Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1995-11-01
oooa. l.l. November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 1, 1995, at 9:00 A.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arriving at 10:57 A.M.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 A.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. John Carter said he would like to discuss the matter of how money is being spent by County officials on the sustainability design for the new high school without any supporting data being furnished to citizens. He mentioned that $45,000 was used to pay for a charette held by the architectural firm of iMcDonough and Associates. He said there is no supporting data whatsoever to tell citizens how this money was spent and why. It was simply requested in a letter, and given to the organizers of the charette. He mentioned the $135,000 appropriated to McDonough and Associates to study the environmental sustainability concepts developed by the charette, and he said there is no supporting data for this expenditure. As far as the proposal to study the environmental concepts, he suggested that the Supervisors read the results of the charette. One concept is to study a glass roof; another is to study what would happen if trees are planted to cast shade on the school; and another is to study the enjoyment coming to the children when they look at the lake. He does not think County money should be spent for this type of thing. In high schools today, there is a 20 to 25 percent functional illiteracy rate. Mr. Carter said if a search for whether or not these concepts will work is funded, he feels there will be no turning back, because an expert had been hired to justify what he wants to spend. When that expert comes back to this Board, no Supervisor is going to say he is wrong. Mr. Carter said an additional $2.0 million for the high school building represents 1000 computers. There are functional illiterates in the high school, and the Supervisors are talking about bricks and mortar. He asked the Supervisors if they think children can be educated because a school is pretty or there is more fresh air or more sunshine. He suggested that they look at the experience of Kansas City, Missouri. This was the ultimate experiment for spending money for bricks and mortar, but it did not do anything for the children. If Mr. McDonough and his associates want to propose such things, they should spend their money and come back to the Supervisors with some solid facts instead of promises. Mr. Kevin Cox said he also has concerns relating to the new high school. He would not be here if the process had been more public, or if there had been public hearings on the decision to hire the consultant. A $2.0 million premium in cost was added in order to build a school to be a showcase of design and technology, the first of its kind in the U.S. That is what the consultant is saying. It is more like a showroom because it is a marketing strategy designed to bring in more lucrative design contacts and more orders for the manufacturers of the products going into the school. He is convinced of this because he has talked to people all over the country about sustain- ability. Mr. Cox said his children will probably attend this school, and he wants it to be good. He wants it to be an energy efficient school that will have a minimal impact on natural resources. He also cares about the environ- ment, and he wants the Supervisors to remember that money in this culture represents all assets including natural resources. If an exorbitant fee is spent on a consultant, resources are being spent as well. He has talked to builders and architects who build energy efficient and resource efficient 000 2 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) buildings. He hears different things about the consultants, but he always hears from everybody that they are very, very expensive. He suggested that the Supervisors re-examine this issue. He mentioned that $45,000 was spent for a four-day charette held during the day when many people could not attend. He said that hardly anything of any substance came out of it. Mr. Cox remarked that the Supervisors are getting ready to spent $2.0 million on a plan to create a showcase. He is not complaining about the $2.0 million, but he wishes the Supervisors would spend $2.0 million on computers for the schools. This amount represents 1000 computers. He thinks the entire process has been very fast. There were private meetings held in the begin- ning, of which there was no public knowledge nor a press release. The charettes were held during the day and the opportunity was not there to participate. He wondered how the consultant was selected. He spoke to another architect in Charlottesville who wrote a letter to the County in June of 1994 offering his services as a sustainability consultant on this job. This consultant told him he was never contacted. Mr. Cox said he put out a query on the internet on Tuesday asking if there were other consultants, and he got a lot of responses. There are other consultants, and he thinks it is unethical for this consultant to take this job. He said that he and Mr. Bowerman went to the ~Rio Summit" in 1992. Mr. Bowerman interrupted Mr. Cox's remarks by responding that he was not at the "Rio Summit" meeting. Mr. Cox apologized. He said someone told him Mr. Bowerman said he was there. Mr. Cox said Mr. McDonough was there and out of this summit also grew the Presidential Sustainability Council, of which Mr. McDonough is a member. Out of this summit grew the Environmental Technology Leadership Challenge (ETLC) of which Mr. McDonough is a founding member, and the ETLC is the driving force behind making this a sustainable high school. He has seen Mr. Ward's memo where he says all or nothing, and now the consultant is on the board of the organizations initiating the plan. He asked if this strikes any of the Supervisors as being questionable. He suggested that Mr. McDonough should have eliminated himself from the job, and he.does not understand why he did not. Mr. Cox then remarked that the ETLC has only been mentioned in the press once, and the public has no idea what it is. It is a magnificent scheme to build a showcase of technology in order to do other things all over the country. He is told that the County is getting national publicity, but he does not think a picture of a new high school on a magazine cover is impor- tant. He asked for information as to what the sustainable design at the new high school means. He got the information faxed to him from the County the day after the vote was taken, and he was told it was not available until then. Mr. Cox said he understands there was a motion made at the October 4 meeting to acknowledge that the Supervisors were going to spend the $2.0 million and hire a consultant and this motion was made and voted on before the School Board had the opportunity to vote. It is clear that this whole idea is being driven by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Cox also mentioned that there are things about the design which bother him, and he is going to take this matter to the School Board which is having a public hearing on the design on November 13. The Supervisors are getting ready to appropriate money for the design consultant before the public has a chance to speak about the design. He said Mr. McDonough is promising all kinds of wonderful things based on the design, such as an increase in attendance and an increase in academic performance because of the lighting and heating. This building can only do so much to help educate the children and then it is up to the administrators and staff. He commented that this County will be getting an inflexible building composed of four pods in which the children are expected to spend their entire day. This is setting up the school curriculum by the design of the building. He asked the Supervisors to please reconsider and step back so the public can learn more about this issue. The desire is to get a good, energy efficient, resource efficient building which allows the students, teachers and faculty to do their jobs. Mr. Walter Johnson announced that he would address two subjects. The contract for the reconstruction of Route 682 was signed a week ago and a reconstruction conference is scheduled for November 27 (the first dedication of rights-of-way for this project was made on April 6, 1964). He also mentioned that a petition dated November 10, 1987, was presented to the County and VDoT officials at that time. He is here to express sincere appreciation and gratitude from all of those people who are still using Route 682. He understands some of the Supervisors have taken pressure about this project at November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) 000113 times, but he pointed out that this was a reconstruction involving a major realignment. It was not just taking a country road and asking those having adjacent property to give up a certain number of feet to obtain the necessary width. The extent of the realignment is reflected by the budge for purchase the rights-of-way. It is over and above that which has already been dedi- cated. The majority of the individuals who had property affected by the rights-of-way had already donated a significant part, but this is over and above that. Mr. Johnson said he would like to address the subject of the sustain- ability strategy study. He thinks the Supervisors' plan to study sustain- ability strategies as related to the new high school deserves emphatic public support. He then read from a prepared statement indicating that the Supervi- sors' action reflects vision, innovation and imagination so necessary in their deliberations (see statement by W. F. Johnson dated November 1, 1995 and received by the Board of Supervisors on November 1, 1995). Mr. Fran Lawrence said he lives in the Woolen Mills area, which is a neighborhood composed of both City and County residents on the east end of Charlottesville. He is present to discuss the proposed amphitheater at Pantops. He warned the Supervisors that the amphitheater is coming, and he asked them to prepare for it. He noted that the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association has met and passed a resolution indicating its opposition to both parts of the proposed Pantops amphitheater. His Association opposes the first part of the request which is to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide by special permit this type of outdoor amphitheater in the commercial zone at Pantops. Second, if this were to happen, his Association opposes the amphi- theater being located in the Pantops Mountain area. The current zoning at Pantops is appropriate for a shopping center, commercial office and a commu- nity adjacent to residential areas. He said an amphitheater is one of the most intense and noxious uses in the zone, and such use should not be consid- ered for anything less intense than Highway Commercial. Mr. Lawrence said the Woolen Mills neighborhood, composed primarily of City residents, has total confidence in this Board and in the County's Planning Commission that the decision about this amphitheater will be made based on its impact on the community to which it is adjacent and not the part of the community which happens to be City residency. It seems this is the wrong place for a fantas- tic idea, and it appears this is an effort to fit a size 12 foot into a size 10 shoe. When step one of Pantops Shopping Center came along eight or ten years ago, it was presented as a shopping center with a buffer. Now, the developer has apparently found someone who will pay money to buy the buffer, and step two is making the buffer into an amphitheater. He said his Associa- tion thinks this is a very bad idea. Ms, Frances Ruset commented that she is taking a year's absence from teaching at Western Albemarle High School to take care of her son. She came to this meeting to listen to the debate surrounding the proposed sustainable nature of the new high school and to offer some thoughts on one aspect of the debate. She has spoken with some of her colleagues at Western Albemarle High School and asked them whether they feel that this high school building, because of the nature of its design, will enhance the education of students. She asked if the daily experience for teachers and students would be produc- tive because of the atmosphere the building provides. The responses were positive and focused on two