Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1996-04-03
April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 000303 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 3, 1996¥ at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at 9:06 a.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Mr. Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Presentation of Plaque to Parks and Recreation Employees for Maintenance of Beaver Creek Dam. Mr. Tucker recognized the outstanding efforts of the members of the Parks and Recreation staff who are responsible for maintaining Beaver Creek Dam. He mentioned the names of John Jones, Jim Barbour, Bud Smith and Matt Smith who are the primary ones involved in this maintenance. Through their efforts, Beaver Creek Dam is this year's winner of the Best Maintained Earthen Dam in Virginia in the municipal and industrial category of a program spon- sored by the Virginia Lakes and Watershed Association. Beaver Creek is only one of six earthen dams maintained in Albemarle County through the Parks and Recreation team. Beaver Creek was chosen for this honor from 22 dams across the State, and the selection process included a site visit and review of six pages of criteria which had to be met for an earthen dam to be considered for the award. In recognition of this honor, a sign has been placed at the site designating Beaver Creek as the number one earthen dam in Virginia. He then distributed photos showing the sign and the slope mower which was purchased last year, as well as Beaver Creek, itself, which is one of the County's most scenic areas. He then requested the employees involved to come forward for presenta- tion of the Plaque honoring their dedication in conducting a quality mainte- nance program and achieving recognition at the highest level. He expressed his appreciation for their commitment to preserving the safety and appearance of this important resource, and he thanked them on behalf of the Board and citizens of Albemarle County. At this time, Ms. Humphris described the Plaque and read the inscrip- tion. She also thanked all of the people involved, as well as Pat Mullaney, who is the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department. Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. Warren VanDell, a resident of 737-C Mountainwood Road, mentioned that the law establishing the three judge panel for reversion empowers the panel for ten years, and although Halifax and South Boston officials tried to extend it to 15 years, the courts did not allow this to happen. He said, though, Emily Couric may have a bill to alter the time limit for this panel to two years. He asked the Supervisors to find a means of opposing the bill. The law is written for a ten year panel, and he feels a judge should rule over the reversion process. If a town the size of Charlottesville wants to revert, the judges should be able to enforce the law for the full ten year period. Secondly, he mentioned that Delegate Vance Wilkins from Amherst is a property owner in Albemarle County, but because he is from Amherst, he doesn't really live in Albemarle County. He referred to the first paragraph of the law empowering police where it states that the police are supposed to protect citizens from violence and property from damage. If someone's property is being damaged by unlawful dumping then that person deserves police protection, 000304 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) and should not be charged or forced to pay t© have the trash removed. He stated that it looks silly for the County to pursue charges against the Delegate because he is not the only person who has trash on his or her property. He noted that past Azalea Park on Mountainwood Road, there are a bunch of aPpliances off to one side of the road. He also referred to an area under the Interstate 64 bridge where a temporary parking lot for the Mountainwood facility was approved by this Board. This is now the Covenant School property, but trash is beginning to accumulate there, and an uphol- stered chair is rotting in that area. If people are going to be concerned about accumulation of trash in the County, this concern should be shown for all accumulated trash. At the last Soil and Water Conservation Director election there were three candidates for two slots. He believes these people have the power to go onto private property and look for harm to the soil and water. He remarked that there are maps available from the Forestry Service which basically show every house and road in the County, and he suggested that a comprehensive map be made of the location of all of these illegal dumps. In this way perhaps action could be taken against everybody, instead of singling out somebody who is an absentee property owner and also a Delegate. He then pointed out that the Delegate is a republican, and since there are a majority of republicans on this Board, he thinks the reaction to this matter looks silly. He thinks it would be wrong to complain without mentioning solutions. If there are people who are ordered to serve community service time, then why not allow them to pick up the trash, not only along the roadways, but along the railways, as well. He stated that there is definitely pollution along the railways. If these places could be marked and the problems solved one by one, it would help. The metal from appliances could be recycled and sold at Coiner's. If people work together, it is a lot better than having lawsuits one by one. He also thought it would be good if the tipping fee could be waived at the Landfill for the people who are picking up the trash, with steps taken to prevent recurring dumping, such as putting up a gate or fence. He added that the system should work both ways, rather than forcing people to pay for trash found on their property, or they will be taken to court. Ms. Humphris remarked that there is some truth in Mr. VanDell's state- ments, and the Board members have commented on such things many times before. She asked if Mr. Tucker or Mr. Davis might want to respond to these concerns. She also said she would like for the public to know that County officials are working on this matter, but it is a big problem. Ms. Thomas suggested inviting Mr. VanDell to come to the next meeting of the people in the area, to which he referred, who are discussing this issue. The meeting is going to be held later this month, and it involves a group of people who are trying to do some of the very things Mr. VanDell discussed. She also mentioned the policy relating to Mr. VanDell's last comment, which indicates that if a landowner has a plan to clean up and prevent the dumping from happening again and can perform the cleanup all in one day, the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority will waive the tipping fee. This is a good idea, and it is being used whenever the cooperation of the landowners can be achieved. She then asked if Mr. Tucker remembers the actual date of this group meeting. Mr. Tucker answered that he does not recall the date of the meeting. He agreed with Ms. Thomas, though, that work has been ongoing with some of these problems for some time. He said it is unfortunate that the law holds the property owner responsible, but the staff has been working on the problems, and it isn't quite as threatening as it sounds. He noted that staff members work with the individuals to try to find ways to clean up the dumping. In some cases, depending on the issues, the County is responsible for cleaning certain areas, if someone else cannot be found to do it. It is a big issue, but the main issue is that once it is cleaned up, a way has to be found to prevent it from happening again. He emphasized that this is not easy because some of the properties are so accessible, a simple gate doesn't always work. Unfortunately, some of the people who are doing the illegal dumping try to find ways to get around every barricade. He mentioned that this is happening in properties the County owns in Southern Albemarle. He referred to Totier Creek, and he said Mr. Marshall certainly understands the problems found there. He reiterated that it is not a simple issue, but he thinks the County is on the right track. There are now some funds available to perform some of these cleanups, but the County staff has to work with the property owners to make sure these sites are maintained in the future. April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000205 (Page 3) Mr. Perkins remarked that he thinks the existing system fails when these cases get to the courts. He understands a number of cases have been thrown out of court because the person who did the dumping was not actually seen at the site. He suggested that perhaps the judges need some education. He stated that a $50 fine for dumping a whole pickup load of materials is no better than a slap on the hand, and he believes something else needs to be done. Mr. Martin commented that the issues Mr. Van]Dell raised are serious, but he is the only elected Democrat in Albemarle County of any kind, and he assured him there was no partisan attempt to get at the Republican Delegate. Mr. Marshall noted that he had inquired about the amount of fine that can be given to a person for dumping, and he wondered if it could be raised. Mr. Davis replied that the fine can be as much as $2,500 under a Class One Misdemeanor in the County's current ordinance, although the Code now indicates a $1,000 fine. He said the problem is that the judges have discre- tion to impose fines from a minimum of $1.00 to the maximum. He suggested that awareness needs to be heightened of the seriousness of the offense when the cases are prosecuted, and the punishments should meet the crime. Mr. Marshall inquired about setting a mandatory fine for Albemarle County. Mr. Davis replied that a mandatory minimum fine cannot be set in this area. He explained that the local Government Attorneys Association, of which he is a member, had a conference with a target area of this very issue. He said the attorneys shared a lot of different ordinances, strategies, and ideas, and he will discuss with staff certain ordinances where improvements can be made in Albemarle County to make the job a little more effective. He said it is an important issue on which his office will focus, and he is going to try to bring forward some ideas for this Board to consider. Mr. Martin remarked that when the situations get to the courts, the judge is only looking at one case and by law cannot be looking at Albemarle County's problem or even the whole problem of dumping. He stated that the people involved usually do not want the dumping on their property, but it occurred, although they did not have the responsibility for it. He said the judge is going to rule in this limited framework and may only fine the person $~.00. Mr. Davis stated that the challenge is finding the third party who is actually doing the dumping. Mr. Marshall agreed. He said the third party is the one for which he would like to see a mandatory fine adopted. Mr. Davis commented that County officials need the eyes and ears of the public to help in this situation. He said there are no police officers standing in every field around the County who are able to observe these crimes, and it usually takes direct evidence to convict. He remarked that if people will come forward and provide accurate information when they observe someone illegally dumping on property, then necessary steps will be taken to make sure the person is brought to justice. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the most recent FYI distributed to people in the County suggests some things which can be done, and she will see that Mr. VanDell is put on this mailing list. Ms. Humphris thanked everyone for their comments. This Board will continue to work on the issue with everyone's cooperation. Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Ms. Humphris stated that since the first item on the Consent Agenda deals with a proclamation proclaiming April, 1996, as Fair Housing Month, she thought it would be appropriate if Ms. Ginny McDonald, Housing Coordinator, discussed the upcoming celebration. Ms. McDonald announced that she has placed before this Board a copy of the agenda on the Fair Housing celebration. She commented that the Supervi- April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) sors may have noticed that tables are already being set up for this event, and there will be approximately nine to eleven exhibitors, although legal services representatives may not be able to attend because of court appearances. The program will begin at approximately 12:15 p.m. with music by the Burley Middle School 35 member choir. She added that a collage has been prepared to present to the choir that can be hung in the school. After Ms. Humphris signs the Proclamation it will be xeroxed and placed with a children's poster, which shows various races of children, as well as children with disabilities. She thinks the poster will be educational. She also noted a thank you letter for all of the Board members' signatures which will be given to the choir for attending and helping with the celebration. This will be placed in the middle of the collage. She hopes the choir will take this collage back to school for display to help with further education of fair housing. She mentioned that there are also two speakers taking part in the celebration. She said one is Susan Scovill, who was the former Director of the State Office of Fair Housing, and the other is Michael Allen from Washington. He is currently with the Judge David Bassalon Center for Mental Health, which is a project previously known as the National Mental Health Law Project. This project has been around for years, and it involves issues of those suffering with mental disabilities. She stated that they are both very dynamic speakers. The program will close by challenging the attendees with the question of, "where do we go from here." She mentioned, too, that there will be a question and answer period, and based upon the questions and answers presented, a strategy will be developed for the coming year in how to help educate and respond to the needs of the attendees. She then noted that this Board is being asked to dedicate this first Proclamation to Ms. Rellen Perry. She explained that because the Board's packets go to the press, she took a copy of the resolution out to Ms. Perry's home on Friday. She said Ms. Perry is very ill with cancer and is currently going through chemotherapy. She stated that at this moment she is on her way to the Martha Jefferson Hospital to have the chemotherapy removed so she can come to the presentation. Ms. McDonald noted that Ms. Perry was very thankful of the acknowledgment. She pointed out that the Proclamation is very clear in its wording about Ms. Perry's tireless dedication to the needs of low income people for low cost rental housing. She mentioned that those people who know Ms. Perry will recall her saying repeatedly that she did not want to talk about affordable housing, but instead, she wanted to talk about low cost rental housing for low income people. This is why the Proclamation is so phrased. Ms. Humphris stated that the Board is very appreciative of Ms. McDon- ald's idea, or whoever had the idea, of dedicating this Proclamation to Ms. Perry. She commented that it is most appropriate, and she noted the many years Ms. Perry insisted that the Board of Supervisors deal with this issue. Ms. Humphris said the Board needed this insistence, and she emphasized that the Board members appreciate what Ms. Perry has done. Ms. McDonald commented that during her first year in Albemarle County, her week would not have been complete, had she not received two to three calls from Ms. Perry suggesting things needing to be done in the Housing Office. Mr. Martin remarked that he had seen Ms. Perry last night, and she was very appreciative of the honor. Mr. Tucker said he would distribute the letter for each Board member to sign thanking the Burley choir for its part in the program. Next, Ms. Thomas mentioned that the Supervisors usually get the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority minutes, but she has noticed that the Supervisors never get the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority minutes. She asked if the Board members could receive these minutes, if the other Supervisors are in agree- ment. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. He said the Supervisors should be getting these minutes, as well. Ms. Thomas next referred to a work plan she would like to have shared with the Supervisors, if it is not too extensive. Mr. Tucker agreed that this could be done. April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) 000307 Ms. Thomas then called attention to Consent Agenda Item 6.12 relating to the January, 1996 Monthly Financial Report. She inquired if the School Board's 7.5 percent holdback policy is still in effect. Mr. Tucker answered that this percentage will probably be held for another month. He said school officials are waiting to see the amount of electrical costs due to the bad winter before the seven and one-half percent holdback is released. At this time, Ms. Thomas offered motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 6.1 through 6.4, on the Consent Agenda, as well as acceptance of Items 6.5 through 6.12. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Item No. 6.1. Adopt proclamation proclaiming April, 1996, as Fair Housing Month. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following proclamation: FAIR HOUSING MONTH WHEREAS, April, 1996, marks the twenty-eighth anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportu- nities and to affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans; and WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportu- nity for all is not the exclusive province of the Federal government; and WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than federal efforts; and WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, that diminish the rights of some citizens diminish the rights of all; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming APRIL, 1996, as FAIR HOUSING MONTH and encouraging all agencies, institutions and indi- viduals, public and private, in Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law; AND FURTHER RESOLVED that as Mrs. Rellen Perry has been a tireless advocate for the needs of low income residents needing low cost rental housing this first proclamation is dedicated to Mrs. Perry. Item No. 6.2a. Appropriation: School Division - $761 (Form #95066). At its meeting on February 26, 1996, the School Board approved the following appropriation of $761 for donations to the Title I Program. Albemarle County Public Schools Title I Program has received two donations. One from the Southland Corporation/7-Eleven in the amount of $711, April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) 000308 which was made possible by contributions of the employees of the Southland Corporation/7-Eleven in our area. The second is from the Scottsville Parent Teacher Association in the amount of $50. These donations are to be used to encourage children to read and write and to increase parent and family involvement. The funds will be received and disbursed as detailed on appro- priation #95066. Staff recommends approval of appropriation #95066 in the amount of $761. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96 NI3MBER: 95066 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATIONS TO TITLE I PROGRAM FROM SOUTHLAND CORPORATION AND SCOTTSVILLE PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1310163327601300 INSTRUCTIONAL/RECREATION MATERIALS $761.00 TOTAL $761.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2310118100181125 MISC DONATIONS-TITLE I $761.00 TOTAL $761.00 Item No. 6.2b. Appropriation: General Fund - $4,250.73 (Form #95067). The County of Albemarle was involved in litigation arising out of a zoning dispute. The County's defense was provided by its Public Officials Liability Insurance carrier. The litigation has now been concluded. In that regard, the County is responsible for the deductible portion of the expenses associated with defending this claim. The legal expenses totaled $4,250.73 which is less than the $5,000 deductible. This deductible portion cannot be absorbed within the Board of Supervisor's current operation budget, therefore, an additional appropriation is necessary to cover this expense. Staff recommends approval of appropriation #95067 in the amount of $4,250.73. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96 NUMBER: 95067 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR LEGAL EXPENSES FOR ZONING CASE. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100011010312100 PROF SERVICES-LEGAL $4,250.73 TOTAL $4,250.73 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100051000510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $4,250.73 TOTAL $4,250.73 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000209 (Page 7) Item No. 6.3. Adopt resolution authorizing County Executive to execute deed to transfer abandoned right-of-way located off Route 664 to Mr. and Mrs. Smedley D. Butler, III. On May 3, 1995 the Board abandoned an old public road located off of State Route 664. The abandonment ended the public road status but left title to the right of way with the County for public use. Mr. and Mrs. Butler now desire the County to transfer to them the title to the right of way which crosses their property. Section 33.1-165 of the Code of Virginia provides that if an abandoned road is deemed by the governing body to be no longer necessary for public use it can be sold or conveyed. The section of road crossing the Butler property does not serve any other property owner. It is staff's conclusion that this portion of road is no longer necessary for public use. No request for a public hearing has been made and therefore no hearing is required. Upon a finding by the Board that the abandoned road across the Butler property is no longer necessary for public use, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the County Executive to execute a deed transferring the right of way to Mr. and Mrs. Smedley D. Butler, III. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER ABANDONED ROADWAY TO MR. ~ MRS. SMEDLEY D. BUTLER, III Whereas, on May 3, 1995, the Board abandoned a section of old roadway not in the State Highway or Secondary System; and Whereas, the portion of the abandoned roadway more particu- larly described in the Deed, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, crossing the property owned by Smedley D. Butler, III and Susan L. Butler is deemed no longer necessary for public use; and Whereas, proper notice was given to landowners pursuant to Section 33.1-165 of the Code of Virginia and no public hearing request was made. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby deems that the abandoned roadway described in the Deed, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is no longer necessary for public use. Be It Further Resolved that the County Executive is autho- rized to execute said Deed to transfer the abandoned roadway property to Smedley D. Butler, III and Susan L. Butler. THIS DEED, made this 27th day of February, 1996, by and between COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as Grantor and SMEDLEY D. BUTLER, III and SUSAN L. BUTLER, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as Grantees, whose address is: Route 3, Box 67, Earlysville, Virginia 22936. WHEREAS, by a resolution adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on May 3, 1995, a public road not in the State Highway System was abandoned pursuant to Section 33.1-163.1 of the Code of Virginia. A description of said road is set forth in the resolu- tion which is recorded in the Clerk's office of the County of Albemarle in Deed Book 1510, page 295; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33.1-165 of said Code Grantees desire that Grantor convey to Grantees so much of said abandoned road as lies within the boundaries of property owned by Grantees; and WHEREAS, Grantor has determined the abandoned road is no longer necessary for public use. April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) W I T N E S S E T H: 0003 0 That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid, receipt of which is hereby acknowl- edged, Grantor does hereby QUITCLAIM and CONVEY unto Grantees as tenants by the entirety with full rights of survivorship as at common law and not as tenants in common; Ail that certain parcel of land contained within the boundaries of Tax Map 19, Parcel 29D, being a road beginning at the common boundary of Tax Map 19, Parcel 29A, Tax Map 19, Parcel 29D, and Tax Map 19, Parcel 29C, thence in a northeasterly direction on the common boundary of Tax Map 19, Parcel 29D, and Tax Map 19, Parcel 29C, to a point where Tax Map 19, Parcel 29D, Tax Map 19, Parcel 29C, and Tax Map 20, Parcel 6A, all intersect. Thence in a northwesterly direction along the common boundary line of Tax Map 19, Parcel 29D, and Tax Map 20, Parcel 6A, to Tax Map 19, Parcel 32; and more particularly sketched on a plat of Gary M. Whelan, Land Surveyor, dated December 21, 1994, said plat attached hereto and made a part of this instrument. This conveyance is made expressly subject to the easements, conditions, restrictions and reservations contained in duly recorded deeds, plats, and other instruments constituting con- structive notice in the chain of title to the property hereby conveyed, which have not expired by a limitation of time contained therein or have not otherwise become ineffective. This instrument is exempt from grantor's recordation taxes pursuant to Section 58.1-811 C) (3) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Item No. 6.4. Adopt resolution authorizing County Executive to execute Open Space Land Use Agreement with Oakwood Foundation Charitable Trust. The Oakwood Foundation Charitable Trust has applied for land use taxation for the 106.2 acres of property located off of Route 29 on which the Cove Creek Park little league baseball complex is located. The land was previously in land use prior to the construction of the baseball complex under forestry and agriculture. The proposed qualifying use is park or recreational open space. The 106.2 acre parcel is to be used solely for the baseball complex and buffer. To qualify for open space land use taxation the property must meet the criteria for open space designated for park or recreational use and must be subject to an Open Space Use Agreement. The County Assessor has reviewed the proposed use and finds that the baseball complex qualifies as a park or recreational open space use. The attached Open Space Use Agreement would obligate the landowner to maintain this use or another qualifying use for a minimum of five years. If the Board concurs that the proposed park or recreational use is appropriate for open space land use taxation, the Board can adopt the attached resolution to authorize the County Executive to execute the Open Space Use Agreement. If approved, the property will qualify for open space land use taxation for tax year 1996. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution authorizing the County Executive to execute the Open Space Use Agreement. RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE OAKWOOD FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST OPEN SPACE USE AGREEMENT Whereas, the Oakwood Foundation Charitable Trust (hereafter "Oakwood") owns 106.20 acres of property used for a little league baseball complex and buffer area; and Whereas, Oakwood desires to enter into an Open Space Use Agreement so as to qualify for open space land use taxation for tax year 1996; and April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 0003ii Whereas, the use of the property otherwise meets the stan- dards for park or recreational open space land use. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to execute on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia an Open Space Land Use Agreement with the Oakwood Foundation Charitable Trust, such agreement being attached hereto and being incorporated herein by reference. OPEN-SPACE USE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 12th day of October, 1995, between OAKWOOD FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, hereafter called the Owner, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter called the County, recites and provides as follows: RECITALS 1. The owner is the owner of certain real estate, de- scribed below, hereinafter called the Property; and 2. The County is the local governing body having real estate tax jurisdiction over the Property; and 3. The County has determined: A. That it is in the public interest that the Property should be provided or preserved for park or recreational purposes, or other use which serves the public interest by the preservation of open-space land as provided in the land-use plan; and B. That the Property meets the applicable criteria for real estate devoted to open-space use as prescribed in Article 4 (§58.1-3229 et seq.) of Chapter 32 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia, and the standards for classifying such real estate prescribed by the Director of the Virginia Department of Conserva- tion and Historic Resources; and C. That the provisions of this agreement meet the requirements and standards prescribed under §58.1-3233 of the Code of Virginia for recorded commitments by landowners not to change an open-space use to a nonqualifying use; and 4. The Owner is willing to make a written recorded commitment to preserve and protect the open-space uses of the Property during the term of this agreement in order for the Property to be taxed on the basis of a use assessment and the owner has submitted an application for such taxation to the assessing officer of the County pursuant to §58.1-3234 of the Code of Virginia and §8-31 of the Code of Albemarle County; and 5. The County is willing to extend the tax for the Property on the basis of a use assessment commencing with the next succeeding tax year and continuing for the term of this agreement, in consideration of the Owner's commitment to preserve and protect the open-space uses of the property, and on the condition that the owner' s application is satisfactory and that all other require- ments of Article 4, Chapter 32, Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia and §8-31 of the Code of Albemarle County are complied with. