of the children is the single most
important task in this community. She added that after hearing the presenta-
tions and deliberating as to how to proceed, the School Board recommended an
unbalanced budget indicating a shortfall of $1,900,000. The principals would
like to thank the School Board for recognizing that the restructuring would be
a step backward and for their willingness to send forward an unbalanced
budget. She also thanked Mr. Tucker for his support in recommending the
making up of the $1,900,000 shortfall. She went on to say this will allow the
school system to maintain the current effort. She stated that there are many
demands for the revenues available, and at least four years growth has had to
be enveloped within the funding allotted. However, she emphasized that it
would be nice if at some point growth could be separate to allow the County
School System to move forward with its identified priorities. She then asked
the members of the Board of Supervisors to support the budget presented by Mr.
Tucker.
Ms. Katherine Carr, President of the PTO at Virginia L. Murray Elemen-
tary School and a member of the Superintendent's Advisory Board, read a letter
from her colleagues on the Advisory Board expressing their shared support for
a strong public educational system in Albemarle County. (See letter written
to fellow citizens of Albemarle County and members of the Board of Supervisors
from members of the PTOs, PTAs, Parent Advisory Committees, as well as members
of the Superintendent's Advisory Board, delivered to the Supervisors on March
6, 1996.) She emphasized that she has signatures to this letter from the
heads and presidents of parent organizations at Meriwether Lewis, Crozet,
Scottsville, Broadus Wood, Red Hill, Cale, Brownsville, Yancey and Virginia L.
Murray Elementary Schools, as well as Albemarle High School and Jack Jouett
and Walton Middle Schools. There are others who would have liked to have
provided their signatures, but she was unable to get around to all of the
schools in the County in time for this meeting. She thanked the Supervisors
for their time and consideration.
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
Mr. Ed Strauss, a resident of the western part of the County, said Mr.
Tucker put on a good show tonight, but as he does every year, he forgot a few
things. Mr. Strauss then asked this Board to request a submittal of dual
budgets; one including the vast majority of money for the schools, and the
other including more money for the people of Albemarle County with realistic
requests for such things as libraries, etc. He would also like a graphic on
the true costs of taxes in Albemarle County. He stated that it seems to be
forgotten that there is $1.39 added to the phone bill and $4.00 added to the
electric bill. He said everything in Albemarle County is taxed, except for
air, and he is sure someone will figure out a way to do that. He then
mentioned the failure of strategic planning and the rewards this Board gives.
The 911 enhanced system was brought to this Board and approved with startup
costs, and after the startup, a refund of partial taxes was supposed to be
paid to the people. He stated that this Board refuses to recognize this fact,
and failed strategic planning continues to be rewarded. He remarked that a
person can't request a phone system, and then decide three years later that a
building is needed. He suggested that at least 60 cents of the $1.39 should
be returned to the people of the County, and the person who wants a building
should be told to find one to rent. He said, though, this is up to the Board
of Supervisors, and he can't make it happen. He added that the Supervisors
know about this situation, and no one has complained, but the citizens should
not have to come and complain about everything. This is a fact, and he
requested the Supervisors to listen to their own meeting tapes.
He next mentioned the request for six new police officers. They are not
just police officers but, instead, the request involves cars, guns, books,
magazine subscriptions and dry cleaning. He emphasized that three police
officers have already been added, because there was federal funding for these
positions this past summer. He pointed out that six more makes nine new
police officers, and next year when federal funding is gone, the other three
will be funded by the County. He noted that this is another way to present
money which is spent differently and not always to the citizens' benefit. He
next talked about human costs and he wondered why 70 percent of the budget is
going to the schools with everything else being ignored. He referred to
people in different parts of the world, and he asked if they would consider 70
percent of their budget as a reasonable human cost for any area. He realizes
he is supposed to present facts, but he has listened to a lot of hypothetical
questions. He asked if it is fair to ask for this type of budget when there
are all types of people in Albemarle County. He stated that nearly everybody
will have children, but when the children's 18 years of education is over,
people will lose interest. He emphasized that everything is being done for
"me" and not for ~us," when a 70 percent budget is approved for the school
system.
He called attention to the fact that the school system and the police
department make up 82 percent of the budget. He asked if this is an enlight-
ened area and a society encouraging people to participate, or is it a self
serving system to keep people at a certain standard of living while the rest
don't get anything. He said even though the remainder of the people are not
suffering, they are not getting anything either, and it is not fair. He went
on to say if the Supervisors want to fund six police officers and $1,000,000
buildings, then there has to be a 70 percent budget. However, if the Supervi-
sors are willing to at least look at everything reasonably where there is
something for everybody, then the school system could be funded at 60 percent.