aspects of a sustainable design -- natural lighting and air. Teachers want a room with windows because natural lighting provides a reference to the world outside and a sense of place, but a window must be functional and not just a convenience. A teacher must be able to darken the window for films and slides, open it for air, and lock it for safety. It may seem simple enough to make these points, but she has had a window in her classroom for the past four years in which the blinds are between layers of glass. When they become entangled, maintenance people have to be called. Every time she called maintenance, it cost money. She said the room was refurbished to become a science room and the new counters caused a situation where the window was permanently locked. If some of these minor details are addressed in a sustainable design, things will probably be addressed which will keep classrooms from being disrupted by having to deal with small details throughout the day. Air temperature and quality is a basic condition of environment. She does not know if any research has been done to compile the cost of maintenance in air temperature control at Western Albemarle High School. She believes the cost will increase because different parts of the building have temperatures with a 20 degree difference. If a November 1, 1995 (Regular DaY Meeting) 0001~4 (Page 4) design can avoid some of these problems, it will make a difference in the everyday situation of learning in the classroom. Ms. Ruset commented that building a school where people will want to be for 20 to 50 years is extremely important and if time is taken now to support quality construction of a sustainable building, future Albemarle County students and teachers won't have to think about their building unless they are thinking about its virtues. As an Earth Sciences teacher, she can think of all sorts of lesson plans a sustainable high school would offer the teachers and students. The purpose of any school is to educate, and a sustainable high school will enhance learning. She said students can be taught that the quality of their school life is important, and societies will provide them this environment. Mr. Jeff Gleason, a resident of Sherwood Farms Subdivision, said he has a daughter who is in the second grade at Red Hill Elementary School. One day she will probably be attending this new high school. He read Mr. Carter's letter in the Daily Progress last night. He felt it was essential to take time off from work to come to this meeting to respond to Mr. Carter's call to let the Supervisors know how he feels about the concept of the sustainable school and the proposed spending of additional moneys for this project. Speaking as a County taxpayer, parent of a child he hopes will one day attend this school, and a lifelong resident of this community, he cannot think of any decision in recent times made by this Board which he considers more positive and which made him more proud to be a member of this community than the unanimous decision of this Board and the School Board to support the invest- ment to make this new school a sustainable project. For the past four years he has worked extensively with utilities in the southeast, and he has been involved in looking at the issue of the economics of energy efficiency versus new supply to meet demand. It is absolutely undisputed that the savings produced by investments in incorporating energy technology in the design of facilities significantly exceed the initial higher costs. He is convinced the Board will find, once the initial work is completed, that this investment will more than pay for itself, and it is a wise expenditure of County tax moneys. Mr. Gleason referred to an earlier comment at this meeting and the reference made relating to trees and shading in the hope of making sustainable design seem as though it is a preposterous notion. By taking this relatively simple step of planting trees and producing shading in the proper windows in the proper face of the building, substantial energy savings and cost-effective energy savings can be generated. This is never considered, perhaps because when people think about designing high schools or other public buildings, the idea of planting trees and considering them as part of the design seems silly. It is not silly, and it is well worth the investment. He thinks this Board should be commended for its farsightedness in this venture, for recognizing the importance of this concept and the need to invest now for the future in order to produce significant savings. He also wanted to respond to some outrageous accusations that the McDonough firm has somehow engaged in improper activity to secure this building. This strikes him as outrageous, and he feels the County is extremely fortunate to have a firm of this caliber, knowledge and experience in sustainable design working on this project. He thanked the Supervisors and commended them for their action. Mr. John Hermsmeier said he served on the Learning Specifications Design Team (LSDT) for the new high school. He is also a resident of Mill Creek which is near the area, so he has a personal, professional and community interest in the outcome of this project. He supports all of the former speakers about the energy savings and the need to go forward. He perceives that full consideration has not been given to the educational and message value of this project, not only to the community and to the students who are going to attend this school, but also in leadership as a national example of sustainability. As far as energy savings and monetary savings are concerned, this project stands on its own feet. It is hard to quantify in monetary terms what a moral example is worth and what education is worth. This is a once-in- a-generation opportunity. The reason he started environmental education work is because the students in his classroom asked for educational relevance, and it was not possible to provide that with the Earth Sciences textbook. The students were asking why their community was developing in the manner in which it was developing, why this community has the attributes it has and how they can be protected. This new building is a viable educational tool which needs to be considered in addition to its energy savings. The question needs to be November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) O00115 (Page 5) asked as to how it can be used as a teaching module. He mentioned an environ- mental literacy course for middle school students which was held this summer where one of the most popular things was a trip to see the Yellow Mountain Institute's Tire House where the students actually helped put dirt in the tires. They got the idea when they saw a physical manifestation of the meaning of sustainability, and they were excited to find that adults in this community were coming up with an alternative design to use tires for something worthwhile when they could have ended up in the landfill. This trip really excited the children, and he thinks this new school, in a much larger way, can accomplish the same thing. He next supported Mr. McDonough by saying he is an internationally renowned person. He does not mean Mr. McDonough should get every contract, but there have been many meetings where cooperation has been called for between the University, City and County. This is a tremendous opportunity to accomplish such a thing. If money enters the pockets of Mr. McDonough-and his associates, it will be spent in this community. The local economics multiplier effect is another theme of sustainability beyond this school building. MS. Elizabeth F. Petofi spoke about the Preddy Creek property (see Consent Agenda Item 5.1). She distributed a brochure and map relating to this property. She is confused about the property because the political line of the County in that area is a bureaucratic nightmare. She commented that Mr. Arto Oehmke has set up his own private hunting camp on the Preddy Creek property, and he has taken advantage of the fact that Albemarle County officials have put up gates along Route 641. His property is located on the Orange County side and bounds Albemarle County's Preddy Creek property. She stated that Kenny Dove, the Game Warden, does not know where the line is, but Mr. Oehmke has told people the line is at the creek, and he owns the property to the creek. She noted that there are 12 men with all terrain vehicles riding around on this property and terrorizing everybody. She said the road goes right to her property, so the problem with Mr. Oehmke is not that she does not have a road to her property. The problem is that Mr. Oehmke comes on her property with his gun. She asked the Supervisors to not only have the property surveyed, but to also decide whether or not hunting can take place and, if it can, what it will include. She referred to the place on the map showing a cabin, and she said Mr. Oehmke's son is now living there in a mobile home. She remarked that she thinks these people are intent on destroying every animal in the 568 acres of the Preddy Creek property, and she emphasized that Mr. Oehmke's son wants to put a taxidermy shop on the property. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda for informa- tion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Mr. Martin. Item 5.1. Preddy Creek Property Survey. The staff's report noted that the Preddy Creek property is a 568 acre tract of County-owned land located on the Albemarle/Orange County line. Approximately 478 acres are located in Albemarle County while the remaining 90 acres are located in Orange County. The property was purchased in 1969 as a potential site for a water supply impoundment. The 1977 Camp, Dresser, McKee Report on Alternative Water Supply sources recommended that, with a yield of only 3.0 million gallons per day, a Preddy Creek impoundment would be too small to be considered as a new water source. On June 7, 1995, an adjoining Orange County property owner approached the Board requesting assistance as a result of a personal access dispute. Staff feels that the property owner's remedy is to establish a legal right of access in court rather than seeking permission to access from the County. In making this request, the adjoining property owner expressed several concerns and suggestions regarding the County's management of the property. Up until now, the management of the property has been limited to an annual posting for "NO HUNTING" along Route 641 and the gating of three access roads OhO the property from Route 641. County staff has been aware that November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) 000 1. 6 neighboring property owners make use of the property as part of a network of horseback riding trails involving many adjoining properties. In return, those neighbors have assisted with the posting of the property and have kept the County advised of any illegal activity o~ concerns. Staff of the Parks and Recreation Department have reviewed the concerns and suggestions with the County Attorney's staff and have made several visits to the property. It appears that the property is being regularly used for a variety of activities. In addition to the horseback riding, the property is being used for ATV (all terrain vehicle) riding. Staff believes the property north of Preddy Creek, which would include the entire Orange County portion, is being hunted regularly. Staff did discover one large bridge and several smaller bridges that have been constructed over Preddy Creek and various tributaries. The property has not been harmed by these uses, and the trails on the property are in better condition than most public park trails. Due to the amount and type of use the property is receiving, staff feels it is necessary to make more formal efforts to manage the property. The first step in these efforts would be to identify the boundary of the property through a survey. It is recommended that this survey include the entire boundary of the property, as well as noting exact location of the Orange/ Albemarle County line. A title search ordered by the County Attorney's Office has revealed the existence of an access to the property from the Orange County side. If the County were to decide to sell of the Orange County section of the property at some time in the future, the survey will provide the necessary information to properly manage the property. Several proposals to survey to the property have been received, the lowest one received is $11,050. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved moving forward with surveying the Preddy Creek property using funds from the Parks and Recreation Department budget, to the extent possible. Item 5.2a. Appropriation Request: Volunteer Fire Companies (Form #95029), $1,099.84. It was noted in the staff's report that State funds from the Fire Service Program are received by the County on an annual basis to assist with fire protection. It has been the policy of the County to distribute these funds to the volunteer fire companies on an equal basis. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95029 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM RECEIVED IN EXCESS OF BUDGET EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1100032020560702 1100032020560802 1100032020560902 1100032020561002 1100032020561102 1100032020561202 1100032020561302 DESCRIPTION NORTH GARDEN VFD FSP SCOTTSVILLE VFD FSP CROZET VFD FSP EARLYSVILLE VFD FSP EAST RIVANNA VFD FSP STONY POINT VFD FSP SEMINOLE TRAIL VFD FSP TOTAL AMOUNT $157.12 157.12 157.12 157.12 157.12 157.12 157 . 12 $1,099.84 REVENUE 2100024000240417 DESCRIPTION FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM TOTAL AMOUNT $1,099.84 $1,099.84 Item 5.2b. Appropriation Request: Education funding for Eisenhower, DuPont and Family Literacy Grants (Form #95030), $39,224.50. It was noted in the staff's report that the Albemarle County Public Schools has been awarded a Title II Eisenhower Staff Development Grant for November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) O00 X? support of a collaborative staff development project with Charlottesville City and Orange Couny School systems. Albemarle County will receive $5000. Each collaborating system will provide ten teachers to participate in a series of Saturday workshops. The workshops will provide training in the best practices for mathematics teaching to improve quality of instruction in elementary and middle schools and how these should be incorporated into curriculum as the revised Standards of Learning are implemented. An appropriation of the Dupont Fine Arts Grant in the amount of $3000 for J. T. Henley Middle School will be used to expand the fine arts experience of middle school students through guest speakers and the artist-in-residency program. Albemarle County Public Schools applied for and received funding under a demonstration grant of the Office of Adult Education. These grants are designed to allow localities to try new and innovative methods to meet the literacy needs in their communities. The goal of the Albemarle Family Literacy Program is to establish a sustainable successful volunteer family literacy program to be continued and expanded through existing volunteer agencies in the area. It is designed to address the basic literacy and English as a Second Language needs of families with young children who have just started or will soon start school. Migrant, Chapter I, Head Start, English as a Second Language, and homeless families will be targeted. The project will serve as a replicable model program. The grant in the amount of $31,224.50 will provide development start-up costs. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation: (Mrs. Humphris said that every time the Board has had requests in the past to appropriate grants for teaching new math skills, or employing math in everyday life, she has asked if the School Division would bring something to show what the tax dollars are buying, but it has never happened. She will continue to make such requests.) APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95030 FUND: GRANTS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR EISENHOWER, DUPONT AND FAMILY LITERACY GRANTS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1320361116160300 1320361116210000 1320361116312500 1320361116580500 1310460252312500 1311763325112100 1311763325132100 1311763325210000 1311763325550100 1311763325550400 1311763325580000 1311763325601300 DESCRIPTION STIPEND FICA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSTRUCTIONAL SALARIES-TEACHER SALARIES-P/T TEACHER FICA MILEAGE TRAVEL-EDUCATION MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES INSTRUCTIONAL/RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $2,5OO.OO 191.25 750.00 1,558.75 3,000.00 3,575.00 17,028.50 1,800.00 1, 091.00 500.00 1,610.00 5,620.00 $39,224.50 REVENUE 2320324000240503 2310418120181220 2311724000240500 DESCRIPTION EISER-HOWER GRANT DUPONT FINE ARTS GRANT FAMILY LITERACY GRANT TOTAL AMOUNT $5,000.00 3, 000.00 31,224.50 $39,224.50 Item 5.2c. Appropriation Request: Murray High School Building Renova- tion Project (Form #95031), $59,500. It was noted in the staff's report tat bids were received on September 12, 1995, for the Murray High School renovation project which is designed to convert existing kitchen space into a science lab, music, dark room and storage spaces. The low bid was $129,000. Due to the difficulty in estimat- O00 L 8 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) ing costs for renova-tions at current contractor costs, the budgeted amount of $85,000 was not adequate. After discussions with the low bidder, the archi- tect was not able to find any items which could be changed or modified to significantly reduce the bid amount without negatively impacting the educa- tional program. The necessary funds have been found in two other capital education projects that have been completed. (Mr. Perkins noted that the difference amounts to $44,000, but the request is for $59,500 to cover contingency funds. He said this is a third of the increased cost. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. A1 Reaser to respond to Mr. Perkins. Mr. Reaser said this money is needed to cover the cost of asbestos removal, etc. Mr. Perkins said it has been his experience that if the money is available, it will be spent.) By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NLTMBER: 95031 FUND: CIP-SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR RENOVATIONS AT MURRAY HIGH SCHOOL EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1900060303800605 MURRAY HIGH SCHOOL RENOVATIONS 1900060251800902 BURLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL ROOF 1900060255800605 SUTHERLAND CONSTRUCTION TOTAL AMOUNT $59,5O0.OO (45,5oo.oo) (14,000.00) $0.00 REVENUE. DESCRIPTION ~AMOUNT TOTAL $0.00 Item 5.2d. Appropriation Request: Joint Security Complex, Funds from Inmate Telephone Account (Form 95032#), $21,000. It was noted in the staff's report that a request has been received from the Jail Board requesting appropriation of funds from the Inmate Telephone Account for the following purposes: $6000 for the amended architectural design, and $15,000 to supply administrative salaries for a reclassification. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95032 FUND: JAIL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: USE OF PHONE SYSTEM FUNDS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1400133021312300 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES 1400033020110000 ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES TOTAL AMOUNT $6,000.00 15,000.00 $21,000.00 REVENUE 2400016000160527 2400116000160527 DESCRIPTION INMATE TELEPHONE ACCOUNT INMATE TELEPHONE ACCOUNT TOTAL AMOUNT $15,000.00 6,000.00 $21,000.00 Item 5.3. Early Retirement Request. Request Board approval of early retirement benefits for a Police Department employee. It was noted in the staff's report that Albemarle County Personnel Policy P-63 provides for voluntary early retirement for county employees who have been employed by the County for ten of the last thirteen years and who are at least 55 years of age and currently employed. A request has been 000 . 9 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) received from an employee who requests that he be allowed to take early retirement retroactive to October 1, 1995, with the Police Department handling the associated budget implications. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the request for early retirement with the budgetary implications being absorbed within the Police Department budget. Item 5.4. 1995-96 Secondary Roads Construction Budget. It was noted in the staff's report that the Board annually approves the Secondary Construction budget which includes those projects which are to be funded in that particular year. The only change in this fiscal year budget is for Route 682. Funding for this project was originally scheduled to be completed in the 1994-95 fiscal year, but $848,341 in additional costs extended the funding into Fiscal Year 1995-96. The remaining projects are unchanged from the approved (May 11 1994) County's Priority for Secondary Road Improvements. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the FY 1995-96 Secondary Roads Construction Budget as presented, and set out below: Route 8003 Traffic Services, etc. Contract & ~tate Forces State Forces Route Pipe Installation 8005 Route Preliminary Engineering & Surveys $30,000 State Forces 8012 Route Fertilizer & Seeding $10,000 State Forces 8014 Subdivision Plan Review $40,000 State Forces Route 8015 Route 8016 Route 625 Route 664 Pavement Striping Operate Hatton Ferry New Plant Mix Fr Rt 776 to Rt 665 Length: 2.53 mi New Plant Mix Fr Rt 609 to Rt 601 Length 0.38 mi New Plant Mix Fr Rt 627 to Rt 712 Length 2.78 mi New Plant Mix Fr Rt 654 to WCL Ch'ville Length 0.22 mi $5,000 $10,000 $2,000 $16,000 $90,000 $12,000 Route 665 Route 715 Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Route 1444 Route 631 Meadow Creek Parkway (Rt 631 Fr NCL Ch'ville to CSX $1,800,000 Fund Right of Way & Railroad, Length 1.00 mi Partial Construction Route 631 Meadow Creek Parkway (Rt 631) $549,480 Fund Partial Bridge over Meadow Creek Construction Route 743 Hydraulic Road Fr Rt 657 to Rt 631 Length 0.61 mi $200,000 Fr Rt 250 to 1.7 mi S Rt 787 Length 2.1 mi Fr Rt 20 to 1.8 mi E Rt 20 Length 1.8 mi Fr Rt 29 to Rt 692 Length 0.9 mi $848,341 $350,000 $270,982 Route 682 Route 610 Route 712 Fund Partial Construction Fund Partial Construction Fund Partial Construction Fund P.E., RNV & Partial Construction 000 20 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) Item 5.5. Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) . It was noted in the staff's report that the 1995 General Assembly enacted the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) through the passage of Senate Bill 1114, which changes the manner in which the Department of Youth and Family Services will fund local programs for youth who have come before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Courts. Previously, only those localities which operated block grant residential and nonresidential programs received funding. Under the new law, all localities which have approved local community pre- and post-dispositional plans will receive funding from the Department. Under a formula that measured the FY '93 Child Care Days, Albemarle County is eligible to receive an additional $68,424 for FY '96. Since the City already receives $565,573 in block grant funds for the Community Attention Home, they will receive a level amount of funding for FY '96. Through Children and Youth Commission staff, the City and County have provided a joint plan to the State for the use of the VJCCCA funds. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution as required by the Department of Youth and Family Services in order to receive $68,424 in additional funding for pre- and post-dispositional services for Albemarle County youth who have come before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court: WHEREAS, the Department of Youth and Family Services has approved funding through the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act in the amount of $68,424; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County has submitted a plan to the Department to use these Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act funds to provide services to youth who come before the Juve- nile and Domestic Relations Court; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County's funding plan s approved by the Department of Youth and Family Services for FY 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT Albemarle County certi- fies that it: Will not contribute less funding for the implementation of this local plan than as expended for block grant funded programs or services either operated or utilized in FY 1995 in compliance with § 16.1-309.6 of the Code of Virginia; Will not utilize funds provided by this Act to supplant funds established as the state pool of funds under § 2.1-757 in compliance with § 16,1-309,3 C of the Code of Virginia; Will comply with all provisions of § 16.1-309.9 of the Code of Virginia which gives the Board of Youth and Family Ser- vices the authority to establish and enforce standards and to review the expenditures and services established by the local plan; Consulted with the judge(s) of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court and the director(s) of Court Ser- vices of the participating jurisdiction(s); Will submit routine reports and any other information to the Director of the Department of Youth and Family Services for each program or service funded by the Act in compliance with §16.1-309.3 E and § 16,1-309.10 of the Code of Virginia and all applicable Departmental procedures. Item 5.6. Lease/Purchase Agreement, request authorization to enter into a lease/purchase agreement to facilitate the acquisition of various computer- related hardware, software and maintenance services. It was noted in the staff's report that approval is being requested to enter into a lease/purchase arrangement to acquire the hardware, software and other services for the mainframe and software upgrade. The purpose is to provide a replacement mainframe which will better integrate into the County Office Building's (COB) LAN and the new WAN. As more users have direct access November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 11) to mainframe information for improved management and more timely data input, greater mainframe resources are needed. The replacement mainframe will allow the COB LAN to directly attach to it eliminating the need for a local control- ler and its related complexities and maintenance costs. The vendor will also provide software upgrade services to install the latest version of the VSE/ESA Operating System Software. The vendor's proposals provide: 1) for a replace- ment mainframe; 2) for system software upgrade services; 3) for five-year usage of the operating system; and 4) for a five-year warranty and maintenance support. The total cost, to be financed, will be $466,621. The four annual lease payments are projected at $129,500 each inclusive of interest projected at a rate of about 4.9%, with the first payment due August 1, 1996. Funding will be available in the operating budget of the Information Services Depart- ment. By the recorded vote set out above, staff was authorized to enter into a lease/purchase agreement for the acquisition of various computer-related hardware, software and maintenance as requested. Item 5.7. Set public hearing to amend Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article I, In General. This item had been deleted from this agenda. Item 5.8. Neighborhood Team. Informational report on a proposal to develop a more effective channel of communication with citizens through existing neighborhood associations and neighborhood watch groups, was received as information. Item 5.9. Copy of letter dated October 12, 1995, from Ms. A. G. Tucker, Resident Engineer, addressed to Mr. John Greene re: Route 250 Business/250 Bypass Rumble Strip Revision, was received as information. Item 5.10. Copy of letter dated October 12, 1995, from Mr. David J. Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, addressed to Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer, re: Recommendations and Observations on Road Work in Sugar Hollow, was received as information and alluded to in conversation under Agenda Item No. 7 (Letter is set out in full below). "October 12, 1995 Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Post Office Box 2013 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Recommendations & Observations on Road Work in Sugar Hollow Dear Ms. Tucker: Thank you for pulling together the necessary players and meeting us for the site visit on September 19. This letter is to follow up on that visit with recommendations and observations on the road paving project proposed for Route 614. I understand that addi- tional items were discussed at the October 4 Board of Supervisors' meeting, and that we are to develop responses to those items as well. However, this letter is in reference to the motion passed by the Board on September 13 and the subsequent September 19 site visit. I will contact you in the near future to discuss our response to the additional matters. Before discussing site-specific recommendations, I would like to offer a few general observations about the nature of the Moormans River valley and this summer's major flood. As we all know, this was a major flood event. As the flood waters rose, they dislodged many tons of rock and cobbles from flood plains, banks, and hillsides adjacent to the river. This material was transported downstream in waves. At intervals, the material hit a snag or caught up in a meander and built up huge debris jams in those locations. As pressure built up behind these jams by the flood waters, November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) 000:1.22 they broke in weak points, and the process continued down- stream. when the flood waters finally receded, this process was interrupted, leaving huge cobble accumulations and debris jams in their current post-flood configuration. This con- figuration is only a snapshot in time, and the flood process will continue with subsequent high water events; in other words, all this material is just poised temporarily in its current position, waiting for high water to again redistrib- ute it downstream. Eventually, riparian vegetation will help stabilize stream banks and flood plains, slowing (but definitely not stopping) this process of ~bedload" transport until the next major flood. This is a drama that the river has played out numerous times in its history. The point of all this hydrologic discussion is that the Moormans valley will remain very dynamic for years to come, and our human activities can either appreciate this fact or be taken by surprise (once again). As this "bedload" moves down the valley, it is analogous to giant, course-grained sandpaper raking over the surfaces it comes in contact with. This process is likely to be destructive, regardless of the materials we place in the way to "protect" our human struc- tures. I bring this up only to shed some light on the environmental realities that may affect the proposed road improvements. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) is currently conducting a study on the Sugar Hollow reservoir to deter- mine their future course of action for a possible clean-out. They have received approval from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) for debris removal, and are currently assessing the need to do this. If RWSA does remove debris from the reservoir, many truck trips are likely up and down Route 614. VDOT should coordinate carefully with RWSA on the timing of projects, and should consider whether the proposed road improvements should take place before or after a possible RWSA reservoir clean-out. You can contact either Gene Potter or Chuck Kent at RWSA (977-2970). Once the road is paved, the rate and volume of stormwater runoff will increase, attended by an increase in pollutants that this water picks up from the road surface (including grease, oil and heavy metals). Great care must be taken to minimize these impacts. In general, stormwater should not be concentrated if there is any choice. Stormwater flows should be spread out into heavily vegetated buffer areas in order for natural filtration processes to take place. If stormwater must be concentrated (such as along the road adjacent to Puppy Run Farm), alternative means should be explored for "pre-treating" this runoff before it is dis- charged into the river or its tributaries. The first half- inch of runoff generated by the road surface is the most critical to treat. There may be options for infiltrating this "first flush" of runoff, given the highly porous nature of the river valley material. Even well-conceived runoff practices may not be enough to prevent an increased delivery of pollutants to the river in places where the road is immediately adjacent to the river. At the September 13 Board of Supervisors' meeting, you mentioned that the "plant mix" that will be used on the road is inert and will not leach pollutants into the river. I have received the abstract from research that documents that heavy metals can be leached from porous pavement in the presence of acid water (attached). I acknowledge that porous pavement is different than the relatively impervious plant mix surface. However, it would be advantageous if you could provide documentation on the leaching potential, or lack thereof, of the plant mix at the pH levels common to our rain water. (4.3, according to the State Climatologist's (Page 13 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000123 Office). This is important since subsequent storms may deposit chunks of plant mix directly into the river. At our September 18 meeting at the Moormans, we discussed the treatment of fill slopes adjacent to road shoulders. To reiterate our discussion, these slopes should be stabilized by seeding and mulching as soon as possible in order to establish vegetative cover for the winter. In several critical areas, some type of erosion control fabric may also be warranted. Subsequently, a natural succession of native vegetation should be allowed to colonize these slopes in order to fully stabilize the slopes, increase the width of the stream buffer, and provide a more natural setting for the river corridor. Similar treatment should be considered for at least part of the road shoulders. Based on recent visits to the area, grass seems to be well established on most of the shoulders. Specific areas where it is critical to stabilize slopes behind these shoulders are: just upstream from Route 674 at the second bridge, and between the third bridge and the dam. We also discussed one area where "river stone" will be placed to cap the fill dirt. This practice is acceptable as long as a good stand of vegetation can be established before winter. As we have discussed, the recommendations made in this letter are being handled separately from recommendations for rehabilitating some of the borrow areas and further channel restoration projects. These activities will involve further work in and immediately around the river. Determining the best course of action for this work will involve some fur- ther investigation and field work. I have made initial contact with several parties, including the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Virginia Department of Forestry (VDOF), regarding additional in-stream work that may be needed to protect public health and safety. Indeed, we will approach these projects in a careful and collaborative manner, and V DOT's cooperation will be essential. At this point, I will discuss the site-specific results from our September 18 meeting. Do. Stream From Route 674 Ail parties acknowledged that VDOT will proceed with paving this section as it was prior to the flood. The recommendation was made to lower the rock berm between the road and the river immediately downstream from Route 674 so that the rocks are flush with the top of the paved surface. This suggestion was made by John Kauffman from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. The intent is that runoff is not diverted from the river and/or concentrated. In the Vicinity of The Buxton's Low-Water Bridge We discussed a line of cedar (juniper) trees that are holding up the remains of a fence. It is anticipated that these trees will be removed and replaced with hardwoods on the Cabell property. The replacement hardwoods should be selected carefully to accommo- date soil and moisture conditions (perhaps a soil test can be analyzed). Maintenance (mostly watering) of the newly-planted trees will also be vital, and this must be coordinated between your agency and the property owner. David Halley from the Vir- ginia Department of Forestry could be an excellent resource for this project (phone number: 977-5193). As discussed for another section of the road, the rip-rap slope constructed next to the river upstream from the Buxton's bridge should be lowered to match the top of the paved surface. In November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 14) 000 24 addition, a strip of turf should be established between the edge of the road and the rip-rap, so that road