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the mutual benefits, covenants and terms herein contained the parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. This agreement shall apply to all of the following described real estate: See attached "Property Description" ment: The Owner agrees that during the term of this agree- April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) 0003 2 A. There shall be no change in the use or uses of the Property that exist as of the date of this agreement to any use that would not qualify as an open-space use. B. There shall be no display of billboards, signs or other advertisements on the property, except to (I) state solely the name of the Owner and the address of the Property, (ii) advertise the sale or lease Of the Property; (iii) advertise the sale of goods or services produced pursuant to the permitted use of the Property; or (iv) provide warnings. No sign shall exceed four feet by four feet. C. There shall be no construction, placement or maintenance of any structure on the Property unless such structure is either: ment; or (1) on the Property of the date of this agree- (2) related to and compatible with the open-space uses of the Property which this agreement is intended to protect or provide for. D. There shall be no accumulations of trash, garbage, ashes, waste, junk, abandoned property or other unsightly or offensive material on the Property. E. There shall be no filling, excavating, mining, drilling, removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, minerals or other materials which alters the topography of the Property, except as required in the construction of permissible building, structures and features under this agreement. F. There shall be no construction or placement of fences, screens, hedges, walls or other similar barriers which materially obstruct the public's view of scenic areas of the Property. G. There shall be no removal or destruction of trees, shrubs, plants and other vegetation, except that the Owner may: (1) engage in agricultural, horticultural or silvicultural activities, provided that there shall be no cutting of trees, other than selective cutting and salvage of dead or dying trees, within 100 feet of a scenic river, a scenic highway, a Virginia Byway or public property listed in the approved State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (Virginia Outdoor Plan); and (2) remove vegetation which constitutes a safety, a health or an ecological hazard. H. There shall be no industrial or commercial activities conducted on the Property, except for the continuation of agricultural, horticultural or silvicultural activities; or activities that are conducted in a residence or an associated outbuilding such as a garage, smokehouse, small shop or similar structure which is permitted on the property. I. There shall be no separation or split-off of lots, pieces or parcels from the Property. The Property may be sold or transferred during the term of this agreement only as the same entire parcel that is the subject of this agreement; pro- vided, however, that the Owner may grant to a public body or bodies open space, conservation or historic preservation easements which apply to all or part of the Property. 3. This agreement shall be effective upon acceptance by the County; provided, however, that the real estate tax for the Property shall not be extended on the basis of its use value until the next succeeding tax year following timely application by the Owner for use assessment and taxation in accordance with §8-33 of the Code of Albemarle County. Thereafter, this agreement shall 0003 3 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) remain in effect for a term of five consecutive years. 4. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as giving to the public a right to enter upon or to use the Property or any portion thereof, except as the Owner may otherwise allow, consis- tent with the provisions of this agreement. 5. The County shall have the right to all reasonable times to enter the Property to determine whether the owner is complying with the provisions of this agreement. 6. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to create in the public or any member thereof a right to maintain a suit for any damages against the owner for any violation of this agreement. 7. Nothing in the agreement shall be construed to permit the Owner to conduct any activity or to build or maintain any improvement which is otherwise prohibited by law. 8. If any provision of this agreement is determined to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall not be affected thereby. 9. The provisions of this agreement shall run with the land and be binding upon the parties, their successors, assigns, personal representatives, and heirs. 10. Words of one gender used herein shall include the other gender, and words in the singular shall include words in the plural, whenever the sense requires. 11. This agreement may be terminated in the manner pro- vided in §15.1-1513 of the Code of Virginia for withdrawal of land from an agricultural, a forestal or an agricultural and forestal district. 12. Upon termination, of this agreement, the Property shall thereafter be assessed and taxed at its fair market value, regardless of its actual use, unless the County determines other- wise in accordance with applicable law. 13. Upon execution of this agreement, it shall be recorded with the record of land titles in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, at the Owner's expense. 14. NOTICE: WHEN THE OPEN-SPACE USE OR USES BY WHICH THE PROPERTY QUALIFIED FOR ASSESSMENT ~2qD TAXATION ON THE BASIS OF USE CHANGES TO A NONQUALIFYING USE OR USES, OR WHEN THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY CHANGES TO A MORE INTENSIVE USE AT THE REQUEST OF THE OWNER, THE PROPERTY, OR SUCH PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH NO LONGER QUALIFIES, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ROLL-BACK TAXES IN ACCOR- DANCE WITH §58.1-3237 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. THE OWNER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES OF SAID CODE SECTION. Property Description ALL that certain tract or parcel of land situated in the Scottsville Magisterial District, of Albemarle County, Virginia, fronting on the south side of U.S. Route 29, containing 106.20 acres, more or less, and being more particularly described on a plat of Old Dominion Map Co., dated February 20, 1995 of record in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1458, page 190. BEING the residue of three parcels of land totaling 285.75 acres, more or, less, conveyed to John Grisham, Jr. and Renee Grisham, Trustees for Oakwood Foundation Charitable Trust, by deed of Richard Alan Jackson, et al, dated February 24, 1995, recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1458, page 185. O00...qZ4 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) Item No. 6.5. Copy of letter dated March 13, 1996, from Mr. Marc Christian Wagner, National Register Coordinator, Department of Historic Resources, to Mr. Robert J. Boyle, Jr., re: Boyd Tavern, was received for information. Item No. 6.6. Copy of lette~ dated March 26, 1996, from Mr. Marc Christian Wagner, National Register Coordinator, Department of Historic Resources, to Chestnut Grove Baptist Church, re: Earlysville Union Church, was received for information. Item No. 6.7. Letter dated March 15, 1996, from the Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., House of Representatives, to the Honorable Walter F. Perkins, regarding cellular antenna siting and the public rights-of-way contained in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, was received for information. Item No. 6.8. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) Bond Program Report and Monthly Report for the months of January and February, 1996, was received for information. Item No. 6.9. Copy of Superintendent's Memo. No. 1, dated March 12, 1996, from Mr. William C. Bosher, Jr., Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education, re: Aid to Localities Appropriations, 1996-98 Biennium, was received for information. Item No. 6.10. Copy of Minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors for February 26, 1996, was received for information. Item No. 6.11. Copy of Minutes of the Albemarle County Service Author- ity for February 15, 1996, was received for information. Item No. 6.12. January, 1996 Monthly Financial Report, was received for information. Projected General Fund revenues were revised as of December 31, 1995. Total General FUnd revenues are projected to exceed appropriations by $2,149,074. The projected increase is primarily due to higher than antici- pated real estate tax, personal property tax, and interest revenue collec- tions. Projected General Fund expenditures have not been revised at this time. Projected School revenues were revised as of January 31, 1996. The January 1996 School Financial Report was presented to the School Board on March 25, 1997. Projected School expenditures were revised in October to reflect the School Board 7.5 percent holdback policy. The holdback will remain in effect until all the costs of the recent weather disturbances have been determined. Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: July 7, 1993. Ms. Humphris said she read the minutes of July 7, 1993, pages 31 to the end. She said there were a total of 22 pages which were single spaced, legal sized and in fine print, and she was amazed to find only a couple of insignif- icant errors. She did not see how anybody could do it so well. She also mentioned reading a discussion of the new high school in these minutes. She said it was very interesting to see how far the County had come with this project since 1993. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Ms. Thomas. April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) Agenda Item No. 8a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Proposed Western Bypass Alignment. Mr. Tucker discussed his memo which listed four design alternatives proposed for the Western Bypass alignment by the VDOT staff and its consul- tants. He said they all appear to have at least major considerations for a parkway type design criteria, although Alternative Four emphasizes the parkway design concept more than the others. However, in considering these designs and talking to Board members, the staff's belief is that the Board, while not endorsing any one of the four designs, should support a design that reduces the construction impact on the reservoir as well as providing the greatest noise attenuation and mitigation to existing subdivisions and neighborhoods affected by the alignment. He added that it is important to take some action to make sure VDOT officials and their consultants are aware of this Board's strong feelings about at least these two areas. He noted that Mr. Cilimberg has informed him about a list of criteria the consultants were given by V DOT which touches on these areas, but Mr. Tucker feels it is important for the Supervisors to emphasize these two areas even more. He went on to say that perhaps there are other areas of which the Supervisors should make the VDOT staff and its consultants aware, as far as their strong feelings about these issues. Ms. Humphris referred to the first bullet in Mr. Tucker's memo relating to reducing the construction impact on ~he South Fork Rivanna drinking water impoundment. She said it is also important to include the appropriate language about the design to mitigate any negative effects on the South Fork impoundment during construction and after construction. She noted that the problems of erosion and sedimentation during construction, as well as the containment of run-off following construction, must not be allowed to go into the reservoir. She mentioned also the possibility of hazardous waste spilled because of an accident on the roadway. This is something which should be taken into consideration in the design. Ms. Thomas commented that there have been assurances for years that such a road can be designed to hold off any hazardous wastes which are spilled, although she is sure it means extra money and extra design criteria. She would assume the Supervisors need to get this word to the VDOT representatives early in the process. Mr. Cilimberg responded that one of the 15 Bypass Committee criteria was for the design relating to the containment of hazardous wastes, as well as for storm water management after the facility is built. Ms. Thomas called attention to the noise problem. She mentioned that Interstate 64 goes through part of her district, and she is amazed by the people who tell her they can hear the trucks when they begin to climb in the location of the Ivy Landfill. The difference between trucks going along on a level road, or when they have to begin shifting gears to go up an incline, really makes a tremendous difference as far as the amount of noise is con- cerned. She added that this is going to be a road with a significant incline, and it will make a great deal of difference. She is not sure an outline on a map will present this feeling at all, but she thinks it is a point worth re- emphasizing. Ms. Humphris concurred with Ms. Thomas' statements. She said one of the problems is that VDOT has a standard of four percent for the most grade allowed, although in these particular designs there is potential for as much as a six percent grade. She referred to traffic going up and down Stillhouse Mountain, where at 2:00 a.m. if one big truck downshifts, it will get every- body's attention. She said one of the things disturbing her in considering the Environmental Impact statement was that in one of the neighborhoods, it was indicated that noise was important because there were six receptors. She stated that they were referring to the six houses which would be left sitting on the edge of the road. She noted, though, that the actual receptors, because of the location of this bypass, are not just the six houses in this neighborhood or ten houses in another. She said it includes all of the areas, which she had listed on almost a full page of paper. She next mentioned that University Village, which is the retirement village at the southern inter- change, is a receptor as well as all of those people living in the Colonnades, Inglecress, the Darden Business School and throughout the valley~where the noise will reverberate. She said whoever was responsible for the Environmen- tal Impact Study was using a very narrow definition of receptors, whereas the receptors will actually be all of the subdivisions, neighborhoods and schools, as well as throughout the whole valley. She next stated that she has just learned last week that the southern interchange is going to be lighted which April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) 0003 6 means a huge pool of light in the Bellair, University Village and St. Anne's Belfield neighborhood that was not there previously. She also noted that the Observatory is located directly over this same area. She had never realized before that light is going to be one of the impacts on the neighborhoods. Mr. Tucker stated that he has discussed this situation with Mr. Roudabush, and he didn't know the southern interchange was going to be lighted, either, but Mr. Roudabush will look into this matter. Mr. Tucker added that obviously the public is not aware of the lighting issue. Ms. Humphris asked if the other Board members would be agreeable to Mr. Tucker writing a letter concerning the things discussed at this meeting. She asked if this information needs to be given to the consultants by April 5, 1996. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Planning District is collecting comments by April 4, 1996 from committee members on information they will be sending on to the VDOT consultants. He is unsure, though, if April 5, 1996 is the actual due date for comments to go to the consultants. Mr. Martin remarked that the information already recommended can be redone, but rather than listing five or six things, he thinks not more than three things should be targeted. He mentioned the three most important things which are the protection of the South Fork of the Rivanna River, noise attenuation and extension of the protection of the South Fork Rivanna River to include before and after construction debris. He said the other things could be put together in a summary, because if a lot of things are listed, he is concerned that some of the effect is lost. Ms. Humphris concurred. She mentioned that this Board thought it had a very firm agreement with the State on the sequence of the phasing of the improvements to provide relief to Route 29. The reason for the phasing as it was established in the agreement between the City, County, State and the University officials was to provide the most needed improvements to give the greatest relief to Route 29 in the order in which the Sverdrup Study sug- gested. She stated that another reason the phasing was so planned was the important consideration of ensuring that the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir was not impacted until as late a period in time as possible to delay the need for providing the new Buck Mountain Reservoir to supplement it and to maintain the health of that endangered Reservoir. She stated that it is a strange thing how everyone's thinking has come so far in such a fast period of time. However, what is being planned is not the sequence of events that provide the needed improvements according to the technical nature that Sverdrup indicates is needed and to protect the reservoir as long as possible. She added that all of a sudden earth is being proposed to be moved on an improvement which, according to the phasing schedule, was supposed to be the last improvement. She noted that, now, this last improvement is being put into place many years ahead of its schedule without anybody saying anything to Albemarle County officials about how this is coming about, or who made the change. She said it is very strange how VDOT officials operate. Ms. Thomas stated that County officials will get the blame for all of this years later. Ms. Humphris agreed. The public will be wondering how County officials could have done such a stupid thing, because the road system doesn't work. She stated that County representatives will never be able to explain to the public that they didn't do it, because the public will assume they did. She asked if a motion is necessary in order for Mr. Tucker to go forward with the Board's points of interest. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. He noted that all of the things discussed were tied into the three issues of the Reservoir, the noise and the lighting. Ms. Thomas stated that she thinks Mr. Martin was exactly right when he suggested keeping the main issues to three things. Ms. Humphris mentioned that the Reservoir issue needs to be given special attention. Mr. Tucker agreed. At this time, Ms. Thomas offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to forward a letter to the VDOT consultants expressing this Board's concerns and emphasizing the areas of the Reservoir, the noise and the lighting. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 0003~7 (Page 15) AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8b. Other Transportation Matters. Ms. Humphris inquired if Ms. Angela Tucker had anything to discuss with the Board members. Ms. Tucker answered that there were some outstanding issues regarding incidental items from previous Board meetings. However, she does not have these issues resolved, yet. She mentioned that at the last meeting there was discussion regarding signs for 1-64 which would restrict truck traffic to the right, as well as some rights-of-way issues pertaining to Rocky Hollow Road, Route 708 and Route 769. She will have an update on these issues at another time. Mr. Perkins presented a letter to Ms. Tucker from the Hickory Ridge Homeowners Association relating to improvements being scheduled for the resurfacing of roads in that area. He noted that this Association has already been in touch with Ms. Tucker's office. Ms. Thomas mentioned a problem involving the Bypass for Routes 250 and 29 as vehicles are coming from 1-64 toward Charlottesville in the area where the signs are located urging motorists to turn onto Fontaine Avenue. This issue would be of concern mostly to the City residents who live on Fontaine Avenue, but because her district comes to the edge of this area, she has been getting a lot of comments. She stated that she has been telling the people to contact Ms. Tucker. She mentioned one comment from a person who told her that in the morning this exit is backed up onto the Bypass, although these are probably not cars which have been urged by the signs to go in that direction. Ms. Thomas said she believes they are two separate issues. She stated that the person contacting her was concerned that it was a safety problem, since cars are backed up so far they are actually on the Bypass. Ms. Thomas said, though, she has no idea what can be done to reduce the traffic or get it moving more smoothly onto Fontaine Avenue. She pointed out that there is hardly any traffic before this point on Fontaine Avenue, so she can't imagine why people are taking so long to make this entrance onto Fontaine Avenue. However, she wanted to make sure Ms. Tucker is aware of this situation. Ms. Tucker stated that her office has received a letter to this effect, and the VDOT staff is reviewing the situation. She said one possible solution may be to keep other traffic using Fontaine Avenue in the left hand lane as it heads into town from the other direction. She added that this would allow for more of a free flow right hand movement off the ramp similar to the intersec- tion at Route 53 and Route 20. She commented that this would mean a remarking of pavement in this area, and people would subsequently need to obey this change, but it should pull a lot more traffic off the Bypass. She said consideration will be given to this plan. Mr. Marshall inquired if it was possible to get the trash picked up between the City limits and Carter's Bridge, particularly in the area closer to the City. He suggested that it would be good to have this done before the grass grows up above it, because there is an enormous amount of trash this year. He recalled that some people used to pick up this trash as a project, but evidently they have stopped doing so. Ms. Tucker answered that the trash removal prior to and after mowing is part of VDOT's mowing contract. She noted, though, that there is a litter pickup plan, which has fallen to a once a year task which is being done during the Month of April to coincide with Historic Garden Week and some of the Adopt-a-Highway events. She added that a major pickup on the interstate ramps, the primary routes and those areas which are more apparent is being planned before mowing takes place, and attention will be given to Route 20. She said, though, when the pickup is actually being done, it is usually five times worse than how it looks from a vehicle, so it is quite a job. 000,3 8 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) Mr. Bowerman remarked that there is a continuance of monitoring of the interference of traffic flow at Rio Road and Route 29 because of the signal- ization at Albemarle Square. He stated that this situation has already been considered by the VDOT staff, but traffic continues to be blocked there. He added that this is especially true of left turning vehicles from Rio Road heading northbound on Route 29 because it is blocking traffic westbound on Rio Road. He said if the traffic is backing into the intersection because of the sequencing of lights at Albemarle Square, it is a pretty common situation. However, it looks as though attempts have been made to deal with the timing, but it doesn't look as though it is fine tuned, yet. He wondered if the VDOT officials are waiting until all the lanes are open, before taking care of this situation. Ms. Tucker replied that the transition between two projects should really not hinge on having all the lanes open. She said projects are coordi- nated between contractors, but having additional lane openings will help. She stated that currently as vehicles pasS Woodbrook, the road narrows down into two lanes of through traffic, and it is a short enough span to cause a back-up of traffic. She stated that this situation will continue to be examined. She wondered, though, if the problem is more apparent during the afternoon or evening portion of the day, or if it happens all day long. Mr. Bowerman responded that it depends on the traffic flow. He said it seems as though the Albemarle Square traffic light doesn't turn green soon enough, because traffic backs up into the intersection of Rio Road and Route 29. He said the light on Route 29 at Rio Road turns red, and the traffic is already backed up to the intersection. He added that the left turning traffic going northbound onto Route 29 coming off of Rio Road fills the intersectionl Ms. Tucker answered that it may be that more attention is being given to the through traffic on the Route 29 corridor without regard to the heavy volumes actually turning from Rio Road onto Route 29. Mr. Martin concurred that this is what is happening. He went on to say that through traffic goes through the traffic light at Rio Road and Route 29 and then it gets stopped at Albemarle Square. He stated that this is part of the back-up problem. He said the traffic then coming from west Rio Road takes a left going north, and this blocks the intersection. He pointed out that the light at Route 29 and Rio Road then turns green, but the cars can't go straight across to west Rio Road because the people who came out of west Rio are blocking the way. He added that fairly quickly the light turns green at Albemarle Square and as traffic moves on, it frees up the intersection. He said, though, there is always a clog in this area, and it is especially bad in the afternoons, as well as Saturdays. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that the light turning green on Rio Road doesn't stay green as long as the other light, so traffic backs up on Rio Road. He knows it is a difficult situation for VDOT, and he mentions it only because he thinks it needs to continue to be monitored. Ms. Tucker agreed that this is a tricky situation, because it has the very minimal spacing between signals that is allowed on this type of corridor with such a high traffic generation. The situation will continue to need some very fine tuning. Ms. Thomas inquired of Mr. Cilimberg if it is possible to change the designation of Route 22 so it is not the type of arterial designation as it is currently. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the MPO reviews the functional classifica- tion of the roads every few years. He said the last review probably happened before Ms. Thomas was elected to the Board of Supervisors because it has been at least three years ago. He indicated that he does not recall the classifi- cation of Route 22, but it may have been named as a minor arterial road, since it is a primary road, but he is not positive. He stated that he will find out the time of the next review, or if the matter can be reviewed in intervening years. Ms. Humphris stated that the last review was just before Ms. Thomas was elected to this Board, because she recalls the Supervisors were trying to change the functional classification of Georgetown Road, at that time. 0003&9 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) Next, Ms. Humphris announced that she had a couple of things to talk about, although both of them happen to be in Mr. Bowerman's district. She referred to a letter she received from the gentleman who wrote to Ms. Tucker about the problem with Commonwealth Drive and Westfield Road, as far as cars not stopping at the stop sign at DMV. She went to look at the situation one day during mid morning, and there wasn't much going on at that time of day. Ms. Tucker asked if Ms. Humphris is referring to the suggestion of a flashing light at this point. Ms. Humphris answered affirmatively. Mr. Martin remarked that he is in this area a lot, and there is not much traffic through there. Ms. Humphris stated that the letter to Ms. Tucker spoke of two accidents this gentleman was nearly involved in because cars crossed the intersection in front of him and did not stop at the stop sign. She explained that he was driving on Commonwealth Drive and the incidents happened as he approached Westfield Road. Ms. Humphris then commented that someone connected with the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company mentioned to her that the County owns the land in front of the fire station on Berkmar Drive, and it would be possible to build a right turn lane there, which he felt would be very helpful. She said as she was driving through the area, she noticed that the road narrows at the point in front of the fire station, and then widens again. She added that she thinks it would be a very smart move to have a turn lane into the fire station, although she is unsure of the process of getting this done. Mr. Tucker explained that County officials would have to work with Ms. Tucker to see if the project could be done as an improvement for secondary roads or through the Revenue Sharing Agreement as a CIP transportation project. Ms. Humphris stated that it appears as though it could be something County officials may have overlooked, but it is fairly obvious that it would be a good idea to have a turn lane in front of this fire station. She mentioned a similar situation on Georgetown Road where there is a need to have more of an extended right turn lane. She said it is a very short stretch of road, but some people use it in this fashion, anyway, by driving on the very wide shoulder there. Ms. Tucker answered that at both locations at Georgetown and Berkmar the improvements outside of the two main original roadways have come from individ- ual development. She said VDOT has basically required, through site plan process frontage improvements through the years, more right turn lanes than left turn lanes. She added that ultimately there is a four lane cross section, but then there are the situations that for some reason don't come before the same review, and they get the type of frontage to which Ms. Humphris referred. She stated that it would be a benefit to public safety to correct this situation. Ms. Humphris agreed. She is sure Ms. Tucker already knows that cars use the shoulder of the road on Georgetown Road for turning, anyway, although it is not paved. Mr. Martin mentioned that the same thing happens on Route 29, and he described the area, which is at least a quarter of a mile stretch of road, just before McDonald's to beyond Food Lion. He said there is then a small section of road before the road turns into three lanes again. He stated that people driving at 50 miles an hour think they are turning into Proffit Road before they realize that this is not the case. Ms. Thomas referred to an article in the C'ville Review which stated that as Daytona is to auto racing, Albemarle County is to Sunday driving. said Route 22 was actually named in this article. She Ms. Humphris remarked that someone called Ms. Thomas about the need for paving at Ivy near the church on Owensville Road. She stated that the question will soon arise as to when the winter damage control will take place, as far as when the potholes are going to be fixed and the paving done. She asked if Ms. Tucker has any information on this issue. April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) 0003 ,0 Ms. Tucker replied that this type of work is currently being done, and priority is being given to repairing those routes soon to fall into VDOT's regular maintenance schedule. She explained that the roads need to be properly patched before the contractor overlays them either with a Slurry surface treatment or the formal plant mix. She stated that the surface treatment is similar to a black paint, and it is usually used in subdivisions. The surface treatment is for a lesser volume road, and it is a tar and gravel application. She went on to say when the plant mix is applied, it is usually about an inch and a half overlay on an existing plant mix road. She said work is starting Monday with the schedule, although it may be starting in Greene County. She explained that throughout the summer work will be done on three various schedules. She noted that property owners will be informed of the work with a letter, so they can park their vehicles or make other arrangements so they won't have to travel through the wet surface treatment, etc. She added that VDOT's patching is given priority in order to stay ahead of these contractors, as well as for safety. There will be a lot of roads held together by a minimum of work until schedules begin next year, because there is always more work to be done than can be covered with the money available. (Mr. Bowerman left at 9:54 a.m.) Ms. Humphris then mentioned the Route 29 Corridor Study and the County's involvement in it. She recalled that the Supervisors decided to ask for a public information meeting, and they discussed this situation with Ms. Tucker at last month's Board of Supervisors Meeting. She wondered if there had been any feedback on this matter. Mr. Cilimberg answered that Mr. Bowerman attended Monday's Steering Committee meeting. He said the Steering Committee is being activated to take on some of these policy and decision making roles. He added that he did not attend, so he is unsure if this matter was discussed. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 9:56 a.m.) Ms. Humphris directed her same question to Mr. Bowerman upon his return. Mr. Bowerman replied that there will be three public meetings relative to the Route 29 Corridor Study, but they have not been advertised. He said one meeting will be held in this building, one will be held at Madison High School, and one will be held in Remington, which is located between Culpeper and Warrenton. He stated that the public will actually be able to make a statement to the group, which will be made up of members of the Transportation Board, Technical Committee members, VDOT members, and members of the Steering Committee. He added that the public will also be able to ask questions and have those questions answered, so it will be a real public exchange. Ms. Humphris stated that the meetings seem to represent the wishes of this Board. Mr. Bowerman said the matter is currently moving in this direc- tion. Ms. Humphris recalled that the MPO had requested a workshop after the public information meeting is over, and she thought the difference between the public information meeting and the workshop was clearly defined. However, the letter the MPO received from Bill Jeffries indicated the request for the workshop was being denied. She went on to say Mr. Jeffries said Albemarle County had been offered this opportunity early in the year and had declined it. She stated that nobody with whom she has spoken knows of any offer which was declined. She commented that Mr. Jeffries also encouraged this Board to include the City with everything the County officials did. She noted that the City and County are equal partners in the MPO, and she is sure Bill Jeffries knows this, because he has represented VDOT at the MPO meetings many times. She could not understand his letter, because it did not relate to the circum- stances existing in Albemarle County. She stated that she has asked Hannah Twaddell to try to unravel the mystery of the letter from Mr. Jeffries, since it did not make sense. Ms. Tucker responded that she has not been in contact with Mr. Jeffries, although she has been approached by Mr. Hancock. She said her relationship with Mr. Hancock has been only through the recent corridor meeting, and it was very brief. She added that Mr. Hancock approached her to ask the members of this Board whether or not they wanted a workshop prior to the next public hearing or public meeting and, if so, she would need to find this out in time for the consultant to get a supplemental agreement in order to provide these April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 000321 workshops. She has talked with Mr. Tucker about a workshop as the next course of action, but she thought the feeling was that the Supervisors did not want a workshop until they had better informed the public of what would be involved. This was relayed back to VDOT officials, but something must have been lost in the translation. She suggested that perhaps VDOT representatives wanted a negative response, because of the additional money or agreement involved with this consultant, and so they have moved along with the public hearing dates. She emphasized that she does not really understand the big problem involved with providing a workshop, whether or not arrangements had to be made with the consultant for this purpose, and there should be a lot of good public rela- tions to come out of it. Mr. Tucker clarified that the workshop was to be held in lieu of any public forum or hearing, and it wasn't until the last Board of Supervisors' meeting that a decision was made indicating a desire to have some type of public forum, first. He said VDOT officials wanted an answer, and the staff members were not prepared to give them an answer until they had talked to the Supervisors about what they wanted to do. He suggested that perhaps this is why Mr. Jeffries was confused on the issue. Ms. Humphris stated that she thinks the public needs to be informed about something as momentous as this issue, because it could have a tremendous effect on the people in Albemarle County. She mentioned the outline proposed by the MPO, and she said it is a very thorough continuation of the public process. She pointed out that the questions have come from members of the public at the major meetings in this auditorium after they have seen the proposal and had their opportunities to ask questions. She explained that then the people who are the most directly concerned with doing the planning for the City, County and University, etc., would participate in a structured workshop to try to make sure they have asked all the questions and have received all the answers. She stated that they would then get back'to the consultant with the things that were unresolved. She said it is a very clear plan for a workshop. She next asked Ms. Tucker to convey to whomever is in charge that Albemarle County officials want to be participants, and this is the very first opportunity they have had to make their feelings known. She asked Ms. Tucker to inform V DOT officials that Albemarle County officials would welcome both the public information meeting and the workshop. Ms. Humphris emphasized that she thinks County officials can indicate they feel they are owed this and have a right to it. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he has discussed with Mr. Bowerman how VDOT officials and the consultant seem to want to get the Steering Committee more actively involved in participating and making some decisions. He said it might be good if Mr. Bowerman could also take Ms. Humphris' message to the next Steering Committee meeting because he thinks VDOT officials and the consultant are looking to the Steering Committee to guide them through the process. Mr. Bowerman said the Steering Committee is going to make a recommenda- tion directly to the Transportation Board. He noted that the Steering Committee will carry a lot of weight, because there are representatives on it from here to Warrenton, including David Toscano from the City. Mr. Bowerman said it is very important for him to get a sense of this Board's feelings, as well as a sense of the workshop. He stated that he will then communicate this information, in terms of the recommendations the Steering Committee makes to the Transportation Board. He said a lot of different groups will have roles in this process, as well as the MPO. However, the impression has been given that the Steering Committee is going to have a significant role in the recommendations to the Transportation Board because of its makeup, so it is important the Steering Committee gets the right message. Agenda Item No. 9. Presentation by Community Policy and Management Team, Family Support and Preservation Grant - $1,100 (Form #95068). Mr. Tucker mentioned that usually an item such as the grant involving the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) can be handled through the Consent Agenda, but he wanted some of the team members to bring the Supervi- sors up-to-date on this matter. He stated that Karen Morris is present at this meeting to give the Supervisors a status report. April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~ (Page 20) Ms. Morris noted that as indicated in the Executive Summary, the CPMT has been given the responsibility for new federal monies under the Family Preservation and Family Support Act. The only real requirement for these funds is that they are targeted to early intervention services. She pointed out that the Board members have already received a copy of the Needs Assess- ment conducted by the Planning District Commission with technical assistance money made available under the same Act. She said it clearly indicates the condition and needs of the community's children and families, and she asked the Supervisors to take the time to carefully review this report. She stated that with these funds it is being proposed to form a more collaborative partnership between family partners and the child health Partnership, and she sees this as the first small step in the development of a Healthy Families Program in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. The Healthy Families Program replicates the Healthy Start model that began in Hawaii over ten years ago. She added that public, private, civic and public service organizations along with businesses, churches and hospitals join together to provide parenting and child rearing groups, counseling, health needs and support groups, as well as transportation in some areas, to promote and support families from day one or earlier before the birth of the child. She said in Hawaii this has proven to reduce child abuse and complaints from ten percent to one percent, as well as to reduce child mortality and improve birth weights. She pointed out that in Virginia, approximately 30 localities are at various stages of development of a Healthy Families Program. She named Hampton, Culpeper, Richmond, Arlington and Fairfax as being among those with established sites, and Hampton, in its third year, has received national recognition. She said given the emphasis on prevention in the County's proposed Human Services Plan and the CPMT's desire to intervene on behalf of potentially at risk children earlier in life, as well as the proven value of the Healthy Families Program, it is only logical that this funding opportunity is seized to replicate this success in our community. She stated that the Supervisors' support of this funding request and the future efforts to get full community support for the Healthy Families Program could well prove to reduce the social, economic, emotional and health needs of Albemarle County's future generations. She welcomes and looks forward to the opportunity to come back to this Board with more information about the progress of a Healthy Families Program in the area. Ms. Humphris asked if Dr. Susan McLeod would like to add anything to Ms. Morris' statement. Dr. McLeod answered that she was present only to answer questions. However, she mentioned that the program involving home visits by the nurses who will be making the initial assessments will be called Great Beginnings. Ms. Thomas commented that this is a very useful report, and it will be helpful for a number of things. She said everybody knows there are lots of needs, but quantifying those needs will be very useful. Ms. Humphris remarked that she found the matrix of services available to be helpful. Mr. Tucker informed the Board members that approval of the appropriation for the County's ten percent match for this grant is needed. Ms. Thomas then offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, for approval of Appropriation Number 95068 for $1,100 for the Family Support Grant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96 NUMBER: 95068 FUND: COMP SERV ACT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR COUNTY SHARE OF HOME VISITING COLLABORATION PROJECT. 000 323 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1155153120571222 HOME VISITING PROJECT $1,100.00 1100093010930206 TRANSFER TO CSA FI/ND TOTAL 1,100.00 $2,200.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100051000510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $1,100.00 2155151000512004 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FI/ND TOTAL 1,100.00 $2,200.00 Since the meeting was running ahead of schedule and there was a 10:30 a.m., public hearing scheduled as the next item on the agenda, Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board consider Agenda Item 13, at this time. He explained that this is a work session on the Capital Improvements Program, and if the Supervisors have not finished discussing this item by 10:30 a.m. they can come back to it later in the day. Agenda Item No. 13. Work Session: FY 1996/97-2000/01 Capital Improve- ments Program. Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, noted that the yellow book with the proposed Capital Improvements Program for FY 1996/97-2000/01 is the staff's recommended version. She explained that it is the same informa- tion which was discussed at the December work session, as well as the February public hearing. She added that there have been only four major changes to the proposed program, and she directed attention to Page One of the information given to Board members. The General Government CIP Fund has changed with the addition of $46,400 which is based on revised estimates for the IVy Road bike lanes and street lights project. There is a summary of this on Page Four of the information Board members received. The second change involved the County Land Athletic Field Study. She said based on some of the discussion at the Board's work session and public hearing, the project has been moved from 2001 back to the 1996/97 budget year. She explained that to fund this project, $20,000 has been used from the additional money which was transferred from the General Fund. The other issue involved with this project was whether staff was going to be able to perform this study or whether it would have to be contracted with someone else. The Parks and Recreation Department will be working with a consultant to identify space and consider the needs. However, as far as the feasibility and cost estimates are concerned, contracted professional assistance will be needed. She then called attention to the third change in the CIP involving the School Division's letter from A1 Reaser on Page 15 of the information, which considers substituting approximately $1,300,000 in some of the projects. She stated that Mr. Reaser feels he can defer part of the funding for some of the projects until later years and the additional money can be put into some of the construction projects to be underway in 1996-97. This is based on some of the revised construction estimates which were more than previously reported. She pointed out that the fourth change involves revenue changes which adds the additional money being transferred into the CIP Fund. She recalled that in the budget an additional $500,000 was considered to be added to the CIP Fund from the General Fund transfer. She said out of the $500,000, $113,500 will be retained to cover the cost of the voting machines. She noted that a summary relating to this matter has also been added to Page Six. This item was inadvertently omitted from the Capital Improvements budget this year, although it was included last year. She explained, though, that it was paid as a debt service payment, and it got lost when it was approved as a CIP project. She went on to say that it began to be paid out of the Debt Service Fund, when the voting machines went into the leasing process. She reiterated that the $113,500 will be retained in the General Fund to pay the Debt Service Fund for the voting machines, and this is the second and last year of the payment. She noted that out of the $386,500 that is left, $66,600 will be put into the General Government Fund, which will cover the additional cost for Ivy April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) 000324 Road, as well as the additional cost for the Athletic Field Study. She explained that the other $319,900 of the additional transfer is being trans- ferred into the School Division's CIP Fund. It also will go toward the maintenance projects and reduces the amount of VPSA bonds which will need to be borrowed for maintenance projects. These changes are reflected in both of the spread sheets on Pages Two and Three. Ms. White said the only other issue, although nothing else has been changed, was discussed at both the public hearing and the work session, and it related to the pool at the high school which is budgeted for the final year of the CIP. She added that this information is also included in the Board members' packets, and Mr. Mullaney is present to answer any queStions. She went on to say there are no other specific amounts for the pool as to how it will be broken down into specific costs. She recalled that one of the reasons this project was put into the last year of the CIP was for public comment and Board discussion of whether a pool facility was even desired. She said if the Board decides to keep the project in the CIP, then the staff will work on providing more specific estimates of exactly the cost breakdown, as well as other potential funding possibilities. Mr. Marshall mentioned the money set aside for the sustainable high school and the fact that presently there are different figures involved with the project. He asked where this issue stands now, since the Board will need to consider the project, before it is approved. Mr. Tucker answered that the additional funds being requested are covered in this next fiscal year. However, the confusion coming out of the discussion with the School Board was because the Supervisors had indicated they would fund up to $2,000,000. He believes everyone left the meeting thinking the money was already appropri- ated, but the Supervisors had not appropriated anything. Mr. Marshall commented that he wants to make sure this Board does not appropriate $2,000,000. Mr. Tucker replied that this Board is not making such an appropriation at this time. The only thing included in the CIP is the amount needed for the sustainability recommendations coming from the School Board. He stated, though, after the bids are received, they may be higher than were projected for the new high school, but this is not related to the sustainability area. Mr. Marshall indicated his understanding of the situation. He just wanted to make this point and have it clear for the public. He mentioned the fact that Mr. John Carter may come back to this Board with a misunderstanding of the issue. Mr. Tucker said he has tried to make this point clear to Mr. Carter. He told Mr. Carter this Board had not appropriated anything, and the Supervisors had only indicated they would fund up to $2,000,000 once the report is received confirming the needs. The study has now been received, and the project is moving forward with the recommendations. Mr. Martin mentioned that one of the things he thinks about every Saturday morning is the lack of any type of bathroom or portable toilet facilities at the school sites. He and his two sons were at Hollymead Elementary School for two and one-half hours last Saturday for major league tryouts. He noted that there were probably 250 children and approximately 50 parents at the school, and there was no bathroom to be seen. He said before Sutherland Middle School was built, the woods were available. However, now the middle school is located there, and the only woods left are the ones at the lower field where houses for Forest Lakes are being built. He added that this situation needs to be taken care of because the children are miserable even while they are playing on the field. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the school is open when these types of activi- ties are occurring. Mr. Martin answered that the school is not open, and there are no other bathroom facilities available. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the school be opened so the people can get to the bathroom. Mr. Mullaney stated that this is a possibility, although school personnel are reluctant to open the schools, unless there is a school employee on duty. He said provid- ing porta-johns is an option, but so many things are going on around the County, so it would be a major expense. He mentioned that perhaps soccer and little league teams could contribute funds for the porta-johns and registra- tion fees could be raised to cover them. A possible idea for some places such as Hollymead, where there is a major complex and many things going on, is to pay the cost of having someone at the school or build some sort of outdoor structure with restrooms. 000325 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) Mr. Tucker said having someone at the school or putting up gates to keep people from wandering throughout the school would be a reasonable solution. Mr. Bowerman agreed that putting up gates would be a good idea. Ms. Thomas Stated that she thought most of the schools were being built that way these days. Mr. Tucker said neither Hollymead nor Sutherland are built with gates. Mr. Mullaney stated that there is still a reluctance from school administrators if school personnel are not on duty, but the staff will try to work out something. Mr. Marshall wondered if locks could be put on an outside door to get into the restroom with another lock to keep the children out of the other areas of the school. Mr. Martin commented that this is something to be considered. He mentioned that even a gate system at Hollymead would be difficult because the only place there are front bathrooms is on the opposite side of the school from where the fields are located. He stated that from the lower field to the bathroom and back would be approximately 15 minutes if a person is running. He said if a person is walking, it would probably take one-half hour. Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Mullaney talk to A1 Reaser about the matter and report back to the Supervisors next month. Ms. Humphris said this really is a major problem. Mr. Mullaney concurred that this is a problem, and it has always been a problem. He said it is County-wide and it happens in the City, as well. Mr. Martin remarked that the Hollymead fields were not a problem for a couple of years, because Sutherland was being built, and a porta-john was located there. Mr. Mullaney asked if the Board is suggesting that bathroom facilities be a County expense. Mr. Tucker replied that options should be considered first, before decisions are made. He asked for a report about this matter at next month's Board of Supervisors meeting, as far as solutions to the problem. Ms. Thomas mentioned that porta-johns are very ugly, and she asked that this fact be noted when solutions are being considered. Ms. Humphris stated that she read all the information about the proposed pool at Monticello High School, and she has some questions about the issue. She doesn't feel that this Board has discussed the matter in the depth in which it should have been discussed. She added that her questions are simple, and they have to do with precedent and parity. She is also interested in hearing about operating costs and not just the original cost. She recalled the City's problem and the fact that there is no pool space left there. She would like to hear what other Board members think about obligating the $3,750,000 for an olympic-size pool. She stated that she is wondering about the need for it, the location, operating costs, and the liability. She also asked what the future shows, if this project moves ahead, in light of the County's lake program, the swimming beaches, and the Crozet Pool. She has not heard any other Board member's thoughts about this issue. Mr. Perkins announced that he has the same concerns. He said at first he thought he did not want to support the pool project, but if it is the Board's decision to support a pool project, then it should also be done at Albemarle High School and Western Albemarle High School. He stated that it is a parity issue, not only for the schools, but for the various people scattered throughout the County. He added that perhaps there are other places, with such needs, but at least the pool project could be done at the three high schools. Mr. Marshall asked if there is a need for three pools in the County. Mr. Perkins responded that if there is a need for one pool, then he feels there is a need for three. Mr. Tucker said the situation almost becomes like a gymnasium, because there will be a swim team in every school that has a pool, and they will start competing. Ms. Humphris also pointed out that swim teams become a part of the physical education program. Mr. Marshall said he understands this, but he was looking at the issue from another point of view. He asked what is the purpose of only having one pool, and he wondered what is another need, if physical education is not considered. Mr. Bowerman answered that recreational swimming would be the only thing involved. Mr. Marshall stated that if the pool is going to be for the community, this is another need. He noted that lots of people, as well as handicapped April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Pa~e 24) oooa26 people, use the pool at Walker Middle School. He said if this is the type of pool bein~ considered, then the best location has to be determined. Mr. Martin commented that he thinks the discussions relate to both schools and communities. The pool would be for the use of the school, but it would also be just as much a community pool. He a~reed with Mr. Perkins that once a pool is built, there will be an issue of parity, regardless of whether it relates to schools or certain areas. He said, for example, if a pool is built in the southern part of the County, there will be a parity issue in the northern part of the County, etc. He has thought about this matter lon~ and hard, and he has had lots of calls from constituents. He said some people are in favor of the Pool, but there are also a lot of others who are disgusted about taxpayers' money bein~ spent for somethin~ as frivolous as a swimmin9 pool. He added that he has said for a lon~ time the main thin~ ~overnment should be responsible for is police, security and education. He went on to say, in his opinion, these thin~s should be done first and foremost before anythin9 else is done. He looks at all the other thin~s done beyond police and education. However, when it comes to athletics, he strongly believes personally, and as a juvenile probation officer, that the more children are involved in positive activities such as sports, athletics, swim teams, etc., then the less of a security and police problem the County will have. He said a lot of pro,rams are funded that County officials hope and assume will help with the problem of jail housing, detention space, police and security. He commented that he can't think of a single thing that has as much of a direct correlation between an activity the County may provide and a child not ending up in trouble than facilities such as parks, swimming pools and athletic fields. He stated that, as a juvenile probation officer, he sometimes gets a child who is involved with sports, but it is not the norm. Mr. Bowerman asked if a pool would make the difference more than an athletic field. >Mr. Martin replied that he is not going to say a pool is better than athletic fields or gymnasiums. He said, though, the County should be in the business of providing positive invigorating things for the young people to do, and County officials might as well realize that building pools is going to be one of those things. He called attention to the City's problem of not having enough pools, which means the demand is there. He strongly believes a pool would be one of the best investments the County can make in terms of the future. He is not saying if a swimming pool is built, it will reduce crime. However, he is saying he knows for a fact that very seldom will he get someone on his case load who has been involved with athletics, or is a member of the Boy Scouts, or who is involved with any type of activity. He thinks County officials should go about the business of providing plenty of facilities for those activities, including porta-johns at the athletic fields. He noted that he was asked how the Board dared to spend so much money for the field lights at Monticello High School, and he told the person that he thinks this is one of the most important thin~s County officials can do. Mr. Marshall concurred with Mr. Martin's comments. Mr. Marshall stated that he has been involved in an activity at Yancey Elementary School, and the only reason he has taken part in this activity, is because he thinks it' occupies the children. He noted that he has contributed to the activity personally with time and money, and he has encouraged other people to be involved in it because it is so important. He said if children are busy doing activities such as this, they don't have time to think about getting into trouble. He recalled when he was involved with such things as playin~ ball as a child, his time was fully occupied, and he didn't have time to think about getting in trouble. Mr. Martin pointed out that the Shack was built, and the children use it, but there had been some of the same type of thoughts about this activity as far as why it should be supported. He noted that the County's athletic fields and swimming pools are full. He stated that if this is what the youn9 people want to spend their time doing, and there is a demand and the facili- ties are full, then the County is in good standin~ by building another facility. He said if a pool is built, and it ~ets no use, then that is another story, but based on the demand, this is not going to happen. He stated that if for some reason the proposed pool is not heavily used, then another one at Albemarle High School or Western Albemarle High School should not even be considered, regardless of the parity issue. He asked, though, if the proposed pool is used, then why not build pools at the other high schools. He said when the County has facilities which are in demand and are being used by juveniles, then there should be plenty of them. He noted that sometimes certain activities are made available to children, but they are not interested April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 0003 ,7 in them. He said when this happens, then County officials can move away from these activities. Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Mul!aney to explain the location of the pool on the site, and how the physical education classes would use it, given the distances. She noted that the proposed pool will be quite some distance from the school. Mr. Mullaney replied that he can't answer this question, but perhaps someone from the school system will be able to respond. Ms. Humphris stated that the proposed pool is located far over on the western side of the site, and she thinks it would be difficult for physical education students to get there during their class time. Mr. Mullaney responded that there is some advantage to this location of the pool from a community recreational standpoint. He said his staff is thinking of the pool as a community recreational need, first, and a convenient need for Monticello High School students, as well as other students who will use it. However, he stated that he does not think three indoor swimming pools are needed in Albemarle County from a community recreational standpoint. He then mentioned some research his staff has done which has led him to think of another possibility to consider. He went to early meetings about the high school where opportunities were discussed, and that is when the pool was put into the plan. He heard about this need, and several groups mentioned the opportunity for a pool at these meetings. His staff members wanted to get this discussion started, and they wanted to have the pool located by the architects on the Monticello High School site, because the property is centrally located. He went on to say if only one pool is going to be built in Albemarle County, he does not think the County owns another piece of property that is as well situated as the Monticello High School site. He remarked that after reviewing all of the information from the City, as well as 52 other departments in the State of Virginia, two things have become clear to him. First, he said there is a need in Albemarle County for a pool, but he does not know if the need is shared by the County's entire citizenry. He, personally, does not feel the need to swim in the winter time. However, there is a need, and there are two ways to meet it. The County can either do it, or facilitate someone else to do it. He referred to the YMCA in Albemarle County which hasn't been able to find its niche because it doesn't have a facility of its own. The reason he believes the YMCA doesn't have its facility is because the City of Charlottesville built two indoor swimming pools, and this took the need away. He added that now the need has outgrown the two Charlottesville pools, but a lot of the need is coming from people who can afford to pay. He then noted the growing market for therapeutic recreation and seniors, as well as classes, and he is wondering if the County officials should consider offering the YMCA a site to build and operate a pool at no cost to the County. The need can be met at no cost to County taxpayers, and the County has already bought the property for the high school. He stated that all the County needs to do is come up with the idea and allow it to happen. He talked to the YMCA Director yesterday, and he told him this was very preliminary, but he wondered if there was any interest by the YMCA with the idea. The YMCA Director responded that a donation of land would be the springboard the YMCA would need to start a fund raising campaign. The YMCA Director thinks the need is there, and he thinks the YMCA needs a swimming facility, because this has been the basis of YMCA programs around the country. He reported that the City of Richmond has two public pools and eight YMCA pools, and Chesterfield County has no public pools, but it has six YMCA pools. He said it occurred to him that perhaps a partnership is the route to follow with the pool situation. He added that the Parks and Recreation Department would like to be able to say it has a big indoor state-of-the art swimming pool. However, there is a way to do this without costing the taxpayers money, and scholarship programs can be offered. He said, since the City serves a lot of the iow income population, there may be the need to assist the City with scholarship programs. Ms. Humphris remarked that figures show pools operating at a deficit, and she wondered how the YMCA could afford for this to happen. Mr. Mullaney replied that the YMCA could probably raise funds better than the County, and the YMCA could probably charge higher fees, because when the County gets involved with something, there is the idea from taxpayers that they are already paying tax dollars for it. He said it is a whole different mind set between the County and the YMCA when the YMCA is responsible for a project. Mr. Martin stated that he has been considering the swimming pool as a recreational facility, and he feels comfortable talking about it in this tone. 000328 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) He noted that he is on the YMCA Board, and there has already been a discussion of approaching Mr. Mullaney on this matter. Mr. Martin said he may be in a conflict of interest situation now, but looking at it from the larger point of view of the pool being a recreational facility, he thinks this Board should support it. He stated, though, that final decisions do not have to be made now as to how it will be supported or whether it is done with some type of public/private partnership or with County money. He hopes this Board will leave the pool in the budget as it is now and allow Mr. Mullaney to pursue ways of making the project a public/private partnership. Mr. Tucker remarked that, in considering Mr. Mullaney's comments, the policy under which the County is currently operating does not have to be changed. The County has always encouraged swimming areas at the lakes, and only when the pool at Crozet was discussed, did County officials change the policy to say they would help support a private entity that wanted to take the initiative. He said in the Crozet pool situation, the County tried to provide 50 percent of the funds. He noted that the County policy covers Mr. Mullaney's suggestion, because others are being encouraged to come forward. The County's share in this project might be the land the County is able to offer. Mr. Marshall stated that he will support the pool project for the same reason he supported the Crozet Pool. He believes very strongly that if young people are given something to do, they will stay out of trouble. He added that this is money saved. Mr. Tucker mentioned that Mr. Mullaney has been contacted many times from people who live in the Earlysville area who would like to have a pool in this vicinity. The County continues to maintain this policy that if an entity comes forward with the idea for such a project, the County will help. He stated that it is fine to change the policy if it becomes neceSSary, but if Mr. Mullaney's suggestion is followed, he does not see any conflict in the County's current policy. Ms. Humphris remarked that this has been a really good discussion, and she hopes everybody has had a chance to express their feelings. Ms. Thomas commented that the siting of the pool on the high school property forces the football stadium to be in a location where some people are still uncomfortable. She stated that it is not even certain a site is available on this property, and a great deal more discussion is needed with the planners. She said when the site plan gets to the Planning Commission, it will be examined in more detail. She stated that at this point the site is being used for a good deal more than it can actually stand, so it is not a given fact that a site for a pool is ready and able to be used. She likes the thought of facilitating this idea without it becoming a new County policy of providing indoor swimming pools. She added that as the County population ages, there will be more calls for swimming pools, just as there are more calls for library usage. She said a pool is something that will be used a lot all winter long by people who can't find any other means of exercising. She stated that it will be a growing need, and it will not be going away. Mr. Tucker suggested examining the other property the County owns in that area to see if there may be a suitable site, if for no other reason, except to pull the pool away from the school so it doesn't become the Monticello High School Pool in people's minds. This would help the feelings of the students at Albemarle and Western Albemarle High Schools. He stated that it may be a good idea to locate the pool as far away from Monticello High School as possible, but in that general area where the County owns land. Ms. Thomas noted that the other land in the Monticello High School area was going to have other facilities such as a library. She said, though, since this has not definitely been decided, if the library is incorporated more into the high school, it may free up some of the land. Mr. Marshall stated that if the Board members are serious about building a pool, and the land is not available, he feels someone will donate the land. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Supervisors need to come back to this issue for more discussion today, after the three public hearings. Other Board members concurred. April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) Agenda Item No. 10. 10:30 A.M. - ZMA-95-22. J. Bruce Barnes, Inc. Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 19 acs from C-1 Commercial to HI, Heavy Industry, with proffers. Property located in Crozet on S sd of C&O Railway (current location of J. Bruce Barnes Lumber), presently recommended for Community Service (Community of Crozet) by the Comprehensive Plan. TM56,P58 & TM56A2(Secl),Ps70,71,71B&24A. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 18 and March 25, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Board members that they have already had the report on ZMA-95-22, as well as comments from the applicant and the public. He explained that the applicant proposes to maintain an existing lumber yard/warehouse operation on approximately 19 acres in downtown Crozet, and he is petitioning to change the zoning from C-I, Commercial to HI, Heavy Indus- trial with proffers. At this time Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing on ZMA-95-22, J. Bruce Barnes, Inc., and asked if there were members of the public who would like to be heard. No one came forward, so Ms. Humphris closed the public hearing. Mr. Perkins then moved approval of ZMA-95-22, J. Bruce Barnes, Inc., subject to revised proffers signed February 12, 1996, and deleting Parcel 70 on Tax Map 56A2 as noted in the memorandum from Ron Lilley, Senior Planner, dated March 8, 1996. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. (The proffers are set out below:) PROFFER FORM Date: 12-21-95 (Amended 2-12-96) ZMA# 95-22 Tax Map Parcel(s) 05600-00-00-05800 (12.903 ac) 056A2-01-00-07100 (4.010 ac) 056A2-01-00-071B0 (1.360 ac) 056A2-01-00-024A0 (0.480 ac) 18.753 Acres to be rezoned from C-1 to HI 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: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1) Uses allowed shall be limited to the following, as shown in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on 1/25/96: SECTION 28.2.1.5 .8 .16 .18 .20 .21 Fire and rescue squad stations. Manufacture of building components. Sawmills, planing mills, wood preserving operations, wood yards. Warehouse facilities. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities. Public uses and buildings. (2) The wood-preserving activity allowed under 28.2.1.16 shall not include chemical treatment of "softwoods," as defined by the National Hardwood Lumber Association. (SIGNED) R. Carroll Conley, 2/12/96 Donna S. Conley, 2/12/96 Ronald P. Gibson, 2/12/96 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28 ) OO0330 Agenda Item No. 11. 10:45 A.M. SP-95-46. Central Telephone Co. of Virginia. Public Hearing on a request to establish an unmanned telephone switching station on approx 3.6 ac portion of TM78, P's55A4 & P55D1. Site on N sd of Rt 250 on North pant0ps Dr. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 18 and March 25, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that, as with the last public hearing, the Supervisors have already had a staff report, as well as public and applicant comments on SP-95-46. He then noted that this is a petition by CENTEL to issue a special use permit for the construction of an unmanned telephone switching station on 3.6 acres located north on Route 250 East on North Pantops Drive. Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing on SP-95-46, Central Telephone Company of Virginia and inquired if anyone would like to speak to this matter. There was no one present who wished to speak, so Ms. Humphris closed the public hearing. Mr. Martin offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, for approval of SP-95-46, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) Compliance with the provisions of 5.1.12 PUBLIC UTILITY STRUC- TURES/USES to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development who shall act on behalf of the Planning Commission; 2 0 Additional landscape plantings to that required by the Architec- tural Review Board may be required to satisfy Condition 1. 3 o Except for such changes as may be required during review of the site development plan, development shall be in accord with the site plan dated 12/19/95 by Dale C. Hamilton and Associates, dated and initiated by staff "Presented to Planning Commission 3/12/96 RSK." Ail equipment, maintenance gear, and the like shall be stored within the building or within the generator enclosure. No outside storage of any kind Shall be permitted. (The Board recessed at 10:46 a.m. and reconvened at 11:02 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 12. 10:50 A.M. - Public Hearing to consider the transfer of the County's title to the real and personal property necessary for the operation of the jail to the Albemarle/Charlottesville Jail Authority. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 25, 1996.) Mr. Tucker summarized the Executive Summary relating to the transfer of jail property to the Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail, and he pointed out that the Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority was created in November, 1995. The Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail Agreement provides that Albemarle and Charlottesville will transfer title to all real and personal property necessary for the operation of the jail to the Author- ity. He noted the attached deed and recommended that the Board adopt a resolution authorizing the transfer after this public hearing. Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing and inquired if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak. Since there was no response, Ms. Humphris closed the public hearing. At this time, Mr. Perkins made a motion to adopt a resolution authoriz- the Chairman to sign the transfer of the County's title to the real and 00033 (Page 29) personal property necessary for the operation of the jail to the Jail Author- ity. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO THE ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Agree- ment creating the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Author- ity (hereafter "Jail Authority") provides that Albemarle and Charlottesville will transfer title to all real and personal property necessary for the operation of the jail to the Jail Authority; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 1996, a properly advertised public hearing was held pursuant to section 15.1-262 of the Code of Virginia to receive public comment on the proposed transfer of property; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds such transfer is in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes its Chairman to execute the attached deed, incorporated herein by reference, to transfer the specified real and personal property to the Albemarle-Charlottes- ville Regional Jail Authority. THIS DEED made and entered into this day of , 1996, by and between the CITY OF CHARLOTTES- VILLE, VIRGINIA, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantors, and the ALBEMARLE CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, whose address is 1600 Avon Street Extended, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash in hand paid, and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantors hereby Grant and Convey with Special Warranty of Title unto Grantee the following described real estate, to-wit: Ail that certain tract of land, with improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto, situated in the Scottsville Magisterial District of Albemarle County, Virginia, on the west side of State Route 742, containing 8.251 acres, more or less, and designated as Parcel llA on Albemarle County Real Estate Tax Map 77; BEING in all respects the same property conveyed to Grantors as tenants in common by deed dated July 13, 1992, of record in the Albemarle County Circuit Court Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1260, page 695. This conveyance is made expressly subject to the restric- tions, conditions, rights-of-way, and easements of record insofar as they may lawfully affect the property hereby conveyed. Grantors further QUITCLAIM to Grantee all its rights, title and interest in personal property located at the above-described real estate and used in the operation of the Albemarle Charlottes- ville Regional Jail. This deed is exempt from state recordation taxes imposed by Virginia Code §§58.1-801 and 58.1-802, pursuant to Virginia Code §§58.1-811(A) (3) and 58.1-811(C) (3), respectively. 0003.32 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) At this time, the Board returned to the work session on the FY 1996/97- 2000/01 Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Perkins referred to the Crozet Pool where, because of delays and getting the site plan approved, the contractor has raised his price by $20,000. The site plan has been in the County's hands for three weeks and the County has put requirements on such things as improving the entrance to the road. He said fire hydrants are being required, the Health Department is requiring a dump station and all of these things are adding to the cost of the project. The biggest problem has been the delay of getting the plans approved in the County, and it seems as though the County is bogged down with bureau- cracy. He added that other people have complained about the same thing, and it seems as though everybody in the County has to be involved. He went on to say Mr. Tucker has indicated the County will pay 50 percent of the costs. He said, though, rather than the pool costing $300,000, it will probably cost in excess of $400,000 to $450,000, and a lot of this extra cost is because of the things required by the County. The Claudius Crozet Park Board is really in need of additional funds, and he would like to see this Board raise the amount it has committed for funding this year from $100,000 to $150,000. The thing disturbing him the most about indoor pools is the tremendous cost of them. He remarked that it will cost over $3,000,000 to build an indoor pool, and the Crozet Pool will cost only ten percent of that amount of money. He pointed out that at this time this Board has committed less than 40 percent to the Crozet Pool project. Mr. Marshall stated that he recalled this Board committing 50 percent of the total cost of the Crozet Pool, whatever the cost. Mr. Tucker clarified that at the time this project was brought forward, the cost was set at $300,000, and that is how this Board reached the amount of its commitment. The Pool and Park Committee members were considering borrowing the other funds, and they had already received some funds. Mr. Perkins explained that the Park Board has approximately $100,000 in the bank, and they were going to borrow another $100,000. Ms. Humphris suggested that Mr. Tucker explain the County's process for site plans, etc., so the public will not get the wrong idea. She believes there are no regulations required which are not necessary to protect the public health and safety of the community, so in the future bad things don't happen and health and safety problems don't arise. She inquired if there is anything being required that could be deleted. She thought a careful study had been done of this situation. Mr. Tucker answered that he is not aware of anything unnecessary being required. The Crozet Pool project is being treated as a private entity, which it is, basically. This project is being treated as a high school or as any other public facility, whether the requirements involve upgrading the road, installing fire hydrants or meeting water and sewer requirements. He believes this is what the Park Board members have been faced with, but their plans were probably not far enough along to know all of the things they would have to do. He noted that they were also dealing with very broad numbers at the time this project was brought before the Board, but now they are seeing the realization of the project, since they are down to the specifics. He said, based on Mr. Perkins' comments, it is obviously more costly. Mr. Tucker reiterated that there were no regulations that he knew of which could be waived, nor that were not important to protect the public health and safety of the community, nor not required of someone else. Ms. Humphris stated that she does not want the public to believe the delay is the County's fault, since it is important that these criteria have to be met. Mr. Perkins remarked that Park Board members were surprised at some of the things being required such as the improvement to the entrance. The new pool will probably not cause an impact on the Park, and the use of the Park probably will not increase very much. He noted that there are a lot of activities held at the Park, but because of the pool project, improvements at the entrance are required. The entrance might need some improving, but this is money that should be used for the Pool rather than for the road. He also pointed out that it appears the required fire hydrant is going to be within a fenced area where the swimming pool is going to be located. He recalled, too, that the Health Department is requiring a dump station because some people are staying overnight in their campers for some of the arts and craft shows, etc. He said all of these things certainly have an impact. He emphasized, though, that as far as the County's time is concerned, it does not seem as though it should take three weeks to get a site plan reviewed. He stated that if it is 000333 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) necessary for a site plan to go through these processes, then it should be done within two or three days, rather than two or three weeks. Time is money when there is a contractor waiting to start work. He recalled the County's experience when bids are being taken on schools, etc. He remarked that there is more work available than there are contractors, and this is when the costs start increasing on the projects. Mr. Tucker stated that he understands the frustration, and the staff hears these things every day. This doesn't mean the situation is right, but there are a lot of issues in areas that staff must review in every plan, and there are lots of plans. The staff tries to have the process on a schedule and to treat everybody the same. He went on to say it is true the plan is being reviewed by lots of different agencies simultaneously, such as Planning, Engineering, as well as the Water and Sewer Authority, and then they are all brought together for final approval at a specific date. He said sometimes glitches occur when one department's review might conflict with another, and then the plan has to be amended, and it has to be sent back to the engineer who prepared the plan. He noted, though, that the staff is considering making some changes in the overall site plan review process, and this information will be coming to the Supervisors in the near future. This might help the situation of moving these plans forward more expeditiously, and at the same time, assuring all of these things are being reviewed. He mentioned that the number and magnitude of the plans also need to be considered. He said it may seem that more staff to review the plans might be the answer, but there has to be a balance. He explained that there are busy times of the year, but the County is coming out a period of time presently where site review has been down in terms of the number of plans submitted. He stated that now the number of plans is increasing, and the construction season is here. He went on to say everybody is anxious to get their plans approved, but instead of having their plans done in November to be ready for the spring construction season, there is a big push from lots of people to get these plans done. He referred to the staffing issue again, and he indicated that it is not desirable to over staff just for peak periods, and then have people sitting around doing nothing in down times. He said it sounds easy to run the plans through the process in a couple of days, but the staff does the best it can to move these plans through as expeditiously as possible. Mr. Marshall mentioned a ball park with which he was involved. He stated that all of the department heads met in one room, and the project was moved through quickly, because everybody knew what the other person was doing. He asked if the department heads meet together on site plans. Mr. Tucker answered that the department heads are not as involved with the site plan process as others. He noted that the people who actually do the plan review have committee members who meet and review all of the items. This is when they find the problem areas, and they try to rectify them. Mr. Marshall wondered if the committee members could consider a certain project which may need to move faster than others because of cost differences. Mr. Tucker replied that when this Board directs the staff to expedite a plan, the committee members have to move it through faster than others. He said, though, this cannot be the process for everything, because it would be utter chaos. Mr. Marshall asked if a person in a certain department could recommend to the others that a certain project needs to be done ahead of other projects. Mr. Tucker said this decision has to come from this Board. Mr. Marshall stated that this is why he thinks a correction in the process needs to be made. He added that when department heads get together, any one of them should be able to ask the group for help to move a project through faster. Mr. Tucker asked where this will stop if priority can be given to any project by department heads. Mr. Bowerman noted that he has site plans for a new building currently in process, and it has taken a long time. Mr. Marshall inquired if the people involved in the