He said when a budget is funded with 70 percent going to the school system,
then the rest cannot be given to the Police Department. He stated that he is
using these two areas as examples because they are the fastest growing parts
of the County budget. He then referred to the rules of the meeting where the
speakers are requested to state their positions and give facts, and He is only
stating facts. He remarked that everything he has said is true, and the
Supervisors are responsible. He mentioned that this past summer he was amazed
at the effort put into trying to fight the City's reversion plans. He
suggested that the City citizens were sick of their government, and that the
County officials should let them revert. He stated that the County officials
should be looking for an option for their citizens, and he wondered if it was
possible for the citizens to get rid of the County Executive and the Board of
Supervisors° This is something to think about, and instead of fighting
another group of citizens, County officials should be looking for ways to work
with them. He said such a thing is not done here, and neither is sharing done
with the fire department, school system or the police department. He inquired
if the Supervisors have forgotten everything talked about in the 1970s. He
stated that it was supposed to have happened and services were supposed to be
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
combined, but all of this has been forgotten.
able, but he is not.
He said everybody is comfort-
Mr. John Baldino stated that he often walks into these meetings not
knowing whether or not he will speak, but tonight there are a couple of things
he would like to say. He got back to his office at approximately 6:15 p.m.
this evening to make a phone call. He added that it was a call he does not
like to make at this time of the year, because it was to return a call to a
teacher who had either received or knew she would be receiving a Reduction In
Force notice. The irony is that she also just got her five year pin for good
service to Albemarle County, and her reward was to get the RIF notice at the
same time. He stated that this is a good teacher who doesn't want to have to
go through this problem. He appreciates the fact that Mr. Tucker was able to
find the extra money to put into the budget for the school system and that he
recommended the money be used in such a way. However, the school officials
have to plan on the probability that the money will not be approved, so they
are still looking at a RIF situation prior to actually being able to plan on
the use of the additional money. He hopes a better job of planning can be
done in the future, but it brings up the whole issue of what to do in the
future. He remarked that this cycle has to be stopped, and part of the way
would be to find new sources of revenue. He mentioned that several prior
speakers have already outlined this, but he would like to give his personal
experience. He stays in town a lot for meetings with the County Board of
Supervisors and the School Board, as well as the City Council and City School
Board. He stated that he eats out a lot, but he doesn't pay attention to
whether or not he is paying for a meals tax. He does not notice the differ-
ence in his bill whether he is eating at a McDonald's in Charlottesville or a
McDonald's in the County. He said County officials have got to start looking
at broader based sources of revenue. He also stated that he appreciates the
taxes being held at an even rate in the County, since he is a County taxpayer.
However, he thinks a way has to be considered to grow the tax rate in a slow
rational way which provides for the necessary funding. He thinks the addi-
tional tax money should be returned to the people, also, but in a different
way from the ways suggested by Mr. Carter and other speakers tonight. He
stated that it should be returned by educating the population. He said it
should be returned through public education, because if this is done, the
money will come back to the citizens as income. He went on to say the people
who are educated will have jobs, and it will increase the whole tax base in
the County. He emphasized that a well educated citizenry is the County's best
investment in the future.
Mrs. Humphris inquired if there was anyone else who didn't sign the
sheet who would like to speak.
Mrs. Betty Newell, a resident of Albemarle County, thanked the County
officials for taking part in the shared application for agencies with the
City. She stated that it seems to be working well for everyone. As the
Director of the Charlottesville Free Clinic, she encouraged the Supervisors to
accept the recommendation made by staff to provide a small contribution to the
Free Clinic. She said although it is not a lot of money, it really expresses
their support, and she noted that all of the services are provided by volun-
teers. She stated that the Free Clinic has a very minimal staff, as well as
minimal costs for housing, etc., to support approximately 500 to 600 volun-
teers. She said nearly 4,000 people have been served since the Free Clinic
opened, and there are probably twice this many people who qualify for these
services, but have not yet used them. She next mentioned that the Free Clinic
hopes to set an example for the rest of the community in shared use of space
with the Health Department. She pointed out that the Free Clinic's dental
program is already there, which is very successful. The patients and the
health care providers are pleased. She commented that it has been a good use
of scarce resources, because the Health Department has new equipment, the Free
Clinic has wonderful space, and everybody is happy. She stated that the Free
Clinic staff is looking forward to moving the rest of its services there in
late summer or early fall, and hopes to come back to this Board and the City
Council within the next few weeks to get formal approval to proceed with the
plan for the shared space which was requested last October. She reiterated
that it is hoped this shared space program can show what can happen when a
community works together.