runoff will flow through the turf before hitting the rip-rap slope. Most importantly for this site, every effort must be made to save the monumental sycamore just upstream from the Buxton's bridge. Fill dirt and heavy equipment may have already done damage to the root system. It is recommended that a professional arborist be consulted on the best methods to save the tree. It is likely that the fill will have to be removed, and the process be done with utmost care so as not to damage the roots, the trunk, or other trees next to the river. This project should be considered to have a time critical element, since the tree will likely die if prompt action is not taken. Dr. Buxton (823-4950) has offered to meet with your representative and the arborist in order to provide background and history on the tree. "Upper" Cabell Property Further upstream, there is another fence wrapped around cedar trees, and the trees must be removed to accommodate the road. Along most of this section, taller trees behind the cedars provide good canopy, so replacing the cedars is not recommended. There is one "break" in the canopy, and this is a possible area for hard- wood replacements in accordance with the recommendations listed above. Since this area is not as critical (there is already good canopy) as the downstream site, I suggest that tree replacements be decided between your agency and the property owner. There was also some discussion of a cross-pipe for conveying road drainage into the river. This should be handled in accordance with the recommendations listed earlier for stormwater management. Section Along Puppy Run Farm This is a section where the road must be made to "fit" within existing topographic constraints. There seemed to be a consensus at our meeting to not disturb the trees along the south side of the road. Cross-sections taken at 20-25' intervals along this stretch will help to further evaluate the options (raise road surface, etc.). The drainage problem immediately in the vicinity of the Puppy Run Farm driveway is complex, and will also require additional analy- sis. This is an area where concentrating the water seems to be a necessity, since the existing drainage is damaging the steep river bank. A desirable solution will remove this disturbance while minimizing additional disturbances. Possible solutions discussed in the field included piping the water across the road and dis- charging it onto bedrock and working with the property owner on installing water turn-outs along their driveway (to reduce the volume of water reaching the road). Since this section of road will likely require some concentration of runoff into road ditches, the previous discussion on stormwater management is relevant. Thank you once again for your cooperation. I will be available any time in the future to work with you on specific areas that require more analysis. Please let me know if you have any ques- tions or comments at this time. Sincerely, (Signed) David J. Hirschman Water Resources Manager" Item 5.11. Letter dated October 16, 1995, from Ms. A. G. Tucker, Resident Engineer, re: Route 20 at 1-64 Off-Ramp, Signing Review, received for information. Letter was received in reference to a verbal request from Mr. Forrest Marshall regarding the placement of a STOP sign on the 1-64 eastbound lane off ramp onto rout 20 southbound. Ms. Tucker notes that the 000&25 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) ideal solution to this intersection is the extension of the acceleration lane onto Route 20. This project is scheduled to occur in 1996. Item 5.12. Copy of "Review of Collections of Commonwealth Revenues by the Director of Finance, Sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, for the year ended June 30, 1995" from the Auditor of Public Accounts, was received as information and is on file in the Clerk's Office. Item 5.13. Copy of Bond Program Report and Monthly Report for Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) for the month of September, 1995, received for information. Item 5.14. Letter dated October 19, 1995, from Ms. Shirley L. Baldwin, Acting Director, JAUNT, addressed to Mr. Robert Tucker, County Executive, re: Quarterly Report for period ending September 30, 1995, was received for information. (Mrs. Humphris asked why Albemarle County's public service and commuter hours combined are running 22 percent behind projections. Mr. Tucker is to get an answer to this question.) Item 5.15. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle County Service Authority for September 14, 1995, received for information. (Mrs. Thomas brought the Board's attention to a request in these minutes for sewer service on Stagecoach Road where a drainfield has failed, and there is no other place on the lot for a drainfield. She said this helps to explain why the County now requires space for two septic drainfields on a lot.) Item 5.16. Report of September, 1995 Operating results for Acme Design Technology Co., was received for information. Item 5.17. Copy of minutes of the Planning Commission for October 3 and October 17, 1995, received for information. Item 5.18. Copy of memorandum from Ms. Jo Higgins, Director of Engi- neering & Public Works, addressed to Mr. Kevin Cox, re: Questions Related to the New High School and Sustainable June 24, 1997, design, was received as information. Item 5.19. Letter dated October 10, 1995, addressed to Ms. Ella W. Carey from Mr. Homer G. Smith, Jr., Member of the Virginia Board of Forestry, along with copy of book entitled "Virginia's Forests - Our Common Wealth," was received as information. Item 5.20. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for September 18, 1995, received for information. Item 5.21. September, 1995 Financial Management Report for the General and School funds. It is noted in the report that projected General Fund revenues were revised as of September 30, 1995, and now are expected to exceed appropriations by $1,578,641. Local revenues are currently projected to exceed appropriations by $1,752,606. State and Federal revenues are projected to be ($150,248 and $23,717 respectively) less than appropriated. The increase projected in local revenues is primarily due to higher than antici- pated real estate tax, personal property tax and interest collections. Projected School revenues and projected School and General Fund expenditures have not been revised at this time. The report was accepted as presented. November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: June 7, 1995. Mrs. Humphris had read June 7, 1995, Page 12 (#8) to Page (~19), and turned in one correction to the Clerk. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve those minutes which had been read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters: Route 614, Report on Paving Work After Flood Restoration. Mrs. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer with the Virginia Department of Transportation, announced she had forwarded earlier this week a summary of a report to this Board regarding the work on Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road). Although this report was not all inclusive, she will address any questions or concerns this Board might have about the progress with this work. Mrs. Humphris said she went to look at this project yesterday, and her only comment is that she was amazed at the width of the road where it is being widened. It seemed to be wider than Barracks Road, although she didn't get out of her vehicle and measure it. This distresses her, and although she knows it will be done, she wanted to say for the record that the width of the road in this type of remote wilderness area cannot do anything but encourage more people to go there. This makes her unhappy. Mrs. Thomas commented that she is going to do more than say the people of this area are a little unhappy. She does not think VDoT representatives are following the resolution this Board passed by saying that this road is going to be widened and paved at this point. She will focus on the widening of the road because she was assured several times that the road would not be wider than what she had seen. She recalled that the resolution states that activities are not to be done now or in the future without getting approval from the Albemarle County's Water Resources Officer. Mrs. Tucker agreed with this statement and indicated it was her direction from VDoT officials that she was to proceed on local government direction for this project. Mrs. Thomas said she called yesterday afternoon to find out the reaction of the Water Resources Officer to Mrs. Tucker's report, and found to her surprise that he had not received it. She pointed out that the Supervisors only received it hand-delivered the day before. She referred to Mrs. Tucker's report which suggested she had dealt with the Department of Conservation, the Department of Recreation and the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Mrs. Thomas said this was a continuation of what was being done earlier when the Supervisors suggested that the way to proceed was not for VDoT officials to meet individu- ally with these agencies. She recalled that the Board of Supervisors' resolution states approval will be given by the Water Resources Officer after his consultation with representatives of such agencies as the Scenic River Advisory Board and the Water and Soil Conservation District, etc. She believes the Water Resources Officer's understanding is that together they would come up with a report and recommendation to this Board. Mrs. Thomas mentioned that following the last meeting, the County Executive asked for such a collaborative effort involving the County Planning Department and representatives of the Shenandoah National Park. This report is proceeding, but it is not finished, and the people involved certainly did not know that today is the date when the Supervisors would be presented with a report indicating the road would be widened and paved. She emphasized that this is not following the resolution unanimously adopted by this Board based on state law indicating this Board is the agent to manage and protect the scenic river. She added that this is not a local whim, but it is something that has been going on since 1979 through state law. She does not think Mrs. Tucker should feel forced to move ahead and totally disregard the direction given her by this Board. She has known Mrs. Tucker to be a person who pays attention to local direction so she (Mrs. Thomas) is not sure what is happen- ing in this case. She does not think this Board should acquiesce in something going against its resolution passed only a couple of months ago. 000: 27 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) Mrs. Tucker responded that it is true she had agreed to proceed after discussion and approval by this Board, with the paving of Route 614. She then referred to some people in the audience who, Mrs. Tucker believes, feel one way about this project. She said the Board members have to see the whole picture on behalf of all concerned. She indicated that she is probably facing the difficulty of this project in a very solo position at this moment. She referred to her promise to this Board, as well as her duty as a Resident Engineer on behalf of the direction she is getting through VDoT's Richmond office. She added that there is a window of time when this work should proceed, and due consideration to that timeframe must be made. She said it is left to interpretation as to how long due consideration must be given. VDoT officials are proceeding with a contractor who they cannot pull in and out of this project on whim, and they feel that, for various reasons, it is necessary to put the contractor back to work in a minimal way. She noted that the contractor had been put back to work prior to this meeting relating to the discussion of this summary report. This report does not have attachments since reports are due from Van Yahres and the Department of Conservation and Recreation. She pointed out that Van Yahres' representatives worked around the large sycamore tree at the request of some citizens. The report from the Department of Conservation and Recreation will share publicly the meeting which took place outside of the meeting with David Hirschman, although it was not her intent to have VDoT officials meeting separately with representatives of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. Mrs. Tucker said drainage pipes need to be installed on Route 614 in line