site plan process could come to some sort of consensus about prioritizing some of the things. Mr. Bowerman commented that three weeks from the time the plan was submitted until the time it comes back does not sound unreasonable to him. This seems as though it is a good balance between the unwillingness to put additional personnel in the departments. There are many things needing review, and three weeks does not seem exorbitant to him. Mr. Perkins stated that the Park Board members have been waiting for their plans for three weeks, but the information has been in the County for April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) probably two months. He added that this Board was discussing waiving the fees two months ago, and that is when the plans were submitted. He went on to say, though, that he thinks this discussion needs to be held another time. Ms. Humphris remarked that she thinks it would be a very bad idea for this Board to put itself into the work of the departments. Mr. Perkins concurred. There is a process that plans need to go through, but he thinks it can be done quicker. He added that he understands the Water Resources Manager has to look at such things as an expansion of a deck, when all that has to be done is to dig six eighteen inch holes. He wondered what impact this will have on the County's water resources, and he thinks the process could skip this stage. He also mentioned that plans went to the Zoning Administrator when there were no zoning changes. He added that there are some places where these things are going and staying for two or three days, and they don't need to be there, at all, and this is what needs consideration. Ms. Thomas recalled that building permits went through the same type of process, but now the length of time it takes to get a building permit has been almost cut in half. Mr. Perkins again referred to the problems with getting the deck plan through the process. Mr. Tucker explained that sometimes a deck will extend into the setback and this is the reason deck plans go to the Zoning Depart- ment. He said if this is not caught in the beginning, the person would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to get a variance, and then they are more angry, because they will have to wait another few weeks to go through this process. He will discuss the whole issue with the Board in the near future, as far as making some improvements. He then mentioned that he would be glad to bring the Crozet Pool plan back for this Board to review the problem areas. However, he added that it is difficult for the staff to decide which plan gets priority, and the staff relies on the consensus of the members of this Board, if there is an issue they think should move forward. Otherwise, everyone would ask for their plan to be moved forward first, and the staff would not be able to determine who should get this privilege. He said a process has to be followed or nothing will get done, because there is pressure even without the decisions coming from this Board as far as prioritizing plans. Ms. Humphris asked if there was more discussion about this matter before moving forward with the CIP work session. Mr. Perkins stated that he would like to put in his request for this Board to appropriate $150,000 for this coming year for the Claudius Crozet Park Pool, rather than the $100,000, which has already been approved. Ms. Humphris inquired about the amount of money this Board has committed to the Crozet Pool. Mr. Tucker responded that the project was originally presented at approximately $300,000, and the Board agreed to pay half of this amount. He said Mr. Perkins has indicated that during the site plan consider- ations, the ultimate costs have been determined. Mr. Tucker stated that the costs are higher than originally anticipated, so Mr. Perkins is asking for reconsideration of the appropriation this year to $150,000. Mr. Bowerman asked where the additional $50,000 will come from that the Park Board is requesting. Mr. Tucker answered that this amount will be moved from the maintenance fund in the CIP for the schools projects. Ms. White stated that the additional money put into the CIP will come from the school maintenance projects, so $50,000 would have to be taken from this source. Ms. Thomas recalled that when the JABA Board was making its request, the Supervisors inquired if the appropriation could be spread over a number of years. The Crozet Pool appropriation has already been spread over two years by putting in $50,000 last year and $100,000 this coming year, but she wondered if it could be spread over a number of years. Mr. Perkins responded that the contribution could be spread over a period of time and even an interest free loan would help. The Park Board is faced with the fact of borrowing money. Ms. White stated that the extra money could probably be pulled from the maintenance projects for a second year also. Ms. Humphris asked what is the pleasure of the Board. She does not know if there is support for funding more of the Crozet Pool or not. 000;335 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) Mr. Bowerman requested the staff to bring back information to the Supervisors next week as to whether or not their contribution to the Park Pool could be spread over a period of time, and he asked the staff members to tell the Board exactly how they would suggest the funding be done. He would not abandon the project, although he does not think the additional costs relate only to the County. He noted, though, that from the first discussion of this project and the prices involved, there have obviously been some changes in the actual price. He is willing to consider this fact and keep the project viable, but he wants to know how it can best be done. He added that this is new information, and as long as there is time to deal with the information before the final vote is taken on the budget, he can support the request. Ms. Thomas concurred with Mr. Bowerman's comments. Ms. Humphris stated that more information will be needed in order for this Board to deal with Mr. Perkins' request at the next meeting before the approval of the budget. She then asked if there was any more discussion about any of the other topics in the CIP. Mr. Bowerman stated that he feels a County pool is an issue of signifi- cant dollars, and it is a change in this Board's direction, even though a contribution was made to the Crozet Pool. However, he believes there could be a facility with more than just a pool in it. The facility could be for public use, but he would like to ask the public for its input. He added that if the public is willing to allow this Board to get into more of the high intensity capital items for recreation, then that is fine. Mr. Perkins stated that he likes the idea of a public/private partner- ship. Ms. Humphris wondered how the public can be brought into this discussion because she thinks the public has definitely not been a part of it. Mr. Martin suggested leaving the CIP as it is in terms of the swimming pool, and in the meantime, the public can be informed that this Board is considering other things. He said by next year, the Supervisors will be in a position to make clear decisions as to whether or not there can be a pub- lic/private relationship, as well as whether or not the public really wants to get behind these types of capital expenditures for athletic facilities. Ms. Humphris remarked that the only problem she sees with Mr. Martin's suggestion is whether or not there is a negative reaction if the public becomes involved. She stated that she is supporting leaving the pool in the CIP, but this Board has to be prepared for all of those people who are going to say the pool was promised to them because it is shown in the CIP. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Mullaney is going to make the YMCA Director aware of the comments from this Board today. He thinks the Director will take this matter to the YMCA Board members, and if they like the idea, some proposal will be developed. This will come back to the County, and if it is a viable proposal, then a public hearing could be advertised for that particular proposal. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the project would not have to be extended to a public/private partnership beyond the YMCA. Mr. Tucker stated that this is the other issue. The YMCA has been discussed, assuming it is the nonprofit group that could provide recreation. He added if other private entities are considered, though, the bidding process could be opened to them, also. Mr. Martin commented that the YMCA Board has discussed this matter as a feeler and not something that was positively going to be done. He added that it will probably take six months before the YMCA Board members would be in a position to come to the County with a proposal. Mr. Tucker agreed. He thinks other entities, including the YMCA, would have to be given several months to put a proposal together. Ms. Thomas inquired if there would be any value in not putting as much money in the line item, although the item could be shown. She is also concerned about the promise of the pool to the public. Mr. Tucker concurred that once the money is shown for an item, the public will think it is already budgeted. 000336 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) Mr. Martin said he thinks Ms. Thomas's suggestion is a good idea. He stated that perhaps half of the money could be included. Ms. Thomas commented that the amount of money could be decreased, and it could just appear as a symbolic gesture. Mr. Tucker said the money can be cut back significantly because originally the land was going to be part of the County's share. Mr. Bowerman asked how this project differs from a baseball stadium in policy. Mr. Martin responded that a baseball stadium would primarily be used by a for profit organization. Mr. Bowerman said this is true, but the stadium would be used for families and children. Mr. Tucker stated that the stadium representatives wanted the County officials to borrow the money, so they would not be encumbered. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that during the bid process, there may be a private organization that will indicate it will manage the pool, and if the County donates the land, the organization will build the facility. Mr. Marshall pointed out that the YMCA is a nonprofit organization, and the baseball stadium request was from a for profit group. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that there are some broad implications with this issue. Ms. Humphris stated that the report the staff will bring back to this Board should point out these implications and situations which could be faced if any of these ideas move ahead. The parity issue has to be considered if the County builds the pool, itself, as well as whether there can be a partner- ship with the County contributing the land. She noted that there will be all kinds of details arising during the thinking process. Mr. Tucker said perhaps some planning money can be included for this project at this time. He stated that in this way, the project will not be lost, and it will still be there in the fifth year. This will allow time for some of these issues to be studied. Mr. Martin remarked that he does not like the idea at all of putting in a minimal amount, because he feels this Board should take a stand and make a statement the public can hear and understand. He said if the amount is reduced by half, then it implies the County officials will put forth a great deal of effort to pull together some type of partnership. However, if a minimal amount is included to cover the expense of the land, he thinks the message is being sent out that the swimming pool will not be built. Mr. Perkins pointed out that when high schools are built, planning money is included in the CIP in the beginning of the process. Ms. Humphris added that this is also the process for roads, etc. She said planning money comes first before construction money. Mr. Martin noted, though, that this item had been shown in its entire cost, and then it will be decreased to a minimal amount with just the state- ment that this is how it is always done. Mr. Bowerman stated that this Board never had anything to do with putting the pool in the budget. He said it was never discussed by the Supervisors, and it was already shown in the budget when the information got to them. He added that this is the difference, and now it seems to already have become a right whether or not it is a good idea. Mr. Perkins suggested that perhaps a vote needs to be taken now. Ms. Thomas remarked that she does not want people to say the Supervisors are cutting the amount of funding for the pool back to a fifth of what it had been originally. She noted, though, that originally it was a five year plan without any decisions being made as to the way it was going to be done. Ms. Humphris stated that it will be much easier to add to the funding rather than take away from it. Mr. Bowerman stated to Mr. Martin that the pool might be the best thing the Supervisors can do for this community, but he is unsure at this point. Mr. Marshall commented that if he and Mr. Martin want the pool, they will have to be satisfied with the decisions this Board makes. Mr. Perkins remarked that there are too many unanswered questions, because the cost of this pool is staggering. Mr. Marshall agreed. He then asked the Board to proceed in any way possible. Mr. Tucker suggested another option of putting together some information in terms of the line items, as well as how the project could be funded. There could be "in kind" line items, as well as fees, donations and planning money where the County could show the land cost. The costs could add up to a 000337 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) significant amount of money, but it could also be shown that the bulk of the funding would have to come from other sources. The project will not be lost in this way, but it doesn't obligate the County to furnish all of the funding. Mr. Marshall stated that this is agreeable to him. He then asked what dollar amount would be shown for the pool project. Mr. Tucker said he cannot give the Supervisors this answer today. Ms. Humphris recalled discussions she and Mr. Tucker have had when she said she did not want to see this item in the CIP until the Supervisors had discussed it. She said time went on, and it appeared. She stated that when she mentioned there had not been any discussion of it, she was told that the discussion would be held. Mr. Bowerman inquired as to what item the $275,000 referred to in the 1996-97 budget. Ms. Humphris and Ms. White answered that this item is for lights, etc., for the baseball fields. Ms. Humphris went on to say the $3,750,000 item is for the pool. Mr. Bowerman referred to a $275,000 item for the new high school community recreation facility for 1996-97 which is shown in two places on the spread sheet. He explained that it is found under expenditures at the top of Page Three and again at the bottom under School Division. Ms. White responded that it hasn't been put into the CIP twice. The figures are showing the cost of the total projects. Mr. Bowerman asked if the $3,735,000 figure includes the swimming pool as well as the figure for the ball fields. Ms. White answered affirmatively. Ms. Humphris inquired if a motion is needed relating to the information this Board is ~expecting for the next meeting. Mr. Tucker replied that he thinks he knows what is expected of the staff, but there may need to be some clarification on the pool information. He asked if the Board would like to see a major amount of funding for the pool, or a limited amount. Ms. Humphris stated that she would express her own opinion. She added that she thinks a minimum amount of funding should be included in the CIP so expectations won't be raised if, for some reason, this Board may not be able to meet them. She would much rather put in a minimum amount and be able to do whatever can be done without having a backlash. Mr. Perkins agreed with Ms. Humphris' statement, but he thinks the project should be shown with planning money two years sooner, which would be FY 1998-99. Ms. Thomas stated that she likes Mr. Perkins' suggestion, but she pointed out that $18,500 is shown for the year 1998-99 under the new high school community recreation facilities. Ms. White answered that the $18,500 figure is for the auxiliary gym with basketball goals, padding and volleyball equipment. Ms. Humphris commented that there is no pool money shown until the final year of the CIP. Mr. Marshall asked how much will be added to the $18,500 presently in the 1998-99 fiscal year. Mr. Tucker responded that they will have come back to the Board with the planning figure, and it will be included for next week's meeting. Ms. Thomas clarified that the 1998-99 fiscal year of the CIP will carry the pool planning money. Ms. Humphris agreed. Mr. Tucker asked if he is correct in thinking that Board members did not want to show anything for the pool for the last year of the CIP. Ms. Humphris asked if it is the Board's consensus to put pool planning money in the 1998-99 fiscal year of the CIP and take out the funding for the pool for the last year of the CIP, as it is currently shown. Hearing no objections, she informed Mr. Tucker that this is the request. Ms. White noted a change in the fiscal year 1998-99 relating to the Greenwood asbestos removal. She said $200,000 was shown for 1998-99 for this project, but this money will not be needed, since this property has now been sold. She stated that some of this money can be used for the planning m°ney, and the remainder can be put into the CIP Projects and Debt Service Reserve April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 0003~ (Page 36) which is basically a contingency line. She added that these new numbers will be brought back to this Board next week, also. Ms. Thomas wondered where the asbestos removal item is shown. Ms. White responded that it is shown on Page Two under Parks and Recreation for the 1998-99 fiscal year at the figure of $294,000. This figure will be reduced to $94,000 for the asbestos removal at Greenwood School. She next pointed out the CIP Projects Debt Service Reserve on the third line from the bottom of Page Two shown as $210,100. She explained that this figure will increase to $410,100, and some money for the planning study will be taken from this item. Next, Ms. Thomas mentioned the Ivy Road bike lanes and street lights project. She thought walkways would be included as well as bikeways. Ms. answered that it is her understanding the project only includes bike- ways. Mr. Tucker stated that he believes Ms. White is correct, but this point will be clarified before next week's meeting. Ms. Thomas remarked that one of the project justifications deals with the safety of the student population who are walking in this area. She stated that her daughter actually ran into a University student who was dashing across the road in that area, so she has some personal interest in the project. Ms. Humphris concurred with Ms. Thomas that this is an interesting prospect because there is a real need for pathways for bikes and pedestrians from the County's section at University Heights and into the City limits. There is not as much need farther out into the County because there really are many pedestrian receptors beyond University Village. Ms. Thomas stated that the new Darden School and the people who now live in University Heights will be crossing over much more often than they do now. This was the thought of the University, City and County group which met a few years ago and put together a plan. She said members of this group recognized there is going to be more pedestrian traffic across this road. Mr. Tucker responded that he believes pedestrian walkways are included but maybe not in this particular proposal. He is almost positive the Ivy Corridor improvement included both pedestrian and bike pathways. However, he believes this project is tied to ISTEA money, and he is not sure pedestrian walkways are included in the ISTEA funding. He said, though, Mr. Cilimberg will be able to answer this question. Ms. Thomas then called attention to the bottom paragraph of Page Eight of the information sent to Board members for today's agenda, relating to carpet replacement for the library. This project seems to be in the CIP every year. She mentioned that someone has suggested to her that carpeting can be treated instead of replaced, and there is some dissention among the Library Board members as to whether there are unnecessary carpet replacements going on. She stated that perhaps the item is shown because it has been there every year, and the words are just being repeated. However, she is hesitant about suggesting more carpet replacement. Ms. White responded that the carpet replacements are nearing completion. She explained that a third floor carpeting was going to be included in next year's CIP, but the staff has examined the possibility of funding all of the carpeting at one time. She stated that she believes some additional money has made it possible to carpet the third floor at the same time the other work is being done. Ms. Humphris mentioned that the stairs are no longer carpeted at the Central Library between the lower and main levels. She thinks this is smart, because it was impossible to keep carpet on those stairs. She commented that the stairs now have a very hard surface, and they function very well without carpet. Mr. Perkins commented that he would like to ask Mr. Reaser a couple of questions, and he called attention to the Western Albemarle High School renovation project where it suggests adding 10,665 square feet at a cost of almost $4,000,000. He said a couple of years ago this amount of money would have bought a new elementary school, and the project does not add to the capacity of the school. He indicated that it is staggering to him that this much space can be added, but the capacity of the school is not increased, although he understands significant expansions to the office space are being made, etc., as well as smaller class sizes. Mr. Reaser answered that two classrooms are being taken away, and six are being added. He said of the six, two are science classrooms, because more students are taking science, but the project should not cost $4,000,000. The $3,900,000 is the total cost of the project which is a roof replacement in the 1998-99 fiscal year, as well as April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) 000339 other things. This pro3ect now, with the addition and gymnasium, will be approximately $2,500,000. Next, Mr. Perkins mentioned the Vehicle Maintenance Facility where it refers to the addition of a Driver Training Room. He stated that as much room as the County has, he does not think a Driver Training Room is necessary. Mr. Reaser said a Driver Training facility is needed, and it has already been included this year in the addition. He stated that it is a very rigorous program just to get someone licensed, and it takes two or three days of training. Mr. Perkins asked when the training is done. Mr. Reaser answered that it is done all year. He does not believe every driver position has ever been filled, because it is a continual rotation. There were no further comments or questions on the CIP work session. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board At this time, Mr. Perkins nominated Albert Humbertson, Jr., to the Equalization Board for 1996 as the White Hall appointee. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Ms. Thomas announced that the first presentation of the ~Build-out Analysis" will be presented tomorrow night at the Planning District Commission meeting. She explained that "build-out" means how many people can be sup- ported on land with current zoning and planning, including steep slope provisions, etc., both in the growth areas and rural areas. The report involves a lot of information because it includes all of the counties and not just Albemarle. She said it is a very interesting project and it may be presented to this Board at a later time. Mr. Marshall asked to revisit the issue relating to the deputy position for the Town of Scottsville. The vote was a three to three tie, and at that particular time he was asked some questions, but he couldn't speak for the Town Council. He has asked Mayor Thacker to come today, and he can speak for the Town Council. Mr. Marshall added that Mr. Tucker has some scenarios he can give to this Board as options. He then recalled that he was asked, when the vote was taken, if the Town would accept an alternative other than a full deputy's position. Ms. Humphris reminded everyone that there were only a few minutes before the noon executive session with the School Board. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the Supervisors listen to Mayor Thacker's comments now, and then they could discuss the matter after meeting with the School Board. Ms. Humphris informed Mayor Thacker that the Board members would hear his remarks, but they would probably have to defer Board discussion and action until later. Mayor Thacker reminded Board members that two deputy positions had come from the State Compensation Board, and one was made available to the County, and one was for the Town of Scottsville. This position does not cost the County anything, because the Town of Scottsville is paying all of the ex- penses, except for the amount the Compensation Board is paying for this one officer. He thinks Scottsville is entitled to this position because it is a fairly large community. He noted that Scottsville did not have adequate police protection previously, but the deputy's position gives this protection. He emphasized that since it does not cost the County anything, he feels the position should be continued. He does not know how any other arrangement with the County police could be worked out to provide someone there, because it has not been explained to him. April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) 000340 Mr. Marshall stated that one option was for the County to pay half, and the Town of Scottsville to pay the other half of the present cost of the deputy. He would like to ask for the deputy's position in Scottsville for another year. He pointed out that the Compensation Board meant for this position to be for a court officer, and not for law enforcement. He noted, though, that this position would not be there if the Sheriff and Scottsville representatives had not gone to the Compensation Board with such a request. Mayor Thacker said he believes there may be a misunderstanding about this situation. He was informed by someone from the State Compensation Board that the position could be used for the Town of Scottsville, but now there is some concern as to why it won't be continued. He reiterated that since it is not costing the County anything, he does not see why it can't be continued for another year. He added that one of the reasons he is asking for this position is because there was a fire in the Municipal Building in Scottsville which has cost a tremendous amount of money. The building was put back together, and insurance has been bought for it. However, representatives of ADA informed him no further meetings could be held upstairs unless an elevator was in- stalled. The Town was forced to go to the expense of $6,500 to put in an elevator so the Council can meet upstairs. This has put the Council in a terrific financial bind, and there is not enough money budgeted to be able to carry over this position. He added that he had hoped to be able to continue the deputy's position for another year until the Town can recuperate from the expense of the fire and elevator. Mr. Marshall inquired if Mayor Thacker should not be present later for the discussion on this issue, since he (Mr. Marshall) cannot speak for the Town Council. Mr. Tucker stated that perhaps Mayor Thacker could stay until after the School Board meeting. Mayor Thacker responded that he would make himself available. Next, Ms. Humphris mentioned an editorial in the Charlottesville Business Journal for March relating to a panacea to pay for the rising costs of education. The proposal was for a sliding real estate rate based on the length of time people were in their homes. She asked Mr. Tucker to let the people who wrote the editorial know that under State Law this is not possible, although it seems like a good idea. Mr. Bowerman stated that there is a lot of confusion about these types of things. He said people make suggestions every year. Ms. Humphris commented that she wishes people would ask about these things before they suggest them. She said it is as if they assume nobody ever thought of such an idea. However, she stated that everybody has thought of every idea, but these ideas are being examined in Richmond, and many of them have not been acted on there. She went on to say that the latest issue of the Blue Ridge Homebuilders' publication had a nice commentary by Bob Watson about complaints by several citizens that the general public has been excluded from the planning of Albemarle County's future. She stated that Mr. Watson wrote something to the contrary and explained all of the many comprehensive ways this County has attempted to draw the public into the comprehensive planning process. She said Mr. Watson indicates the basic problem is not that citizens are excluded from the process of shaping the County's future, but apathy appears to dominate those who feel excluded. She remarked that Mr. Watson concludes his article by asking people to encourage their friends and neigh- bors to attend meetings, be informed and affect public policy. Ms. Thomas stated that Bob Watson has attended almost all of the public meetings. Ms. Humphris concurred. This Board owes Mr. Watson a debt of gratitude for acknowledging this article, and she then suggested that Mr. Tucker write Mr. Watson a letter of appreciation. She stated that she cannot imagine anything more this Board could do to publicize all of the planning it does for the future. Ms. Humphris then mentioned a copy of a letter in the Supervisors' packets about a fuel oil spill into a tributary of Ivy Creek directly off of Barracks Road. The response was very interesting. She added that she noticed the fire trucks as being the first responders there because she had to get off the road for them. The firemen tried to put up containment booms, but they failed, and other measures had to be taken at a later date. This is one more example of how these types of things happen. She noted that there is a creek April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) 00084 . located in the vicinity of Sugar Day Farm which is a direct tributary into Ivy Creek, and this goes directly into the reservoir. Next, Ms. Humphris called attention to a couple of letters in the Board members' packets about the Routes 231/22 situation. She has been invited to attend a meeting with some of the residents along these roads, as well as Delegate Way and Senator Couric. She stated that a tentative date has been scheduled for April 15, 1996. She added that if there is interesting discus- sion at this meeting, she will bring it back to this Board. Mr. Tucker asked if this meeting will have VDoT representation. Ms. Humphris answered affirmatively. Ms. Humphris then mentioned that the preliminary site plan review for the Monticello High School will be on April 11, 1996. She said if anybody is really interested in such things as the location of the stadium or problems relating to the swimming pool, etc., it is a good time to get informed and hear the questions raised by all of the various departments and entities which have to give their input at this time. There is nothing better than getting in on the beginning of these discussions. Agenda Item No. 15. 