She next mentioned welfare reform. She said everybody probably agrees
that the present system needs to be reformed, but it cannot happen without
giving the people a helping hand. She said everyone needs to be cognizant of
the fact that certain costs may go down, but as people move from welfare into
000 95
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
working situations, they will not be going into high paying jobs with good
benefits. She stated that most of them will enter the work force with any job
they can get, and the jobs will probably have minimal wages with no benefits.
She also mentioned that Medicaid will be lost to them at a certain point,
which means that there will be a lot of women and children with no access to
the health care they now have. She emphasized that this will cause a big
demand on everybody. She pointed out that the transportation system will feel
the change, because there will be more people accepting jobs which other
people don't want for weekends, evenings, night shifts and split shifts. She
noted that currently there is not any public transportation to serve anything
other than standard work hours, and she asked the Supervisors to keep this
situation in mind as they plan the budget and look ahead. She also encouraged
the Board of Supervisors to move ahead with really open and honest communica-
tion with the City officials to see how services can be shared. She stated
that this is one exceptional community with two exceptional localities, and
the Free Clinic has shown that working together can succeed.
She then referred to other speakers' comments relating to the school
system getting 65 to 70 percent of the budget. She added that her children
have long since finished school, but she supports public education. She said
her children were in public schools, and she is thankful the public schools
were available. However, she mentioned that by the time children get to
school, they already have formed a lot of the habits and a lot of their health
status has been affected by several years before the County or City can help
intervene in what might not be a good situation for a child. She stated that
some of the programs this Board has funded, such as Headstart, certainly
recognizes the need to have children better prepared when they enter school,
but health care is very important. She said if the child doesn't go to school
healthy, or if they can't see or hear, no matter how much money goes into
education, it won't bring the desired dividends. She encouraged the Supervi-
sors to think about investing money instead of just spending it. She then
pointed out that she is one of this Board's representatives to the JAUNT
Board. She referred to the fact that City officials are considering other
services besides JAUNT and are even thinking about perhaps providing this
service themselves. She urged the Supervisors to express their concern to the
City about the disruption of what is nationally recognized as a very cost
effective, very safe and very well run organization. This is an example of a
community working together, because no single municipality would have anywhere
near the service it enjoys if it was not a combined service. She stated that
JAUNT serves human services agencies, as well as elderly and handicapped
peep%e, and in non-urban areas JAUNT is the only public transportation
available. She asked the Board members to let City officials know that
everybody will lose if the coordinated system does not stay in place. She
appreciated the opportunity to speak before the Board of Supervisors. She
stated that the Supervisors have a tough job, and she thanked them for doing
it.
Mr. Steven Stern, who works with the CACY Commission Task Force on
teenage pregnancy and sexuality issues, stated that this is a crucial issue in
both the County and the City. He explained that the round table group formed
by the CACY Commission decided to focus on young children because there is a
lack of services for them and because that area has the greatest potential for
reaching consensus on how to proceed. He said agreement to proceed was
reached on three fronts, and one of those was to encourage the development of
a small innovative program for high risk children. Mr. Stern stated that,
after much study and consideration, proposals were solicited this past summer
and the coalition of MACAA and Region 10 was chosen. The program developed'by
MACAA and Region 10 called Beating the Odds would result in a small program in
two Charlottesville neighborhoods and one or two Albemarle Neighborhoods. He
reported that the primary Albemarle neighborhood would be Whitewood Village,
and the secondary one would be Esmont. The program would be similar to the
Camp Horizon Program in the City, but it would be different in that it would
probably deal with boys, it would be age appropriate for younger children, and
it would have the resources to deal with children who have been sexually
abused. He noted that the program has received $12,500 from Martha Jefferson
Hospital, but it needs approximately another $34,000 to operate for the year.
This extra money has to come from Charlottesville and Albemarle County at
least for this year. He remarked that this program is excellent, and it is
based on the Camp Horizon model, which has had excellent success. He stated
that the program will not deal with this problem on a community-wide basis,
but it will help with those youths most likely to have a problem. He said its
major goal is to make children feel good about themselves, as well as to learn
how to plan and make good decisions. He went on to say the children also
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
0001SS
learn how to deal with peer pressure and to learn relevant facts. He added
that all aspects of the program will have parent input, and all children
participating will need parent permission. He emphasized that Camp Horizon
has had no problem generating support for its programs in the City of Char-
lottesville.