with the hydraulic review to ensure that concentrated run-off does not occur with or without pavement in place. It seemed as though this would be a good piece of work to provide the contractor at this time, while it was concluded whether or not it was proper to pave this route. From VDoT offi- cials' standpoint at this time, and with all of the information in hand, they see no adverse impact to the scenic river corridor with the work planned in Sugar Hollow. She mentioned a concern, however, that there are those people, regardless of the impact, who do not want the road paved. This may be an issue that never quite gets resolved, so it can't be used as a factor to weigh the time of getting back to work on this project. She referred to the winter months approaching and the need to gear up for the snow season. This is a very delicate balancing act as to how to proceed and how to give due consider- ation to all concerns, such as the possible increased traffic to the area, as well as increased development requests. Mrs. Thomas said the Board' resolution calls for Mrs. Tucker to get prior approval before beginning these activities, now and in the future. The Van Yahres report was one of the requirements of the Water Resources Officer. The sycamore tree had to be dealt with immediately, and this has been done. She added that Mrs. Tucker has gone separately to the Department of Conserva- tion and Recreation, and it is almost as though a private builder was involved who indicated that he did not care what the Run-off Control Ordinance requires because he has gone to an expert, and the expert says a good job is being done. Mrs. Thomas said the procedure developed by this Board was a way to allow VDoT representatives to proceed with the project, taking into account as many of the side effects as possible during this process. This project is taking place in the County's one and only scenic overlay district and the County's one and only stream which has been designated as a scenic river. This is a unique area, and Mrs. Tucker is in the unique position of speeding through the paving project. There is bound to be a conflict. The resolution was not an attempt to bring everything to a halt, and she does not think it would have been adopted if this had been the case. Instead, it was an attempt to say how the project was to proceed. It is not acceptable to simply have Mrs. Tucker appear before the Supervisors today after sending them a letter a day and a half ago indicating that widening and paving of the road will be done. She also mentioned the installation of pipes, and recalled a report indicating that putting in certain pipes is not adequate. She said there are things that have to be done to the run-off so more problems are not being created by the run-off than already exists there. She said Mrs. Tucker has obviously taken this somewhat into account by talking about sheeting of the water, but the Supervisors can't take this and say whether Mrs. Tucker's proposal is good or bad. She emphasized that the Supervisors passed this resolution to indicate that approval should come from the Water Resources Officer. Mr. Perkins said it is his understanding that Mrs. Tucker and the Water Resources Officer have been working very closely together. The Supervisors have met several times in Sugar Hollow and David Hirschman has attended these November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) 000Z25 meetings. He added that there certainly have been communications between Mrs. Tucker and the Water Resources Officer. Mrs. Tucker said she would like weight given to the fact that she promised to discuss this project and move ahead after presenting this summary report before the Supervisors. She would also like for the same weight to be given to her statement now that VDoT officials will continue to proceed with the work with every due consideration given to any damage to the river. Work on the project started on Monday because it was necessary to put the contrac- tor to work. VDoT officials cannot afford to not have him on the job at this time, however, it is not the intent to ramrod this project through without giving continued consideration to all concerns. Knowing that some concerns may never be resolved, work has to proceed with the project, although VDoT representatives have to be prepared to listen as they work, given that the end result will be the same. She commented that work needs to be started out there, although she is not sure whether the question is to pave or not to pave, or whether there are actual arguments regarding environmental concerns or development concerns, which have yet to be addressed. Mrs. Thomas then read the resolution to the Board indicating that work on this project should proceed only with full respect for the scenic designa- tion of the river. Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Hirschman address the issues which are outstanding and which could be coordinated prior to work beginning or be addressed simultaneously with VDoT officials. Mr. Hirschman referred to a letter he sent Mrs. Tucker on October 12 listing recommendations based on a meeting at the site represented by all of the interests he felt were relevant. This letter indicated that, based on the resolution which was passed, the work would proceed, but full consideration would be taken to protect the river. Recommendations were made, but he feels this is only the middle of the process since there are still some decisions to be made on how recommendations will be implemented, if they are implemented. Mr. Hirschman said another process was set in motion when he and Mrs. Tucker received a letter from the County Executive on October 6, 1995, saying that collaboratively they were to address the concerns in the letters from the Friends of the Moormans River and Loretta Cummings. Some of these questions required him to consult with other agencies and departments, namely represen- tatives of the Shenandoah National Park and the Albemarle County Planning Department. He is still trying to address and get comments from these agencies so he can bring together the responses to those questions. He reiterated that, in both of these areas, he feels as though he is in the middle and has not had a chance to go through the whole process yet. Mr. Hirschman said that on matters such as mitigation, it will take some give and take between himself, the other agencies and VDoT officials if they are to fulfill the original motion. Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Hirschman could identify some of the specific things which have to be addressed. Mr. Hirschman said he could not give the Board a full accounting today of the issues since he just received the letter from Mrs. Tucker. It will take some time to mesh together the information in this letter with the information included in his October 12 letter to Mrs. Tucker. Mrs. Humphris said she would like to ask some questions relating to issues which were brought out in his October 12, 1995. She then referred to the potential for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) to remove the debris from the reservoir, as mentioned in Mr. Hirschman's letter. She noted that he said VDoT officials should coordinate with RWSA on the timing of the project and representatives of the RWSA and VDOT coordinate with each other to consider whether the proposed road improvement should take place before or after the possible reservoir clean out. She inquired if this matter has been discussed and decided upon. Mr. Hirschman said his recommendation was that The clean out of the reservoir will most likely be handled by RWSA, but at this point, he is not sure of the timing. Mr. Perkins mentioned that clean out of the reservoir is not nearly as extensive as was expected at one time. Next, Mrs. Humphris referred to the statement in Mr. Hirschman's letter that if stormwater is concentrated, such as along the road adjacent to Puppy Run Farm, alternative means should be explored for pretreating this run-off before it is discharged into the river or its tributaries. She asked if this November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 000 29 has been dealt with. Mr. Hirschman replied that, after scanning Mrs. Tucker's letter, he does not believe this issue has been resolved. Mrs. Humphris next talked about the attachments to Mrs. Tucker's letter see letter dated October 30, 1995, addressed to Ella Carey, Clerk, from A. G. Tucker, re: Route 614, Albemarle County, Paving Work After Flood Restoration) relating to the Asphalt Institute. These attachments differ with another report relating to the break-off of some of the asphalt material with its possible contact with acid rain. She wondered if VDoT officials have looked at the possibility of plant mix leaching into the water. Mr. Hirschman stated again that he has not had a chance to read, in detail, the materials sent to him by Mrs. Tucker. However, the abstract he received involved the leaching of metals from porous pavement. That porous pavement is different from most asphalt which is relatively impervious. Porous pavement is designed so water will infiltrate it. With asphalt, instead of water infiltrating, it is very efficiently delivered off of the paved surface. This illustrates his concern about stormwater run-off because any material deposited on the surface of the pavement, such as oil, grease, heavy metals, etc., will be delivered off of that surface and into the receiving water. This matter is based on consider- ation of the two different types of surfaces. He added that porous pavement ms permeable or semi-permeable, but plant mix is relatively impervious, and water won't percolate through it. Mrs. Humphris mentioned several comments in Mr. Hirschman's letter about the necessity of lowering the rock berm between the road and the river. She thinks some of this has already been done, but she wondered if all of it, as recommended in this report, had been accomplished. Mr. Hirschman responded that he does not have the answer to this question today. Mr. Perkins asked if Mrs. Tucker could give Mrs. Humphris an answer. Mrs. Tucker replied that she can answer all four of the items Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Hirschman. The rock berms have not been addressed yet. The rock berm area is west of the Route 674 intersection, and the work is not being done at this time. The work, beginning Monday of this week, was strictly carrying rock for maintenance purposes, and ultimately if the road is to be paved, it will also serve as a base material. By getting work started on Monday, it accomplished a dual purpose activity. Work will eventually be done on the rock berms, and a grass shoulder buffer area will be established to provide the filtration process. She referred to the question about clean up of the dam, which will not be quite as extensive as once thought. This week's work needed to start immediately for various reasons. She has been told it is not critical to wait for the dam clean up, and this issue will be addressed when the contract is awarded. She was told that it is hard to find people who are interested in providing this work. There is a window in time where the issue of flood restoration can be addressed, but it could be next spring or summer before dam clean up is resolved. This should be disregarded insofar as holding off on the other necessary activities. Mrs. Tucker said she had worked closely with the County when the Keene Landfill was closed and damage was done to the state route. A satisfactory conclusion was found as to how to maintain that particular road. She then mentioned the run-off at Puppy Run Farm, which she believes will be a touchy discussion. It is VDoT officials' desire to grade this area to provide 18 feet of pavement width and a foot of shoulder width. With the installation of a shoulder, minimal drainage can be provided on the side of the road away from the river. It will be brought to a point where it will pass through a much more natural filtration and buffer area than it currently does as it leaves Puppy Run Farm and crosses the road and continues to erode the slope directly adjacent to the river at this time. This is one advantage of providing sufficient pavement width along this stretch of roadway. Mrs. Humphris wondered if Mrs. Tucker is communicating with Mr. Hirschman about the plan, or is she taking his suggestions and going on with the activity not knowing if it is satisfactory. Mrs. Tucker said the plan