12:00 Noon - Executive Session: Legal Matters (Joint with School Board in Room 246). At 12:00 noon, Mr. Bowerman made a motion that the Board go into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Executive Session. At 1:43 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Ms. Thomas, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. At this time, Mr. Tucker said he would describe the present situation with the deputy's position at Scottsville. He noted that, based on the Board's work sessions, the position is being transferred from a Scottsville deputy's position to the Juvenile Court. He explained the first scenario indicating that if no vehicle is provided to the deputy and one of the current vans is used, there will be no additional costs to the County for this transfer. However, the second option provides for a vehicle which would cost the County nearly $14,000. Ms. Thomas asked if the $14,000 was half of the costs. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. He noted that this is approximately half of the costs, because any time there is a new deputy in the Juvenile Court for security purposes, the costs are shared with the City, since the Juvenile Court is a joint operation. Mr. Tucker's third scenario would leave the deputy position in Scottsville, as well as a full-time equivalent bailiff's position funded for April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) 0003.&2., Juvenile Court, with a vehicle provided. He pointed out that the net cost of this option, assuming the City would share in the Juvenile Court cost, would be $38,800. Mr. Martin pointed out that a scenario missing from Mr. Tucker's options would be to leave the deputy in Scottsville and not fund anything else. Mr. Tucker agreed. He then described Option Four which would be to transfer the Scottsville deputy to Juvenile Court and fund only half of a full-time deputy's position in Scottsville. This would cost slightly over $27,000. He added that the County's cost for the bailiff would be $13,800 and the Town of Scottsville's costs, if a full-time deputy is desired, would be $13,265. Mr. Marshall wondered if this is a true picture of the situation, because the deputy may not be qualified for the Juvenile Court's position unless he has some additional training. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Martin explained that the deputy used to work in Juvenile Court. The final option described by Mr. Tucker is to transfer a full-time Scottsville deputy to the Juvenile Court and allow the Town to contract with the County Police Department. The amount of money involved could be anything agreeable to the Scottsville Town Council. He explained that the amount of money shown for this position is half of a full-time equivalent at $23.00 an hour, making a total cost of $23,920. He said if the County shares in the contractual cost, then the Town of Scottsville and Albemarle County would pay $11,960 each. These are ways of transitioning from providing funding for the services within the Town. He said Item Five also comes with the caveat which assumes the vehicle the Town actually bought for the deputy would go with the individual going to Juvenile Court. He explained that the Town of Scottsville bought the vehicle for the deputy the County is funding there now. Ms. Thomas asked for an explanation of the location of the vehicle. Mr. Tucker answered that the vehicle would stay with the deputy who would be shifted to Juvenile Court, although the Town paid for the vehicle. He said, though, if the County officials agree to pay half of the contractual services then it seems fair for the Town to turn the vehicle over to the deputy who is shifting to the Juvenile Court. He noted that the Town would have no use or need for the vehicle if police services are provided by the County. Ms. Thomas said this scenario appears to have the County providing a police car, and the Town would be turning over a deputy's car. Mr. Tucker concurred. This is a portion of the $23.00 per hour funding. Ms. Thomas noted that in this scenario, the Town of Scottsville would be paying for half of the police car. Mr. Tucker agreed. He reiterated that the $23.00 not only pays for salary, but it pays for all of the capital equipment. He added that it is all built into the operational costs of a police officer when the position is contracted. He explained that this is how positions are con- tracted for police officers who work overtime in places such as Penney's, etc. Mr. Marshall remarked that this option does not seem to be a deal for Scottsville. Mr. Tucker stated that it is a deal for the Town because it only has to pay $11, 960 for police protection. Mr. Marshall asked what will be done a year from now when the County has the vehicle, and Scottsville does not have it. Mr. Tucker responded that the Town could continue its contractual arrangement, if it so desires. Ms. Humphris stated that if Mr. Tucker is finished talking about the alternatives, she would like to go back to one of the basic premises the Mayor brought to this Board. She said he has noted that there is not adequate police protection in that vicinity. She asked if this is a fact. Mr. Tucker answered that a situation such as this one is always up for speculation as to what is considered adequate. This is why the contractual arrangement is being considered. The Town officials can determine an amount they think would be adequate by the amount of hours they contract. He added that he would rather the Chief of Police answer this question as to what is in his opinion adequate or not adequate. He commented that the Mayor certainly understands the Town's needs, and in his opinion, the police protection is not adequate. Mr. Tucker asked, though, on what is this opinion based. Ms. Humphris inquired about other similar areas in the County, such as Batesville and Crozet, etc. Mr. Tucker stated that the County provides the best police protection it can for all of the communities existing throughout the County. He said if adequate means providing the level of service the County is always striving to meet, which is one and one-half police officers 000343 April 3, 1996 (Regular'Day Meeting) (Page 41) .~ for every 1,000 people, then the County still has not reached this point. He added that if this is the measurement, then there is inadequate police protection throughout the County. Ms. Humphris wondered how one area in the County can be singled out for additional service above the level of service provided to other areas. Mr. Tucker said this is the dilemma when other communities are considered. He stated that even though these communities may not be incorpOrated, these citizens may feel they would like to have additional police service, too. Mr. Marshall remarked that to avoid such a situation, he would like to suggest Option Three. This scenario will give the Town the opportunity during this next year to plan for this expense a year from now, and it gets the County out of other obligations in other areas in the County. He stated that if the County will fund the $38,800 for the bailiff's position, as well as the deputy position for the Town of Scottsville, then the Town would be prepared to take the deputy position over next year. Mr. Martin suggested leaving the deputy's position in Scottsville and not funding the second portion of this scenario. Mr. Marshall indicated that he did not understand Mr. Martin's suggestion. Mr. Tucker explained that Mr. Martin is suggesting not funding the bailiff's position for Juvenile Court. Mr. Martin said this position is not currently provided. Mr. Tucker clarified that Mr. Martin is suggesting that the Juvenile Court go another year without this additional security. Ms. Thomas stated that at an earlier discussion, Mr. Tucker felt a bit of a conflict of interest. However, she feels Mr. Tucker is the most knowledgeable person about this situation, so she does not think there is a conflict as much as there is a need for her to know about the matter. She has been impressed with how much the additional assistance is needed as far as moving increasingly violent children back and forth to Staunton, and she thought there was a desperate need for another deputy. Mr. Tucker stated that during work sessions the Sheriff was asked which position did he think was needed the most, in his opinion. The Sheriff indicated that if both could not be done, then he would have to choose a bailiff's position in the court system over a deputy for the Town of Scottsville. Ms. Thomas reiterated that she has been impressed with the danger in which the deputies are sometimes placed. Mr. Marshall emphasized that the funding of $38,800 would take care of both problems. Ms. Humphris called attention to the fact that the Town of Scottsville will not be able to fund the deputy position when the June 30 deadline arrives, and she wondered what plan is in place to raise and continue to have this amount of money every year after that. Mr. Thacker answered that the budget is currently being worked on, and it will be ready by the April meeting of the Town Council. He said adoption of the budget will be in May, and funds are being provided in this budget to pay for an extra policeman. Ms. Humphris asked when this funding will begin. Mr. Thacker replied that the funds will be available beginning on June 30, 1997. Mr. Martin stated that this Board is in the midst of talking about the budget, so the discussion centers around money. He said whether or not the Supervisors are talking about $38,800 or zero if another bailiff is not funded, it doesn't seem to him to be an issue of money. He added that it seems more an issue of principle and commitment and standing by what was said. He added that Scottsville officials are probably thinking that if they had not gone after these positions, the County would probably not have done so. The County would be one position short from where it is now, as far as Compensa- tion Board funding is concerned, and Scottsville wouldn't have its deputy. He pointed out that the County actually benefitted by two deputies because Scottsville officials and Terry Hawkins went after these positions. This is why Scottsville officials are thinking that they should be able to keep the deputy's position. He added that the Board of Supervisors and the County administration are looking at the agreement stating this position would be only for one year. He has no problem personally if Scottsville keeps the April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~4 (Page 42) deputy position another year while putting some things in place so it will last longer. He noted that the same thing happened with the Virginia Discov- ery Museum where there was an agreement that the funding would stop at a certain time. The Supervisors then backed off from the deadline because the Discovery Museum had come to count on the funding, so the Board of Supervisors gave them another year. He has a soft spot for Scottsville, and he would give Mayor Thacker anything he asked for, if it was possible. He stated that he cannot understand why things can't be left as they are at least for another year. This will cost the County nothing, but if a bailiff is funded in Juvenile Court, it will cost $38,800. Ms. Thomas disagreed. The deputy's position is costing something for the County in that it is causing a dangerous situation in Juvenile Court. She stated that everyone recognizes this is a dangerous situation, so even if there is no funding, she does not think the Mayor should say this doesn't cost the County anything. She noted that Scottsville officials are not seeing this as a cost, but the Supervisors have to consider all of Albemarle County, and it is a cost. She went on to say the reason the County got this position for the Juvenile Court is because the Compensation Board sees this as an obvious need. She stated that she does not know if Terry Hawkins asked the Compensation Board for this position before, or perhaps the need was accumu- lating. However, the year the contact was made the need must have been obvious to the Compensation members, and they gave the County this position, and indicated it could be used in Scottsville. She does not want the state- ment to stand that if the deputy's position is left as it is in S¢ottsville, it will not cost the County anything. She reiterated that this is not true. She said maybe everyone will agree that this is a cost the Board is willing to pay to help out the Town, but she does not want this decision to be made, with the feeling that it won't cost the County anything. Mr. Marshall said he does not think anybody is saying that. He ex- plained that he thinks they are saying it is not costing the County any money because Scottsville representatives went with the Sheriff to the Compensation Board and got the extra position for the County. He said if the issue is considered in this light, it did not cost the County any extra money, because the Board of Supervisors did not put out any effort for this position. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that Sheriff Hawkins threatened to sue the Compensation Board if he didn't get the number of positions required by the County's population. The Compensation Board members said they would give him the positions the population required because they didn't want litigation. He pointed out that the Compensation Board members did not give the County the position for Scottsville, but they understood what County officials were going to do with it. He emphasized that Sheriff Hawkins was able to get the extra deputy's position because of the County's population and the threat of litigation. He said if there had been litigation, Sheriff Hawkins would have won. Mr. Marshall stated that he does not disagree, but none of this would have happened if the Scottsville representatives and Sheriff Hawkins had not taken the initiative to go to the Compensation Board. Mr. Martin remarked that he thinks this is a principle point. Ms. Thomas agreed with Mr. Bowerman that Scottsville was given the deputy on the basis to which he referred, and an agreement was signed saying the position would end in July, 1996. She can understand a community having unusual expenses that were not expected, as well as requesting a one year extension of the position. However, it bothers her to hear the people of Scottsville saying they are entitled to this position, or that this Board is reneging on the agreement, when in fact it is not happening. The Town officials should recognize they signed an agreement stating that the position would end in July, 1996. She added that this does not mean the Supervisors are saying they will never give Scottsville a deputy because an agreement was signed. She then mentioned the phone calls she has received, as well as the obvious feelings by the people in Scottsville. They don't recognize that taxes are going to have to be raised, and their expenses are going to have to be met. She remarked that making the Supervisors appear to be in the wrong is not representing the situation accurately. The Mayor has said approximately the same thing, but he has said it in a nicer way, but there seems to be quite an erroneous feeling emphasized in Scottsville. Mr. Martin stated that this is why he has tried to get the debate away from this feeling and more to a situation of principle. He added that some of 000345 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 43) the Supervisors did not vote for the Town of Scottsville to increase its boundaries and assume a lot of responsibility. He recalled a lot of conversa- tion at the time about the sc°ttsville citizens taking responsibility for themselves and making tOugh decisions. They were asked if they were ready for all of this, and the Scottsville citizens and Mayor Thacker indicated they were ready. He stated that then it appeared they were not quite ready because they needed help With a deputy's position. He added that in requesting this position from the Compensation Board, they were able to help the County with a bailiff's position. They are still trying to accept their responsibilities, but they have had a situation which has cost them a lot more than expected. He emphasized that he does not think it would hurt the County fOr this BOard to extend the agreement for one more year. However, the Scottsville officials and citizens should realize that this Board is not in the business of continu- ing to subsidize the Town of Scottsville in this way. He then made a motion to leave the deputy's position in Scottsville for one more year. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he wants to have the bailiff's position for the Juvenile Court. Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Bowerman if he would support a motion to approve Mr. Tucker's third scenario in the amount of $38,800. Ms. Humphris reminded the Supervisors that a motion is already on the floor. Mr. Martin said he would amend his motion to approve the deputy's position in the Town of Scottsville for one more year, and to include in the proposed budget $38,800 for a full-time bailiff in the Juvenile Court, subject to the City's concurrence. Mr. Marshall seconded the amended motion. Ms. Humphris asked if there were any more comments from Board members, and she emphasized the $38,800 cost of this appropriation to Albemarle County taxpayers. Mr. Bowerman stated that he wo~ld support the motion for one more year for reasons which probably relate more to expediency than principle. Ms. Humphris remarked that she will not support the motion for the reasons she has already mentioned. She said her continuing position is that this Board needs to stick by its agreements unless there are extremely extenuating circumstances, and she does not think this is one. She does not know that there is not adequate police protection in Scottsville, and she does 'not believe one area in the County is entitled to additional police protection any more than any other part of the County. She also pointed out that this is a siHnificant additional cost to the taxpayers. Mr. Davis noted that the current tripartite service agreement provides that funding shall be provided entirely by sources other than the County, and salary of the deputy shall be paid solely by the Town or the State Compensa- tion Board. He mentioned the amendment to the agreement last year which indicated that the deputy's position would be funded until July, 1996. He explained that in order to implement the motion if it is approved, there would need to be an amendment to this tripartite agreement. He said as of July 1, 1996 this agreement would not allow the County to fund the position this Board is about to approve. Mr. Tucker inquired if the Board needs to take a separate action on the amendment. Mr. Davis responded that he would have to draft an amendment and bring it back for this Board's approval. He noted, too, that he would need direction from the Supervisors as to how long they wish to continue to have an agreement for such funding. Mr. Martin said his motion is for one year only. Ms. Thomas asked if it is certain the City will pay 50 percent of the Juvenile Court position. Mr. Tucker answered that this is not yet known. He said, though, he will find out soon. Mr. Martin stated that two people versus one, as well as a vehicle, are being considered, but he does not think there has to be a car included with each deputy's position. April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 0003't6 (Page 44) Ms. Humphris wondered what is the net cost if the City does not partici- pate. Mr. Bowerman stated that the County will not fund the bailiff's position. Mr. Tucker answered that the County could fully fund this position, but he doesn't think it should be done. The staff will consider other possibilities, though, if the City does not participate in the costs. He added that he will continue working on this matter, and he will have to discuss it with the City. Ms. Thomas stated that this agreement is only for one year, no matter what happens. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: Ms. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 17. Recess. At 2:23 p.m., there being no further business at this time, the Board recessed. Agenda Item No. 18. Reconvene - 7:00 P.M. - Room 241. At 7:00 p.m., Ms. Humphris called the Board back to order. Agenda Item No. 19. Public Hearing: 1996-97 County Budget. tised in the Daily Progress on March 24, 1996.) (Adver- Mr. Tucker pointed out that Albemarle County's total revenues amount to $118,381,568. He then described the sections of the pie chart by noting that local property taxes account for 48.8 percent; other local taxes account for nearly 20 percent; State funds are slightly over 23 percent; Federal funds are only 2.2 percent; and self-sustaining funds are at 5.4 percent. He stated that during work sessions there were additional funds the Supervisors were able to utilize and discuss for other programs they wished to fund which amounted to .8 percent or $992,000. He went on to say that school operations account for over 62 percent of the County's expenditures, and combined with the school debt, amounts to approximately 68 percent of the total budget. The Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City of Charlottesville amounts to 4.4 percent or $5,200,000 of the budget; capital programming accounts for 2.8 percent of the budget, and general government operations are just under 25 percent. He commented that the initial Board's Reserve Fund started out with $1,700,000, but the schools were provided with over 52 percent of this amount which accounts for $930,000. He remarked that a Jail Reserve for future Debt Service and expansion of the jail has been provided at 11.3 percent or $200,000. He mentioned that the Board's Reserve Fund is approximately $150,000 and local government accounts for approximately 28 percent of the budget which is dispersed primarily among public safety and human service agencies. As far as the School Board's recommended budget is concerned, Mr. Tucker indicated that the fund request was slightly more than $67,000,000. However, the school fund that was based on the initial allocation provided to the School System was $65,200,000 which left a shortfall of $1,900,000. He stated that in attempting to fund the $1,900,000 shortfall, the Board of Supervisors' reserve accounted for almost $930,000 of the additional funding request, as well as a little more than $500,000 from the Fund Balance, which is a one time or nonrecurring fund. He explained that this was to fund the curriculum and textbook initiatives the School Board had identified as a very high priority. Finally, there were some additional State revenues which became available after the General Assembly session which accounted for almost $453,000 to make up the total $1,900,000 shortfall for the schools. He then discussed some of the initiatives and the way they impact the communities. He noted that the school division is able to maintain its class sizes and the special education ratio. The proposed budget provides for 23.3 new teachers; 10.5 new classified positions; mandated curriculum revisions through the nonrecurring funds; as well as the language arts textbooks; and some of the decrease of funding from the Federal Government. 000347 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 45) He stated that General Government has been able to provide an additional bailiff for support in Juvenile Court; six new police officers; as well as a provision for three County firefighters, but negotiations are still underway with the Jefferson Country Firefighters Association which may utilize those - firefighters. He said General Government also provided some welfare reform initiatives; a school/family prevention program; funding for the Region 10 facility; as well as an adult health care facility for the Jefferson Area Board for Aging; and there is an additional school site provided in the budget for the Bright Stars four year old program. As far as long term needs and goals are concerned, the County will provide more local revenue for the capital program at $500,000; additional funds in the Debt Service Reserve of approximately $200,000; and the Jail Expansion Reserve of $200,000. He then compared Albemarle County to other localities throughout the State with a capital expenditure chart. He explained that the chart is broken down by different categories such a administration, judicial, public safety, public works, human development, education, parks and recreation, community development and miscellaneous. He pointed out that Albemarle County is below the average in the State in all of these expenditures with the exception of miscellaneous. This is completely due to the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City because Albemarle County is the only community which has a revenue sharing agreement with another locality. He also gave Albemarle County's staffing history over the last 12 years since 1985. He noted that in 1985 there were 4.25 employees per 1,000 people, and over the 12 year period the total employees has only increased by 1.2 employee per 1,000. He stated that education and police have been the Board's major priorities for the last several years, so these two programs have been funded fairly heavily. When the Police Department is removed from Local Government in the staffing ratio, staffing has only increased by .4 of an employee per 1,000 over the last 12 years. He noted that real estate property tax rates since 1988 have been level at 72 cents, and personal property tax rates since 1985 have been level at $4.28 per hundred dollar valuation. Mr. Tucker next called attention to the table which compares Albemarle County's tax rate to other localities throughout the State. He mentioned that Albemarle County's tax rate is 72 cents, but he reminded the group that Albemarle County actually operates its entire program on a 62 cents tax rate, because with the Revenue Sharing Agreement, the top ten cents on the County's tax rate goes automatically to the City of Charlottesville. The top 20 counties by population average an 85 cents tax rate, so Albemarle County compares very favorably in this category. The average tax rate for all Virginia counties is at 69 cents, and when the County is compared to all Virginia cities at $1.03, Albemarle County compares very favorably. He said County officials are watching the tax dollars and are trying to live within their means with regard to the economic base this County has. He would be glad to answer any questions from this Board. Mr. Marshall wondered how much the assessed value has increased over Albemarle County's last three assessments. He said it looks good at 72 cents, but the County has had a considerable increase in taxes. Mr. Tucker noted that the County is currently going through a reassess- ment, but two years ago the average increase was apprOximately eight to ten percent. Two years prior to that the increase was fairly significant and much higher. However, this year it should be flatter than two years ago. He commented that this can be attributed to the real estate market with proper- ties leveling off in terms of value. He referred to the rapid drop and decline in northern Virginia which was due to a lot of different things but primarily it was due to an over building of office space. He said Albemarle County has had a fairly balanced growth rate and has been able to meet the needs of its growth and demands. He said several years ago, though, Albemarle County had a fairly significant increase in assessments, but it is currently leveling off. Since there were no further questions for Mr. Tucker, Ms. Humphris began the public hearing on the 1996-97 Albemarle County budget. Mr. Sam Kaplan stated that when parents of the County have expressed concern about the operating budget of the schools this year, Dr. Castner, the Superintendent, on every occasion reminded the people about the Board of Supervisors in terms of the Capital Improvements budget. He said Dr. Castner has pointed out that in addition to the new high school which has gotten a lot of publicity, a computer infrastructure is being put into place, as well as April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 46) .