He next referred to Teen Sight which is also proposing a program with
support from Martha Jefferson Hospital to use its teen mothers to teach
younger children about the price of parenthood. He does not know as much
about this program, but he has watched Teen Sight programs for years in the
City, and he has been extremely impressed with the results. He noted that
Teen Sight and Camp Horizon have an ability to take children who are either
likely to have problems or in Teen Sight's case, teens who already have
problems, and turn them around. He said their statistics are very impressive
relative to the general population or even to similar children who did not
participate in the program. He then noted that the Joint City County Agency
Budget Committee has recommended these two programs not be funded. This
committee argues that the process followed was questionable, that there is not
enough coordination between teenage sexual behavior agencies and that the
people involved with the program don't know what they are talking about. He
said none of these points make a lot of sense, because the process followed
was fair, and it maximizes the probability of getting funds from sources
outside the City and County in the future. He also disagreed with the lack of
coordination argument which implies there is a lot of excess in the budgets of
these existing small programs. He mentioned that all of these programs
operate on shoestring budgets, but they get phenomenal results. He said Camp
Horizon is phenomenal and Teen Sight is even better. He stated that these and
other agencies already coordinate to every extent possible, given their
different missions and clients. He added that all of these issues have been
proposed to avoid the real issue, which he thinks is that teenage sexual
behavior is a very significant problem in this community. He argued that it
is one of the most significant problems, but there are many other problems
which cost resources. The Supervisors have a limited budget to deal with all
of these problems, and they have to make hard decisions about how to ration
these resources. He hopes the Supervisors agree with him that this problem is
very important and requires more resources than it is presently receiving. He
mentioned that there is a lot of discussion currently about the seriousness of
this problem and how it is due to societal influence and should be dealt with
in the family. He added that this is not happening for most children, and it
is especially not happening for high risk children. The Supervisors can spend
their money on lots of good programs, and this one can be ignored. However,
if they do, they will pay later with children who get sick with HIV, or
teenage parents who don't finish school, or with children raised by teenage
mothers who weren't prepared to be mothers. He hopes the Supervisors agree
with him, the round table group, CACY and Martha Jefferson Hospital and give
these two programs a chance.
Mrs. Humphris thanked Mr. Stern and informed him that the Board of
Supervisors had received his letter. She said the Board members will take
this letter into consideration and talk about it during the budget work
sessions.
Ms. Martha Harris spoke about the Compensation and Performance Manage-
ment Study prepared by Hendrix and Associates. She was very encouraged last
March when the Supervisors voted to hire a consultant to evaluate compensation
of all County employees, including teachers, classified and administrative
employees. She stated that Mr. Hendrix, who conducted the study, presented
its highlights in early February. She noted that this was a comprehensive
study and contains a thorough analysis of how Albemarle County ranks among
similar counties, localities and industries. She strongly encouraged the
Board members to accept and implement the total package as recommended, and
she asked them not to allow the recommendations to be picked apart. She
suggested that the Supervisors select only those items which are advantageous
to personnel interest within the system and disregard the portion that will
save the taxpayers money but will not result in compensation increases where
they are indicated.
Dr. Charles Gleason directed his comments toward the Beating the Odds
project as described by Mr. Stern. Dr. Gleason said he was a member of the
CACY Commission when this initiative began, and at that time the CACY Commis-
sion recognized that there was a great deal of work being done in the commu-
nity representing a wide range of expertise and experience. He remarked,
though, that there was one thing lacking, and this was a unified response to
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
000197
the issue of teen pregnancy. He said in order to bring about this community
unification, the CACY Commission formed a work team with representatives from
all areas of interest with differences in philosophical views. He stated that
the group has worked together for a great deal of time accomplishing the
things Mr. Stern has already described. However, Dr. Gleason pointed out that
there are three special features in this program which are noteworthy. He
said one feature is that it builds on a program already a known success in
this community, which is the Camp Horizon Program. Secondly, the program
focuses on an age group having the greatest promise of success, and it would
be administered by people who already have experience in this field. The
third feature is that this concept of dealing with this young age group is a
nationally recognized successful approach to combat the great increase in teen
pregnancies. He added that he hopes the Supervisors will find a way to
support this project.
Mrs. Humphris thanked Dr. Gleason for his work on the CACY Commission.
No one else came forward to speak, so at 8:15 p.m., Mrs. Humphris closed
the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman recalled that a year ago Martha Harris spoke to this Board
about her concerns relating to the County's compensation policies. He said
she had done a lot of work on her own, and she brought some issues to the
Supervisors that they took very seriously and in a constructive manner. He
stated that he feels her comments resulted in the compensation study that the
County embarked upon last March. He added that this type of cooperative
effort between the public and this Board, in terms of trying to find solutions
rather than just complaining about things, is very constructive. He is
delighted Ms. Harris has reviewed the report and found that its recommenda-
tions were meaningful. He stated that it is a very constructive way to run
government, and he thanked Ms. Harris for her effort.