~ 000348 upgrading old facilities and doing a lot of things that sometimes get lost in the shuffle of more controversial issues. Bearing this in mind, Mr. Kaplan announced that he wanted to take the time to applaud the effOrts of this Board in providing for the capital improvements. However, he stated that capital improvements require support, and if a computer infrastructure is put into place, people are needed to keep it up and running. He said people are needed to train the teachers how to use it efficiently and effectively, and these things will cost money. He added that if there is one thing he has learned living in Albemarle County, it is that people who sit on the Board of Supervi- sors or who appear before the Board of Supervisors don't like surprises, especially financial and budgetary surprises. He stated that it seems to him it should be possible to look into the future beyond the legal requirements of the budgetary process and do some planning about Albemarle County and the more than 60 percent of its budget which goes to the schools. He commented that the planning can be done in terms of the way people would like for the County to be, whether the resources will be available to get there and whether there is likely to be a difference. There is enough experience here to know what the past has been in terms of the tax rate, and what is likely to happen in the real estate market over time, as well as what projections of school population there will be and increases due to decisions on zoning, etc., that this Board makes. He remarked that there seems to be little reason why the staff, Board of Supervisors, School Board and public safety can't come together with a little bit looser document. He said foresight is never as good as present sight or hindsight, but the people of Albemarle County need to be given an idea of what the requirements are going to be and whether those requirements are likely to engender an increase in tax rates or not. He stated that no one will expect 100 percent foresight, but it seems that the stake for this County, which is a large and important one, and the stake for the children and their future, are too high to expect Mr. Tucker to work some sort of magic every spring so the needs can be met. He suggested that the Supervisors take a serious look at what can be done to prevent surprises and to give the public an idea of their vision of Albemarle County, not just in this biennium, but in the next two, three and five years. Ms. Deborah L. Miller, Chairperson of the Albemarle County Special Education Advisory Committee, stated that this is the second consecutive year she has held this position. She remarked that she is also the parent of four children -- two are graduates of the Albemarle County School System, one currently attends Walton Middle School, and one attends Red Hill Elementary School. She stated that she is here on behalf of the Committee and the County students who receive some level of special education services, as well as their parents. She expressed the Committee's appreciation for the Board of Supervisors' support for public education by approving the maintenance budget request from the School Board. She then mentioned some of the things this level of funding will enable the schools to accomplish. First, she mentioned that the staffing ratios in Grades Four through Twelve will not increase, and secondly, the regular school staffing allocation formula for special education students will remain the same. She said maintaining the current staffing level and the regular school staffing allocation formula for special education students will enable Albemarle County's school system to continue providing a full continuum of services to the special education student population in the least restrictive environment. She added that this is one of the greatest strengths to the Albemarle County school system. She noted that this philosophy has enabled her son, Michael, to be educated in his neighborhood school the past three years. She said he has had the opportunity to spend the major portion of his instructional day in the regular classroom with his age appropriate peers. This has provided him with language models and social interactions which were lacking when his placement was in a self contained classroom. Ms. Miller's third point related to the fact that four additional special education teaching positions will be in the budget to address the projected growth and the number of special education students. Fourth, she said an additional pre- school teaching position is also included in the 1996-97 school budget. She mentioned that during the summer of 1995, an influx of transfers into the County created over crowdedness in the preschool program, and to accommodate this increase, it was necessary to get a one year waiver from the State to increase the maximum allowable class size. She noted that this preschool position is essential to ensure that additional children who are eligible for the preschool program can be adequately served in the upcoming school year. Fifth, she referred to the approval of the School Board's proposed budget request which will provide funds for an adaptive physical education initia- tive. She pointed out that over the past four years, the County has partici- April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000249 (Page 47) pated with the University of Virginia's Adaptive Physical Education Department in a grant which has provided early intervention in services to students with severe disabilities. These services have been provided to preschool and elementary level students in the County. She stated that approving the School Board's funding request enabled this important collaborative effort with the University to continue. On behalf of the Special Education Advisory Committee, she commended the County Board of Supervisors for rising to the financial challenge presented to them this year. She said approving the School Board's request for additional funds will ensure that none of the educational accomplishments achieved in the past will be averted. She remarked that the overall hoPe of the Committee is that all students in Albemarle County can continue receiving a quality education. Mr. Mark Echelberger referred to the County Executive's overview dated February 25, 1996 which accompanied his proposed fiscal plan for FY 1997, where Mr. Tucker states, '~The future of local government and how we will be negatively impacted by the Federal devolution is clear. The Federal Govern- ment will continue to push service and program demands to the State level, who in turn push those responsibilities down for local governments to address. These issues coupled with growth demand issues provide significant challenges for us to fiscally manage our resources as efficiently and effectively as possible." Mr. Echelberger stated that since the future of this local government is clear, it should also be clear that even to maintain services within the correct fiscal framework is not possible. The Albemarle County School Board needs to identify and secure an additional $221,000 in funds in order to maintain the current level of transportation services to students. He added that the County schools are facing a dilemma which goes way beyond the $221,000. He said because of the cost of fiscal restraints which have been placed on the school division for the past several years, the school division has been able to provide a level maintenance of services only at the potential cost of jeopardizing the future of its transportation services. He mentioned that several years ago in an effort to postpone the inevitable costs of replacing school buses, the life of school buses in the County fleet was extended from ten to 12 years. He noted that for the next fiscal year, the School Division proposed changes in the start and dismissal times of the schools in an effort to further delay the impact of the aging bus fleet. He also recalled that this proposal met significant opposition from the parents of Albemarle County's school children, because they did not believe such a change would foster the quality of education needed to provide the children. He emphasized that the School Division is faced with significant fiscal challenges ranging from increased technology costs to alignment with changes to the State's Standards of Learning which must be funded. He can understand the desire to minimize the dollars spent on transportation instead of instruction. However, if the children cannot be delivered to the schools at a time in a manner which is conducive to learning, the money may be wasted in the long run. He is sure other areas of County government face similar challenges, but continually deferring the transportation issue will not make it go away, and the problem will only be harder to solve once the point has been reached where it can be delayed no longer. He mentioned that in two or three years the issue will have to be faced of retiring 22 buses from the County fleet, and several years after that 34 buses will be retiring. He remarked that if this community does not address this issue soon, then there will be a situation where services will have to be cut across the Board to fund a large number of buses in one year, despite knowing about the problem for years. He then asked the Supervisors to appropriate the $221,000 needed by the School Board to maintain the current level of transportation services offered to the students of Albemarle County Schools, perhaps as a one time charge to the Fund Balance. He noted that he is also asking the Supervisors to initiate a discussion of how the County is going to pay for the inevitable replacement of the bus fleet. The problem can only be pushed so far into the future, and the tough choice will have to be made starting next year to reserve an adequate amount to enable the School Division to replace buses when the replacement dates come. He stated that if adequate sources of revenue are not available to do so, or to at least maintain the current level of services offered to the citizens of Albemarle County, then additional sources of revenue need to be identified for this and other demands caused by the push of service and program demands down to the local level. He thanked the Board for April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 48) OO0350 allowing him time to express his views on this important topic. He looked forward to this Board's thoughtful consideration of this matter. Mr. Don Vale, Tri-Chair of the Albemarle County Principals Association, spoke on behalf of the principals and assistant and associate principals of the 23 public schools in the County. He recognized Dr. Castner and his immediate staff for their intuition, creativity and sensitivity in initially developing a balanced budget proposal out of an impossible scenario. He noted that this scenario included a decrease in State and Federal funding combined with an increase in the composite index. He added that with the input and involvement from the principals and leadership team the four restructuring strategies developed represented careful thought, study and some very diffi- cult decisions. He said in Dr. Castner's own words, the balanced budget represented a decrease in effort for the school system, a necessary but unacceptable position for the children in Albemarle County. Mr. Vale also recognized Ms. Karen Powell, Chair of the Albemarle County School Board, as well as all of the other Board members for their diligence, efforts and time spent in studying the proposed school budget. He added that it will suffice to say they all came to the same conclusion which is that the school system must at least maintain its current effort. Thus, he stated that an unbalanced school budget was forwarded to Mr. Tucker. The County is truly fortunate to have such a leader, with his outstanding skills and knowledge, in the position of County Executive. He added that Mr. Tucker was able to find a way to recognize and meet the needs of the school system and at the same time balance the many other needs of the County Government. Mr. Vale said he, personally, is obviously biased and passionate about his belief that education of the children is the single, most important task in this community. He mentioned that his son began kindergarten in one of the elementary schools this past fall, and he wondered if, 13 years from now as a high school graduate, he will have the skills necessary to be a self directed learner who can make a positive contribution to this community. He asked if the resources will be available for him to maximize his potential. He has great pride in the school system which has achieved many successes and performed well with very high standards. He mentioned that Assistant Superintendent Diane Ippolito recently noted some of these achievements at a School Board meeting, and he highlighted some of them as follows: 375 children received Title I services as the County's most at risk population this past year, and 92 percent of these first and second graders made significant gains in reading and writing as measured by the Ginn and Metropolitan Achievement Tests. He stated that each year for the past eight years, the achievement for students in Grades Four and Eight have been significantly above the State and National average in reading, language arts, math, science and social studies as measured by the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. He announced that the National dropout rate is 20 percent, but in Albemarle County it is less than one percent. He added that all regular education eleventh and twelfth graders have passed the State Literacy Passport Test in reading, writing and mathematics. He said 73 percent of the County's seniors took the SAT with an average score of 954. By comparison, 41 percent nationally took the test with an average score of 910. He stated that for the past several years the Albemarle County School System has experienced signifi- cant growth without the commensurate growth in funding. He said belts have been tightened, responsibilities in effort have increased and workdays have voluntarily gotten longer for staff. He said no longer can the school system continue to improve without the financial support to at least maintain its efforts. He commented that under Dr. Castner's leadership, the school system has embarked on a mission to answer the two most fundamental questions existing for educators in this community. First, school representatives are well on the way to completing curriculum revision and implementation or answering the question, "What should we be teaching the children of Albemarle County." Secondly, he said the school system has just embarked on the idea of answering the question of assessment which is, "How do we know if we taught the curriculum and if the children understand it." He noted that this ongoing work requires resources above and beyond the basic operational costs and to maintain the school system's current efforts. He said difficulties associated with matching needs and available resources are not a problem unique to Albemarle County Schools. He stated that it is recognized there are many demands for available resources throughout the County. He added that the growth of the County and the subsequent needs result- ing from such rapid growth is a question the Board of Supervisors must continue to recognize and work to develop strategies to address these many April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 49) needs. He concluded his remarks by announcing that the Principals Association would like to strongly recommend that the Supervisors support the School Board budget as proposed by Mr. Tucker. He asked the Board of Supervisors to, as a minimum, allow the school system to retain its current level of services and experiences for all children. The primary mission of the Albemarle County School System is to provide and promote a dynamic environment for learning, and he does not believe this mission can be honored with a budget that represents reduced effort. He then mentioned an ancient Chinese proverb written about the unique relationship existing between student and teacher which articulates his belief about the importance of striving to provide the best education possible for all of the County's students, and he quoted from this proverb: ~Tell me, I forget. Show me. I remember. Involve me. I understand." He asked the Supervisors to continue to commit themselves to providing the excellence in the County school system so the staff can achieve the goal of involving all students to the point of understanding that their education is a doorway to the future. Ms. Betty Hopson, spoke as Co-President of Henley Middle School's Parent Teacher Organization, and she encouraged the Board of Supervisors to support the budget for FY 1996-97 which represents maintenance of the current effort for Albemarle County Schools. She said her organization is truly grateful that Mr. Tucker found a way of recognizing and meeting the most pressing needs of the school system while at the same time addressing the many other needs of County government. The school budget is a '~no frills budget," and the unfunded priorities cannot even be considered. The School Board has had to go back to a "bare bones" budget in order to avoid hardship to families caused by changes in starting and dismissal times. She noted that the County has only partially addressed issues of growth and inflation in recent years. She pointed out that notwithstanding temporary assistance from the General Assembly for this year only, Albemarle County is caught in an ever tightening squeeze between growth and inflation on the one hand and decreases in antici- pated federal funding on the other. These are not issues that will go away, and they will be around for years to come. She stated that her organization feels strongly that the way to confront these problems is for local government to meet the challenge of finding the funds to support growth and inflation and the needs of County schools. She added that these problems should concern all citizens of Albemarle County whether or not they have family members in the schools. She mentioned that one of the measures of a community is the strength of its school system. She said everyone Who wants Albemarle County to grow and prosper should be concerned about how well the children are educated. She stated that decreasing services to avoid consequences of growth, inflation and shrinking governmental support can only lead to a decline in the quality of life in Albemarle County. She added that she trusts and hopes the Supervisors will find a way to see that the funds are found to ensure a healthy future for the County school system and, therefore, for Albemarle County. Mr. Dewey Cornell, a parent of a preschooler as well as two others at Agnor Hurt Elementary School, thanked the Albemarle County Board of Supervi- sors for the consideration given to the budget needs of the Albemarle County Schools. He appreciates the County's willingness to find additional funds to meet the school division's shortfall, and he hopes this Board will decide to fully fund the School Board's maintenance budget request. He next stated that he wanted to emphasize and reflect to the Supervisors the strong parental opposition to the proposed change in opening and dismissal times for the school day, which he said was clearly evident at Monday night's meeting. He added that the proposed changes would have been expensive for families, they would have created serious transportation problems for many parents, and they would have had a negative impact on student learning. He hopes the Board of Supervisors will be responsive to the problem of the aging bus fleet, so the school division can avoid the temptation to seek such a radical cost saving measure. He mentioned that even greater budget problems can be foreseen in the coming years, because school enrollment will continue to grow, and the County will have additional costs when Monticello High School opens. He stated that State and Federal resources will continue to shrink and even with increased efficiency, there will be the need for more revenue. He remarked that he realizes the options are limited, but he thinks the Supervisors will find considerable support for the schools. He thanked the Board again for its steadfast support of the Albemarle County school system and its children. Ms. Latoria White, a fourteen year old attending Buford Middle School, stated that she has been attending Camp Horizon for four years, and it has helped her to get a clear view of her future. She has learned to respect her April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 50) 000352 peers and herself more. She went on to say the program is an asset to the community, and she thinks more programs such as this are needed. She added that she also thinks Albemarle County needs to fund the "Beating of the Odds" program so Albemarle County children can have a resource to turn to as do the children in Charlottesville. She thanked the Supervisors for their time. Ms. Betty Godshall, the President of Sutherland Middle School PTO, spoke on behalf of the Sutherland PTO Executive Board and strongly urged the Board of Supervisors to support full funding of the proposed School Board budget. These monies are necessary to ensure a quality education for all Albemarle County students. She stated that during the past several years a regular shortage of funds has been observed with regard to the School System budget. She added that she believes this has occurred as a result of the Capital Improvements Program budget being funded through the operating budget. These two areas have distinct needs, and it is imperative that these two budgets be submitted and funded through separate channels. She added that the Sutherland PTO recommends this Board seek various sources of revenue in order to accommo- date both areas. She stated that as the County authorizes residential growth in this area, it is crucial that the Board consider all aspects and ramifica- tions of this expansion. She said judicious design is necessary to assure that the current school population is not shortchanged while planning for future students. Ms. Cathy Bodkin spoke as Executive Director of Children, Youth and Family Services, Inc. She stated that she wanted to speak to the Board of Supervisors about the Child Care Resource and Referral Program which recruits and trains child care providers who work in the home. These people essen- tially have home businesses, and they provide a large part of the child care for people of all incomes, but particularly for low income people in the County. She added that this program also provides a resource for parents to locate appropriate and efficient child care in. day care centers, homes or preschools. This Program has received County funding for a number of years. She explained that she is the Executive Director of the agency which merged three years ago, so she can only speak for this length of time, as far as County funding is concerned. She then asked the Supervisors to reconsider the level of funding for this program and requested that they increase the funding for the Child Care Resource and Referral Program to cover the costs of services received by both providers and parents. The full funding would be $26,887.00, and the County for at least three years has funded the program at a level between $7,500 and $9,645. She referred to the $15,000 request this year to the Board of Supervisors. She said given the funding constraints of the Program's budget for 1996-97 and some very recent changes, the agency will only be able to provide the services to Albemarle County residents for which there is adequate funding. She went on to say the Program representatives have requested for two years that the funding by the County be brought up gradually over a three year period in incremental steps in order to pay for the services received at the same level the City of Charlottesville is paying for the same kind of service. She noted that the City of Charlottesville is providing funding of $26,600 for the Program this year, and the City is receiving the same kinds of services, it has the same number of providers, as well as the same number of parent requests. The City of Charlottesville has consistently been providing funding at the $25,000 level while Albemarle County has been at either the $7,000 or $9,000 funding level. She pointed out that the impact of the increase of County residents, as well as welfare reform, and cuts in funding make this a critical decision point in terms of County funding for the Child Care Resource and Referral Program. The County staff estimates that 132 new child care slots will have to be located in order to meet the County's needs by next July for the welfare recipients in order for them to go to work. She stated that Children, Youth and Family Services has not only increased the number of hours the service provided during the last three years, but it has also taken on the additional task of volunteer registration of child care providers, which saves some County funding, because this was something the County staff was doing. She noted, though, that there has not been an increase in the Program's funding to reflect this service. She added that Children, Youth and Family Services has been responsive to the needs related to child care and training and has developed a weekend or overnight type of training. The Program is also trying to examine ways to train for those providers who can help with welfare reform. She mentioned, too, that people who will be seeking lower paying jobs will need a special type of child care. She said County officials need to understand that funds are being paid later on in a child's life, and they could be saved if good quality child care was April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 51) 000353 provided. She emphasized that her Program's mission is to train and provide good quality child care. She noted that some diverse organizations such as the U.S. Government Accounting Office, Family Work Institute in New York, the National Association of Educators of Young Children, the Carnegie Foundation and the National Center for Child Abuse Prevention indicate that a dollar spent from zero to three years in a child's life is going to save money later in all types of costs. She stated that 27 percent of child care providers in the State are regulated as compared to 80 percent in Albemarle County. She said her Program representatives have definitely worked hard to have good quality child care providers. She also mentioned that the retention rate is extremely high for Albemarle County as compared to the National level, which means once a child care provider is set up, they usually stay there. She added that on a National basis, 40 to 60 percent of the child care providers stay in the business once they are trained, and her Program boasts an 85 percent retention rate. She said not only are the child care providers of high quality, but they are retained, and the County's needs have been met. She urged the Supervisors to consider that the investment of the additional $17,000 over and above the staff's recommendation, is a very solid investment. She said if this amount of money is compared to what it would cost for a special education student for one year, the money has been saved, if only one child is spared from going into special education. Mr. Ed Strauss, a resident of the western part of the County, remarked that he has been coming to these hearings for quite a few years now, and they have begun to degenerate into a government bureaucrat begging another one for money. These hearings are not just for School Board issues only, but every- thing always goes back to that purpose. He would be ashamed to come to these meetings with a decent paying County job asking for more money. He noted that Bill Clinton doesn't go to Congress and ask for more money, nor does George Allen go to the delegates asking for a raise. This is ridiculous. He added that if an organization has a budget, and it can't stand alone through actions, deeds or comprehensive fact, then that organization doesn't deserve the money. He remarked that saying money will be saved in the future is not a valid reason for more funding. The County does not run a socialist school system, and it does not have child care. He went on to say child care and psychoanalysis should not be the purpose of the school system, and if children need these things, then they can be taken to the other parts of the County bureaucracy for help. He stated that opening and closing schools is the same as the opening and closing of any other business. He said it has to benefit everyone as a whole, and these are ridiculous arguments. He then referred to the County budget and asked why a firefighter is worth significantly less than a police officer. He wondered if this situation should not be given some consideration. He mentioned that there has been discussion about the poor condition of the school buses, but he has never seen a school bus broken down, and he drives the County roads every day. He wondered why police officers can't be hired without a car and why they can't share equipment. He emphasized that all of the problems are not just with the School Board. He said it takes gall to ask for cars for every police officer hired. The police cars should be parked at the County Office Building, because this is an urban County, and urban police officers do not drive their cars for personal business. He commented that if the County is urban, then this practice should stop. However, if the County is not urban, then County officials should say so. He stated that resources should be shared, and he recalled that no one connected with the County schools at any of these meetings has wanted to communicate or get along with anything going on in the City. They don't want to share, and they want their own bureaucracy, as well as their own people. He stated that neither the Police Department nor the Sheriff's Office want to share anything. He added that the County has this fantastic, budget, but there are services the County does not have, because there are a bunch of spiteful people who will not share. They want their jobs, but there are no jobs available, and a whole generation is being trained to work for progress, because industry is not allowed in this County. The Supervisors have to look at the whole picture, and they can't just satisfy their friends. He is asking that the County tax rate stay the same, because he knows it won't be decreased. He went on to say he is also requesting 60 cents back on the phone tax that is shown on the bill every month, but Mr. Tucker doesn't include this information in his remarks. He noted that the Egll System is up and running, and County officials have gone on record saying after the start up, some of the money will go back to the citizens. This is a very simple request. 000354 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 52) Mr. Jack Marshall spoke in favor of the "Beating the Odds" Program, and he also distributed the most recent data on teen pregnancies in Albemarle County. The top graph shows that deSpite efforts during the last decade, teen pregnancies have not decreased. The rate is not known, because it is not known how many children in 1994 were in this age group. However, when the bottom figures are considered, the proportion of all teen pregnancies has increased. He stated that whatever is being done is not working. He empha- sized that "Beating the Odds" is a good program, and he hopes the Supervisors will provide the $11,000 being requested. He said it took two years, as well as a wide range of people in the community of all elements of the political spectrum to put the program together, and it fits high priority needs. He went on to say the Council on Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention recently undertook a needs assessment in the community, and a number of interesting things were found. There are very good clinical services in the community relating to pregnancy prevention, and once a girl is pregnant, there is a fairly good system for her to get help so she will avoid the next pregnancy. He stated, though, that Camp Horizon is the only program for primary preg- nancy prevention in this community. He added that "Beating the Odds" fits a need, not only for teen pregnancy prevention, but also for sexually transmit- ted disease prevention. He stated that it builds on the strengths of Camp Horizon and while it is new and innovative, it is not entirely new, so risks are low. He said it is also tremendously cost effective, because if at least one pregnancy is prevented by the program, the $11,000 investment will be more than saved. Ms. Martha Bain, PTO President at Brownsville Elementary School, said she has a son in the fourth grade and a daughter who will be entering the school in a year. She stated her support for the proposed School Board budget, and voiced her belief that it is important to continue to improve the quality of education. She also said it is important that the County, as a community, show a commitment to improvement by not allowing the schools to slip backward by forced cutbacks. She noted that Brownsville Elementary School has a population of approximately 270 students, and about 40 of them require Title I services, which has had a Federal Government cutback. She explained that this additional help provided by Title I with reading outside the classroom has made a tremendous difference with these students' reading ability. She stated that she is a frequent visitor to the school, and she has seen this, as she has watched the children in her son's class from kindergar- ten to fourth grade. Their excitement at learning to read could only have come from this program. She added that she would appreciate support of the funding which the School Board feels is also important. She then referred to the operating funds given to each school. She said, after listening to a number of parents at a PTO meeting who were concerned about some of their children being bored with math in the regular classroom, the Brownsville Principal hired a part-time math enrichment teacher for the third, fourth and fifth graders, and her son has been a part of this program. She stated that being in the school as much as she is, she can see how excited the children are getting about math, and they really enjoy being challenged. This is one of the ways that the funding the School Board gives to each school, and which the Supervisors approve, helped the Brownsville School, even though it is not monies specifically appropriated for certain things. She next mentioned the Adaptive Special Education Program which the School Board is proposing to fund. She stated that she didn't know much about the program, but the other day she was at the school, and she saw one of her sons' classmates who has special physical needs outside being taught to ride a bicycle. She noted that the child is almost ten years old, and doesn't yet know how to ride a bike. She said it was really exciting to see this boy getting to do something a lot of his peers are already doing, and she appreciates this funding as well. She added that very often people who are not in school hear about programs being funded, and they wonder if a program is really necessary. She has found herself doing that, but she goes to the school and sees it being implemented. She then feels she has a new perspective of the program, and it makes her understand the funding situation better. She mentioned another item at Brownsville that is not funded by the County, nor is it even proposed. She remarked that it is a community resource room which was started by a State Grant. She said it was originally intended to help at risk families to bring them into the school more, and it really worked. There are programs to help teach lower socioeconomic families about nutrition and how to prepare nutritious meals simply and easily, as well as a GED program which has already had one graduate, and another person soon to graduate. The program has been effective in reaching the whole community and not just the at risk families, because there are other families needing the 000355 APr±l 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meet±ng) (Page 53) resource room. She feels it is an area which helps open up the school to the community so the community can feel comfortable coming in and learning more about the school. She stated that it would be wonderful to see such a program at all elementary schools. She went on to say she supports the School Board's decision not to change the starting and dismissal times for schools. She commented that she would like to request the Board of Supervisors to help with such funding, if it is possible, so it won't become a problem in the future. She didn't realize how much this would affect families until she got a lot of phone calls from parents telling her of the stress it would put on them financially and on their children. She appreciates this opportunity to speak. Mr. Steven Stern, Chairman of the CACY Commission Task Force on Teenage Pregnancy Prevention, mentioned that the last time he was before this Board, he discussed various points associated with the ~Beating the Odds" program. He added that he would now like to give an update on things which have happened since this meeting. He had announced Martha Jefferson Hospital's committed funding of $12,500 subject to support from the City and County, and since then City officials have recommended funding of its portion of the program. He has not verified this information, but it is his understanding that the CACY Commission recommended funding last night. He went on to say the Council on Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention has drafted a report showing that there is reasonable coordination of the existing pregnancy prevention programs in the area, but there is a need for a program such as ~Beating the Odds." He stated that a month ago there was confusion about percentages and what proportion of teenagers were becoming pregnant. This was just a timing issue, and since then new numbers have been reported. He added that since the last time he was before the Board of Supervisors, MACA3~ and Region 10, which are the two organizations that will be running the ~Beating the Odds" program, have been working up some of the unspecified details of it. The program will be ready to operate at the beginning of the new fiscal year, and the process has begun of examining other sources of funding outside the local area. He hopes this satisfies the Board's concerns, and he hopes they can give their support to the "Beating the Odds" Program. Ms. Betty Simon spoke on behalf of the Shelter for Help in Emergency. She mentioned that as a volunteer at the Shelter, she has seen first hand how vital the services are that are provided. She added that some of the major programs offered through the Shelter include residential services, a safe shelter, counseling, case management and non-residential services, including a 24 hour hotline. She indicated that educational and awareness programs are also offered to the community members, as well as distribution of materials about domestic violence. The volunteer corps is relied upon heavily for daily program maintenance, and funding will allow the Shelter to grow as a program, increase community education and serve more effectively those in need. The increase of $3,000 in the budget request may not seem as though it is a lot of money in the County's budget, but to an agency that is already tight finan- cially, it means the difference between not being able to perform to the best of its potential. Ms. Elizabeth Way stated that if the School Board wants more money, then it should make the cuts needed to fund it in its own budget. She said in its request for any taxpayer education dollars, the School Board should be more concerned about the school system's purpose, responsibility and integrity than it is in bureaucratic growth. She added that this could start with the School Board officially stating the adoption of the State's Standards, if it has not already done so. The School Board also needs to officially reject and get rid of home based education, officially reject and get rid of the Goals 2000 program, and officially commit itself to the parents and taxpayers of this County, rather than yielding to the forever and constant demands of unneces- sary, wasteful and invasive bureaucratic expansion. She noted that the school's budget is loaded with expenses not necessary in accomplishing the purpose of the service it is to provide. She said some of these budget items are not only unnecessary and wasteful, but also conflict with the right, ability and responsibility of parents to guide and influence their own children in their own way. She remarked that this budget reflects a system which has changed its purpose from teaching academic knowledge to a system providing child growth and development services. The schools are now becoming more and more the State's professional parents, and parents and taxpayers feel this is not an honorable application of their education tax dollars, expecta- tions and trust. She added that if the School Board needs more money, it should look at the following budget interests: Social Services, staff development, curriculum development, dues and memberships, books and subscrip- tions, health care, ~hild care, consultants, assessment development, materials April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 54) 000356 and supplies, education and recreation supplies, the Comprehensive Services Act, and activities requiring substitutes and stipends. The School Board should also find a wiser use of designated time rather than paying extra for additional time. She added that more emphasis needs to be given to teaching more children how to read better, sooner and purchasing textbooks which reflect State standards, basic academic education, traditional values and that which will inspire students to maintain and preserve principles which are the bedrock of our freedom. The School Board has a responsibility to their constituents to solve the problems of discipline and student achievement of basic academic education. She said so far she knows of no real plan to solve these problems with respect to parental respOnsibility and taxpayers hard earned dollars. She noted that if $67,000,000 were available from a private source for parents to use to send their children to the school of their choice, they would choose a school where such principles as authority exist and student achievement meets their expectations. Ms. Carolyn O'Brien commented that she and her husband are lifelong residents of Albemarle County, and she has a child attending Walton Middle School. She would like to comment on the school budget which comprises 62 percent of the County expenditures. She noted that she attended the School Board meeting on Monday, April 1, 1996, and to her surprise, the schools needed more money than previously requested. She said it was indicated that since the change in the schools' starting and dismissal times was vetoed, the system will not have money for replacement buses. She recalled a comment made by Karen Powell, the Chair of the School Board, stating that there is a law indicating the system does not have to provide bus transportation for the students. Ms. O'Brien said a comment was also made by Superintendent Castner that the schools might not be able to purchase new textbooks. She stated that she thinks parents should not be threatened with these statements bY elected and appointed officials. The school officials and School Board should see to it that students are provided the best education from available funds. She remarked that she thinks the County has been fair and generous with the school system, but the school system needs to learn and live within a budget the same as everyone else. She referred to an article in the Daily Progress on March 12, 1996 where Senator Couric indicated that Albemarle County will receive no less money from the State for education than it did last year and will get $564,000 more than Governor Allen proposed for the county schools in his initial budget. She noted that in the school budget, there are some question- able expenditures. She called attention to the Gifted Program section where to purchase materials and identify students, $31,410 is shown, and contrac- tual services for the Child Assault Prevention Program is listed at $36,000. These things could be taught by family life teachers. She pointed out that school psychologists' travel time is shown at $4,000, books and magazine subscriptions at $500 and testing and supplies for psychological assessments at $5,000. She cannot understand why there should be $262,430 available for buying the curriculum for the State's Standards of Learning, and she wondered how much it would cost just to teach the basics. She stated that she would like to know how much money will be enough for the school system, and she asked if perhaps the school system would like 90 percent of the County budget. She suggested that the Board of Supervisors pass a law requiring the school system to submit a balanced budget. She stated that as a parent, taxpayer and landowner, she does not want to see a tax increase or new taxes. The Board of Supervisors should say no to the many demands of the school system. At 8:10 p.m., Ms. Humphris announced that the Board would recess for five minutes. At 8:15 p.m., the Board reconvened. Ms. Elizabeth Nisos commented that she is the Title I Program parent/ teacher liaison for Albemarle County, and she has found the program to be very efficient. There are great efforts being made to introduce programs of this nature to help the students who are having a high risk situation with their reading. She referred to the Title I services provided at Brownsville, and she noted that there are a lot of children who do not have books in their homes, she said it shocked her that this was happening in Albemarle County. She stated that there are some parents who don't have transportation and perhaps may be illiterate themselves. These children are definitely in the high risk category. She is giving her support for the funding of Title I so Albemarle County's children can get the education they need to read and progress in their academics. 000357 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 55) Ms. Anita Dunbar spoke as a member of the Board of the Shelter for Help in Emergency. She wanted to talk about the Shelter's budget for the next fiscal year, and she formally requested an additional $2,922.00 over the current year's budget. She pointed out that this brings the total amount requested to $60,037.00, and she would explain how the additional money can help the Shelter. The $2,922.00 will house 85 residents one day in the Shelter, because the cost of the Shelter to house a resident is $35 per day. She added that the Shelter's mission continues to be to use the government funds in leveraging other funds. The Shelter Board worked very hard this year to raise additional money, but the cost of operating the programs has in- creased significantly. She stated that she was unsure if the Supervisors were aware of all the services the Shelter provides, because she, as a Board member, was surprised at some of them. She mentioned that the Shelter provides safe shelter for abused women and children who have come from homes where there is domestic violence. There is counseling for the people while they are at the Shelter and also after they leave. She remarked that there is also case management so that once they leave they continue to be monitored, and they have a contact person at the Shelter. There are hot lines available for people to call 24 hours a day, and there is walk-in counseling, so if a person is in a situation where they need to speak to someone immediately, they can go to the Shelter and speak to a counselor on site. She mentioned that there is also an educational awareness program and distribution of materials. She noted that there are a lot of materials distributed to the schools, so children become aware of domestic violence and what is going on in their homes. The Shelter also has a booth at the County Fair where members of the Shelter Board distribute information, and information is also distributed in other community centers. She stated that all organizations are probably experiencing the same thing, but the Shelter Board has tried to increase the salaries of the employees because they are traditionally below other agencies. This again accounts for some of the expenses for this coming year. She added that 51 percent of the money goes to programs, and 29 percent of the money goes to salaries. She pointed out that the Shelter's program is 17 years old, and since 1979, the Shelter has housed 4,300 residents in this area, half of which are children. She said without additional money coming to the Shelter, whether it is money the Shelter Board has solicited or money coming from the government, the programs being offered that are not offered to community residents from many other agencies, would suffer. She would appreciate the Board of Supervisors granting the additional $2,922.00. Ms. Khaki Pearson, a County resident, stated that she has talked to a lot of her friends who live in the City, and they spoke very highly of a City meals tax. She is curious, since it makes so much money, why the County has not developed such a tax. The meals tax made $2,400,000 for the City last year, and if the County has more restaurants than the City, she would think that the County would be doing very well by developing the meals tax. She added that with so many out-of- town people, not only tourists but students as well, who are eating out all the time, it would not inflict so much pain on the residents, as it would the out-of-towners. She recalled that she has heard 70 percent of the City's funds come from tourists and the meals tax. She stated that she also heard the County could raise as much as $4,000,000 in one year. She said her family goes out to eat a couple of times a month, and they have never thought about whether or not a restaurant is in the County or City. She went on to say the one they like the most is in the City, and they never even think about the meals tax. She added that she does not know how many people really are affected by the meals tax, and she does not know if very many people would not go to a City restaurant because of the tax. She feels that this money alone could be devoted to education, and then the money being requested for other very worthwhile areas could be well distributed to them. She said everybody needs more money, individuals as well as the wonderful programs, and a small meals tax would probably work. She does not know who to go to for more information about this issue, or what has to be done, but she hopes something is done. Ms. Humphris thanked Ms. Pearson for bringing this matter to the Board of Supervisors' attention. The City can enact a meals tax just by ordinance of the City Council. She said, though, County officials do not have this same right. She explained that there has to be a referendum, and the County has been through this process twice to try to get a meals tax. She said some of the Supervisors have worked very hard for it, but they have been unsuccessful. She stated that if Ms. Pearson knows of a group of people who want to take on the job of trying to get a meals tax passed again, it would be fine with this Board. 000358 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 56) Ms. Pearson inquired if the money from the meals tax was being directed at improving one area when the issue was presented to the taxpayers. Several Board members replied that the meals tax funds were directed to the school capital projects, particularly the high school. Ms. Pearson said she thinks it should be tried again, and she will be calling County officials about the matter. Ms. Humphris responded that she thinks someone needs to try getting the meals tax passed again, although she does not believe any of the current Supervisors will try it, since they have twice been defeated. Ms. Cary Burton stated that she is a parent, teacher, and taxpayer, and she has a daughter who is a second grader at Brownsville Elementary School. She attended the School Board meeting a few nights ago and was thrilled to hear the School Board table the whole concept of changing the school times. She remarked that it was overwhelmingly felt it would injure the children and not enhance their learning. However, at the end of the discussion it was decided that money would have to be found somewhere for the buses, and that it will either have to come from budget cuts or by asking the Board of Supervi- sors for more funding. She then asked the Supervisors to have faith in the School Board and the budget and to someway find revenue for these buses, although she is unsure about the amount of money needed. She reiterated that she is a taxpayer, as well as a landowner, and she would support a tax increase to support the schools. The children have to be prepared for the 21st Century, and maintaining the current level in the school system is not going to get the children where they need to go. Ms. Maggie McNerney stated that she is a resident of Albemarle County and the Outreach and Education Coordinator of the Shelter for Help in Emer- gency, which is the domestic violence shelter serving Albemarle County and Planning District 10. She stated that she has heard a lot of other people speak of their concerns about the budget and how money is being spent on police and jails, etc. She said in listening to these comments, she thought about how people get to the point where jails have to be expanded. She told the Supervisors that if they think about why there is an expanding jail population and why there is expanding juvenile crime, then she thinks domestic violence has to be considered. She added that if a person cares about juvenile crime, or teen pregnancies or homelessness, then that person really has to care about domestic violence. She noted that the Shelter's logo is, "Peace on earth begins at home." However, a lot of problems start at home, and this costs the taxpayers money. She noted that the Shelter's request is for an additional $3,000 which may not seem like a lot, but it does a lot for the Program. She thinks a lot of people's perception of the Shelter for Help in Emergency is that it is a place for people to go after they have been abused. This is true, and the Shelter's staff does the bandage work, etc. She said, though, a big part of the effort is prevention and education to make sure people don't get to this point in the first place. The Shelter's staff goes into the County schools and tries to teach children how to resolve conflict without fighting, and they are taught nonviolence. She mentioned that teen dating violence is also targeted in hopes it will be possible to keep teens from getting into the types of relationships where they end up at the Shelter. She added that the requested funding is for money that will be well spent, and it will save the County money in the future. She asked the Supervisors to consider these facts in the Shelter's request for the addi- tional funding. No one else came forward to speak, so Ms. Humphris closed the public hearing on the 1996-97 County budget. Mr. Martin stated that he would like to speak to the Shelter issue, because the Shelter is an agency he has tried to make sure the County fully supported, since he has been on this Board. He said last year it came to this Board's attention that if the City and County usage was considered, the County was paying more than its share. He recalled that last year it was recommended that there be level funding, but this Board increased funding even though the County was paying more than its share. He noted that this year the same type of situation happened where the City had more usage, but as far as percentages are concerned, it was not paying its share. He said it was recommended that the County again have level funding in hopes the City will eventually catch up. This Board put into its proposed budget for this public hearing a three percent increase, which is the same all agencies were being given, if they didn't have special requests. He, personally, agrees with the comments as far as how much the additional $3,000 will benefit the Shelter and how this amount of money will not be missed by this Board. However, he stated that somehow the issues of percentages needs to be dealt with, as far as the County having 000359 April 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 57) less usage but paying more. He pointed out that the City's usage is 46 percent, and the County's is 29 percent, but the County is paying more. He asked for suggestions on how to get around this issue, and he would be more than willing to listen to anyone before the vote is taken on the County budget next week. Ms. Thomas commented that she feels there should be a moment of thanks for Earl Dickinson, and she explained that the Composite Index was going to cause the County to get $500,000 less from the State than last year. However, thanks to several people making several trips to Richmond, but mostly thanks to a very responsive legislator who is not even from this area and who was Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, Albemarle County eventually didn't lose any of this.funding. On the other hand, Ms. Thomas stated that Albemarle County did not receive funding that would have otherwise been received from the State, and it is going to be an ongoing problem. She noted that next year, the County will receive more money but it is earmarked for technology, and it is not known how it will impact on this budget. She recalled a person at this public hearing who stated that a work session was needed to discuss what the Supervisors see as financial problems in the County in the future. This is a very good suggestion and one she would like to see carried through. She stated that many of the people's presentations were essentially what she had written to herself ahead of time to say. She explained that she was going to say the County is doing all right with this budget, but there are clouds gathering on the horizon, and there is an uneasy feeling that just continuing as the County is doing currently is the same as gradually slipping back in some of the programs largely because of State and Federal funding cutbacks. The County is in a very fortunate position to have an increase in the real estate revenue each year, although it may not con- tinue, since many communities in Virginia are finding this is not continuing. She shares with many of the speakers the feeling that the County is doing all right at the moment, but there is an uneasy feeling about what the future will bring. She suggested that this matter needs to be discussed in a work session with everybody invited to come. Ms. Humphris mentioned that she noticed people talking about the pressures of growth in their comments tonight. The County is going to continue to grow, but this is one reason she believes County government should not be promoting growth. She stated that growth is bringing Albemarle County tremendous problems in the school system, fiscally and to the quality of life, and this needs to be kept in mind. She added that it is impossible to have it both ways, and it will become exceedingly difficult in the future to meet the growth needs of the schools. There were no further comments. Agenda Item No. 20. Public Hearing: 1996 Tax Rates. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 24, 1996.) Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing on the 1996 tax rates and asked if anyone was present who wished to make a comment on the tax rates for Albemarle County. No one wished to speak, so Ms. Humphris closed the public hearing. Ms. Humphris inquired if a motion is needed relative to the tax rates. Mr. Tucker answered that this matter will be voted on next week. Approved by Board Date ~/t ~/e~ Initials April 3, 1996 (RegUlar Day Meeting) O00~G0 (Page 58) Agenda Item No. 21 Adjourn to April 9, 1996, for Joint Public Hearing with At this time, Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board of Supervisors adjourn until April 9, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 241 of the County Office building for a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Cha i rman