Mrs. Humphris agreed with Mr. Bowerman's remarks, and she referred to
John Baldino's comments. She stated that she has served on this Board for six
years, and each year the Supervisors have sent in their legislative package to
Richmond with a request that the General Assembly allow counties alternative
forms of taxation. The hope is that this taxation would provide relief to the
pressures on property taxes and be a less aggressive tax which would tax
people more on their ability to pay rather than on the value of their prop-
erty. She remarked that this has been a part of legislative packages from
this Board, the Planning District and the Virginia Association of Counties,
but every year nothing happens in Richmond. The most that has ever happened
is the possibility of a slight increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax. She
pointed out that the County has never been allowed to have as much of a tax on
the people who come and stay in the community's hotels and motels as the City.
She stated that it never has made sense, but now a small increase has been
allowed, which will not be a burden to the local taxpayers. She added that
everybody pays it when they travel to other places, so Albemarle County people
are supporting other communities. However, she emphasized that travelers are
not doing anything to support Albemarle County. She said some of Albemarle
County residents would like to see this come to pass, but the only way she
sees for it to happen, is to have a grass roots effort. She noted that this
Board made two major attempts at a meals tax and failed. She stated that it
was not the will of the community, and the support for it was not there. She
said if the support is going to be there, the local residents will have to
find it, and they will have to insist on this to their representatives in
Richmond, if that is what they want. She commented that there is no magic
wand this Board of Supervisors can wave that will cause this change. She said
it has to come from an organization of the citizens who want to see it happen.
Mr. Marshall thanked the public for coming to this hearing. He said Dr.
Gleason is someone who he has always looked up to and respected, and he is
interested in what he has to say. He explained that he respects all of the
speakers tonight, but he has known Dr. Gleason all of his life. He added that
he will take into consideration everything everybody had to say, and he will
also try to vote his conscience and do what the people elected him to do. He
is delighted the extra money for the school system was found, because under no
circumstances would he vote to increase taxes. He stated that he promised the
people who elected him that he wouldn't raise taxes, and he intends to stick
by that. He added that he wants to look at the budget closely and make sure
the money is being well spent. He then referred to the other people's
comments in the audience who were concerned about where the money is going.
000:1.98
March 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
He wants to make sure the County gets a full value per dollar and still
maintains the quality of living everyone is used to and enjoys.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that Mr. Carter suggested to him that this Board
take written comments on the budget. The Supervisors will certainly take
written statements from people who cannot attend the budget public hearings,
and they will welcome them.
Mrs. Thomas remarked that she just came back from the National Associa-
tion of Counties meeting in Washington where everyone, including the Presi-
dent, talked about how much they admired local government. She stated that
these people kept saying local government is the place where the officials
have to look the people right in the eye when they are taxed. She said with
the speakers standing in this room approximately 12 feet from where the
Supervisors are sitting, she was thinking that this statement is true. She
mentioned that local officials have the worst type of tax to apply because
while welfare reform and evolution are bringing the responsibilities to the
local level, and responsible county officials are thinking about how they can
handle this situation better than the Federal Government, the fact remains
that the County has to depend locally on a terrible taxation system. She
stated that if anybody in the audience would like to work on changing this
system either at the State level or locally with voters, it would be a good
effort. The County is stuck with a tax that does not pay any attention to
whether people have been laid off this year or whether they are earning more
than they have ever earned before. She said it only taxes the property value.
She then voiced her delight that the tax rate will not have to be 'increased.
She said even though it looks as though the tax rate has not been increased
for 13 years, with assessments increasing, everyone is paying year after year.
She stated that another part of looking everyone in the eye is that everyone
comes here and looks the Supervisors in the eye, too. This was a small
turnout tonight, but she is always so impressed with the caring and intelli-
gence in the people who address this Board.
Mrs. Humphris stated that even though the turnout was not as large as
anticipated or hoped for, it does seem to be a good cross section of opinions
from the community. The people can rely on the Supervisors taking this into
consideration as they start their work sessions on the budget next week and
through the month of March. She thanked everyone for coming and stated that
if there was no further business from Board members, the Board would adjourn.
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn to March 11, 1996, 1:00 p.m.
At this time motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr.
Marshall, to adjourn this meeting until March 11, 1996, at 1:00 P.M. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Chairman
9roved by
~ Board of
~o~ntY Super-
visors
Date ~/~,/~ ~
Initials ~