is not spelled out in detail in the report. She thinks there is more detail forthcoming with regard to discussions with Mr. Hirschman. It has been the opinion of VDoT officials' that this is a step toward an improved handling of run-off in this area. If the existing conditions are left in place, there will be considerable erosion taking place across Route 614 in that location. There will be so much erosion that in an emergency, this area may have to be addressed as a spot improvement because of the washing of the road width. She answered Mrs. Humphris' question by saying that this matter has not been discussed per se, but the information is being provided as an advisement. O00 ., O November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 20) Mrs. Humphris said it seems that a lot more discussion needs to take place. She referred to one of Mr. Hirschman's statements indicating that even well-conceived run-off practices may not be enough to prevent an increased delivery of pollutants to the river in places such as Puppy Run Farm which are immediately adjacent to the river. Mr. Perkins said he thought this issue was settled when the meeting was held on September 19, 1995. He said that Mrs. Humphris, Mrs. Tucker, Mr. Hirschman and a number of other people were present. This matter was consid- ered, and it was pointed out that the water could not just be dumped through a pipe down a 30 foot bank. There would have to be a down spout with a splash basin at the bottom of the pipe so the bank would not be severely eroded. Mrs. Tucker agreed with Mr. Perkins' comments. She had thought the measures discussed at this meeting meant there may be some measures required regarding the run-off from private property across the road. She went on to say that if the run-off is not allowed over the road, then it is not going to pick up the drainage on the road, but it will be piped under the road and taken to an outfall such as Mr. Perkins just mentioned. Mr. Perkins said there is a severe problem existing in this location today. If nothing is done with the drainage, then every time there is a substantial rainfall, the road will be washed out. He concurred with Mrs. Tucker about the need for work to be done on private property to divert the water because all of the water now comes down the driveway into Route 614. He does not know what to do, and he wondered if Mr. Hirschman needs to see design drawings of the way the pipes are going to be installed, etc. It was his understanding on September 19 that certain things were acceptable, and these were the things that were going to be done. Mrs. Tucker said she can continue to try and work with Mr. Hirschman to share information. The efforts to start work on Monday need to continue, , but some of the more critical issues can be wrapped up by Friday of next week. She has discussed this timeframe with Mr. Hirschman. At this time, they can continue to plan to absorb whatever needs to be addressed with the contraCtor as the work proceeds. She mentioned the installation of the pipes which basically means that an additional line of pipe needs to be installed along Route 614. She explained that if the outfalls to the pipe currently in place are not causing any damage, additional lines of pipe will be added to handle the ten-year storm requirement in that area. She referred to the issue raised by Mrs. Humphris about the leaching of asphalt. This is one of those issues which may not have a resolution insofar as what is to be accomplished. This is a long-standing controversy regarding a major industry that supports the Department of Transportation. There is the environmental side of the situation which has its own argument and continues this debate. She believes this matter will remain in debate form for some time. Mrs. Humphris asked if hot mix will be used. She said VDoT representa- tives usually refer to it as plant mix, but the industry calls it hot mix to distinguish it from the other two. Mrs. Tucker answered that it is the same type of material, but VDoT representatives refer to it as a cold mix. It is basically put into place cold, and it is generally used for patching potholes in existing pavement. Cold mix would not be used to pave a road because it is not heated, so it doesn't bind in the same way. This is why the report delineates between hot and cold mixes. Mr. Tucker asked if there is a reason for using plant mix rather than surface-treating the road like Route 614 and most of the other secondary roads in the County. Mrs. Tucker replied that plant mix represents the best product for the time, energy and funding available. It holds up best under high water conditions. Mr. Marshall said he wants to adhere to the resolution if at all possible, but he realizes Mrs. Tucker's position. There is no way anybody will get everything he or she wants. He stated that Mrs. Tucker has a tough job, and everything he has ever asked her to do she has done it to the best of her ability. He is satisfied that she will handle this project to the best of her ability~ but he asked her to look really hard at this resolution, as he knows she will. He asked Mrs. Tucker to try and preserve the environment in Sugar Hollow. He reiterated that he doesn't want to be all negative, because Mrs. Tucker has done a good job for this County. Mrs. Tucker thanked Mr. Marshall for his comments. She said it is a "tall order" sometimes, but she will certainly do her best to liSten. She 000 3 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) realizes that Sugar Hollow is a location where everybody will not be satis- fied, but she will try to satisfy the majority by working through this Board. This isn't a formal requirement, and she is not getting much support for her position internally with VDoT officials. She has told them that they have given her the authority to handle this situation, and this is how she chooses to do it, but it is a balancing act. She has asked the contractor to get to work to show this matter is being attended to because a big break in time is not desired. Mrs. Thomas said the Supervisors have not asked Mrs. Tucker to satisfy everybody and every whim, although they have asked her to do a whole lot more than just listen and try. The resolution says Mrs. Tucker shall get the approval of the Water Resources Officer. The only reason she puts such an emphasis on this one person is because this is a manageable way for Mrs. Tucker to proceed. The Supervisors are not saying Mrs. Tucker has to get approval of every single person who has any concern or interest in the road. A-four lane highway would be built if Mrs. Tucker was trying to satisfy some of the people who have their land ready to develop. She believes the Supervi- sors are not being unreasonable, and Mrs. Tucker agreed to this resolution two months ago. She recalled that Mrs. Tucker informed this Board that she had been told by VDoT officials to follow local.direction in this case. Represen- tatives in the State VDoT office believe they have gotten Board of Supervi- sors' approval to go ahead with whatever they are doing. This was shocking to Mrs. Thomas and is the reason she wants the Supervisors to go on record to reiterate the resolution which doesn't say Mrs. Tucker had this Board's approval to widen and pave and do anything she wants with the project, while in the meantime listening politely. Mrs. Thomas said listening politely doesn't quite work when Mrs. Tucker is being asked to follow a certain procedure and to respect the uniqueness of the area and the many constituents who want roads paved. This project should be referred to the newly approved Six-Year Road Plan where there are projects that have been considered for 12 or 15 years. There are people who have donated their rights-of-way and have been waiting for roads to be paved, and these roads have been discussed many years in order to get to this point. This is the usual process, and it is not being followed for this project, which is delightful to a few people who think this is a gift. In fact, she said it is the County's most delicate area rather than an area that can be paved and can be accepted as a wonderful gift. She stated that Mrs. Tucker should not proceed to widen and pave until there is approval from the Water Resources Officer, particularly relating to the widening portion of the project. The Water Resources Officer is dealing with all of the other groups, and she reminded Mrs. Tucker that he is doing the kind of dealing that Mrs. Tucker says is difficult because of weighing all the interests. The Supervi- sors have given Mrs. Tucker a way out of this dilemma by giving her a way to deal with one person and a way to proceed, but she has not proceeded in this fashion. Mr. Perkins commented that he thinks Mrs. Tucker has proceeded in the proper fashion, and this conversation is just a delaying tactic. He thinks this Board should tell David Hirschman to give Mrs. Tucker permission to proceed to do whatever is necessary to this road. The road will be widened only in one place, and a meeting was held about this very thing. As far as he is concerned, Mr. Hirschman gave his approval that day. He does not think design plans are needed or a written letter from Mr. Hirschman to Mrs. Tucker telling her to proceed. He emphasized that as far as he is concerned, this Board's resolution has been met, and the Supervisors are waiting for Mr. Hirschman to give them some feedback. He noted that Mr. Hirschman asked questions, and Mrs. Tucker has answered those questions. He said this is just a tactic to delay the project until winter, and then it can be put off until spring, and the same issues will occur. He thinks this Board needs to be finished with this issue. Mrs. Tucker remarked that she had suggested that the contact person be David Hirschman, so she has no intention of working around him. She mentioned again that she had sent the contractor to work on Monday of this week, but work will proceed in a minimal fashion. She wants it to be known that VDoT workers are out there. She asked David Hirschman t© supply the VDoT office with his official opinion on behalf of this Board by Friday of next week. The work regarding placing stone and drainage items will proceed. This is sufficient work to keep the contractor busy for the next seven work days. Whether this issue is resolved one way or the other, these things will need to be installed. November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 0001~2 (Page 22) Mrs. Humphris inquired as to when Mr. Hirschman received the letter from Mrs. Tucker. Mr. Hirschman replied that he received the official letter immediately before the Board meeting, but he had received a copy of it at 5:30 p.m. last night. Mrs. Tucker commented that of all the mistakes she has made, the worst one was the fact that Mr. Hirschman was left off the copy list. She used the quite extensive copy list from his letter to her to advise the secretary to whom to send copies. Obviously his name was not on his own copy list, and she did not think to add it. She went on to say that when she was told this morning by a phone message that she had left Mr. Hirschman off the copy list, she knew she should prepare a proper defense since he was the main contact person. This was a bad mistake on her behalf, but it was not intentional. He has now been provided a formal copy of the letter. Mrs. Humphris said she does not regard this as a delaying tactic, and she does not think Mrs. Tucker feels it is. She really believes that after the lengthy discussion of this matter prior to adoption of the resolution, the Supervisors felt as though everything had been brought together. She believed that all the facts and what was going to happen in the future had been resolved in a carefully thought out way, but it seems to her that it hasn't happened that way. She asked if it can still proceed in this manner, or is Mrs. Tucker so pushed by the need to have this contractor at work that it supersedes the Board of Supervisors' resolution. Mr. Bowerman agreed that this is the heart of the issue. Mrs. Humphris asked if the resolution means anything at all to anybody at VDoT. Mr. Perkins reiterated that everybody was present at the September 19, 1995, meeting, and all of this is happening 40 days later. He asked if it takes 40 days to get a matter such as this straightened out. He does not think so. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks the deadline is quite reasonable, but she thinks it was too bad a deadline wasn't given earlier. She wanted to make sure everybody was hearing the same thing because this seems to be the problem. She asked what part of the project won't be done until Mrs. Tucker hears from Mr. Hirschman. Mrs. Tucker responded that if the full Board decides they do not want Route 614 paved because of a development concern, it could stop the paving project. Environmental arguments may never be resolved, and she feels that issues such as run-off, and gravel washing into the river can be addressed and are not going to be damaging to the environment. From an environmental standpoint, she does not feel this is going to stop this project. If this Board feels that development is going to be an issue, then it would be a tough one for VDoT officials to argue. The only argument would be if development occurred in any way, and the road needed to be improved under the usual procedures, then major realignment would be considered. She thinks this would impact the river in an even greater way so the current project could be looked at as a one-time opportunity to lay a paved road lightly on the land in this area with or without enhancing development of any kind. Mrs. Humphris asked if widening will take place no matter what happens. Mr. Perkins commented that there is only one spot to be widened. Mrs. Tucker said this issue can be considered after Friday of next week. If the road is not paved, the widening will not have to occur, and the road will be left as it is currently. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mrs. Tucker is saying that if this Board adopts a resolution to VDoT asking them not to pave the road, that will be the end of the issue. He wondered if she feels that state officials want the road paved so it will be paved, and because of the type of funding, the Supervisors are not involved in approving the project. Mrs. Tucker responded that there has to be a very good argument as to why it should not be paved. Otherwise, consideration will be given to this Board's concerns, and then the paving project will move forward. Mr. Bowerman next inquired if Mrs. Tucker thinks the environment issue is significant because it is debatable, and the evidence is not conclusive in either direction. He wondered if County officials that fear additional development will occur along that corridor and it would not be good for that part of the County, if that fear would hold more weight. Mrs. Tucker answered affirmatively. She said it may not stop the paving, because the question would be whether or not there is no other control over development in that November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) area. It is not her intention to put this matter in the Supervisors' hands totally, and she does not know if there is time to make such a decision. Mr. Marshall mentioned that, as far as the environment is concerned, fish hatcheries are lined with asphalt in Oregon, as well as other places. He has made inquiries at the state level about such issues, but he does not have the expertise to make this decision. He emphasized that he does not know who has the knowledge to argue the issue of paving the road. As far as he is concerned, if the majority of the people in that vicinity want the road paved, then it should be paved. Mr. Bowerman stated that when the resolution was adopted, it was his feeling that the road was going to be paved because VDoT officials wanted it paved. He did think that VDoT officials would be willing to look at the County officials' concerns and work with David Hirschman to minimize any impact the paving would make. Mr. Marshall remarked that there is no one at this meeting who has the expertise to tell the Supervisors that paving the road will be harmful to the river. It seems to him that if the road is not paved, there will be more harm done to the river. Mrs. Thomas agreed that the Supervisors don't have the expertise to make such a decision, and that is why the decision was made to have the information go through someone who was going to access the experts. She thinks the County staff should be able to expedite things and get a report to Mrs. Tucker by next Friday. Mr. Marshall asked if the decision relates just to paving the road, because he has heard several people indicate that this knowledge is not available. He said it is just an argument, and that is all it is. Mrs. Thomas said she is focusing on the widening issue more than the paving issue. Widening needs to be done on the portion of road in front of the Puppy Run Farm. There are proposals from the County Engineering Depart- ment, but VDoT officials think they have come up with an alternative solution, and they are going ahead with their decision. Although they may be right, the proposal should come back for review by the County Engineer. There are three places where the road narrows to a single lane, so this is not a road where people will be able to speed even if it is paved. There may be four places where people have to slow down extensively. These are issues on which knowledgeable engineers can argue, but they can also come up with a reasonable answer. She thinks ~VDoT officials have a right to say certain deadlines must be met, but they do not have the right to proceed with widening and paving no matter what the Supervisors say. She emphasized that despite VDOT representa- tives saying they were going to listen, they have not listened to the one person suggested by the Supervisors. Mr. Hirschman mentioned the concern about chemicals and asphalt. He said there is scientific debate as to what can leach out of the material itself. In this case, the surface is relatively impervious. There are going to be chemicals deposited on the surface during dry times, and they will be delivered to the stream. There are ways of dealing with this (see his recommendation of October 12), and there may need to be some give and take before coming to the final technological resolution of the problem. He hopes his statement will help focus the Supervisors on the issue, because in his mind the primary concern with chemicals and asphalt is what is deposited and washes off, rather than what may leach through the material. Mr. Bowerman suggested that Mr. Hirschman put his concerns into writing, especially regarding the Puppy Run Farm area, so VDoT officials can consider them and make a decision. He reiterated that Mr. Hirschman needs to put into writing what he thinks it is best to do. Mr. Hirschman said he would be happy to do this. He explained that the last involvement he had with this matter was on October 12, 1995, when he sent the letter. Then, this morning he got a response to that letter. Mr. Marshall said he basically agrees with Mr. Hirschman and Mrs. Thomas. He thinks VDoT representatives need to set a deadline so the Supervi- sors can get this issue behind them. Mr. Hirschman said he is more than prepared to meet the deadline, including answering the questions in the letters from the Friends of the Moormans and Loretta Cummings on Comprehensive Plan issues and development issues. He was charged with doing this as well, 000 84 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) and although he has been moving forward with these issues, he has not com- pleted his work. Mrs. Humphris wondered if something will be available for this Board ~oon. Mr. Hirschman replied that he has to wait for other agencies' responses to his questions. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Hirschman and Mrs. Tucker need to get together and talk to one another and not let a period of time lapse without communication. He realizes both of them are busy, but this is clearly a heavy issue for the people who live in that area, as well as the Supervisors. Mr. Perkins inquired if there is a design available on what will be done in the Puppy Run Farm area. Mrs. Tucker answered that she has no design available on paper, however, she has some plans included with the hydraulic report, as far as the pipes which are to be installed. She will share this information with Mr. Hirschman. Mrs. Humphris said it seems as though Mr. Hirschman has been left out of the information loop for too long. She needs to be back in the loop, and VDoT officials need to adhere to the Board of Supervisors' resolution. Next, Dr. James Bennett informed Board members that he and his family have been residents of Sugar Hollow for the past ten years. He is responding to Mrs. Tucker's report about VDoT's proposal to pave Route 614 west of Route 674. He will also offer some observations about the process which has led to this juncture today. He has two points to make. First, the Supervisors have not heard from their constituents about this issue. Second, the Supervisors' role in shaping the future of this area of Albemarle County has been com- pletely and unilaterally bypassed by VDoT in this paving decision. He recalled the September 13 Board meeting where three Sugar Hollow landowners spoke in favor of paving. He addressed Mr. Marshall's comments by saying that two of these people are absentee landowners, and the third has a potential commercial interest in whether the road is paved. Of the nine property owners in the area who have given rights-of-way, four are absentee owners. If permanent residents in the area are considered, as far as people who own or rent property, eight households oppose paving and seven favor it. His point is not to play a numbers game over which side has the greater voice, but rather to point out that this is a controversial local issue on which opinion is fairly evenly divided. The more important concept to remember is that Sugar Hollow and the Moormans River corridor form a unique resource for Albemarle County. What happens in Sugar Hollow is the proper concern of all County residents. It is not simply the private arena of a few local landown- ers or area residents. There has yet to be any type of standard public forum to debate the paving question as a question of paving. Instead, this has been a piecemeal situation, and the many potential impacts of this decision on the future of Sugar Hollow have not been discussed. Mr. Bennett said his next point relates to the fact that the public and the Board of Supervisors have been bypassed in making this decision. Instead, the Supervisors and the public have been forced to react to it. In the aftermath of the June flood, Albemarle County was called upon to make a choice which was to restore or improve the Sugar Hollow road between Route 674 and the dam. In early July, the Supervisors chose only to restore the road to its original configuration, setting aside all normal procedure. Sometime in July, V]DoT officials assumed the decision-making role for the County and between then and early August, they took charge and decided to make a different choice for Albemarle County and informed both the Supervisors and the local community in early August of the choice without any chance for debate. By this time, they had already begun their project of massive improvement over a previously modest stretch of road. In making this decision, VDoT officials began to steer Albemarle County toward a different future than the Supervisors have planned. Normally if paving for a County road was proposed, public hearings would be held by this Board. VDoT officials dispensed with this procedure. Ordinarily, location and design hearings would have been held by VDoT, but in this case, none occurred. Under ordinary circumstances a unanimous donation of rights-of-way by landowners would have been required, but this procedure was also waived. In the matter of paving the Sugar Hollow road, VDoT offi- cials assumed the primary decision-making role. He said they decided for the Board of Supervisors, the County staff, the neighborhood and all the residents of the County. 000 1.35 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) Mr. Bennett said that using the customary Six-Year Plan, where roads for paving are prioritized and discussed at public hearings, Albemarle County has created a mechanism for controlling the rate of development in its most valued natural areas. In this instance, VDoT officials did not consult the County. No opinion was asked as to the advisability of paving the road in Sugar Hollow, so now the County is moving toward a far different future than many residents want. This may be a course leading directly to development when ways to protect this special region should be sought. Albemarle County has limited water resources, thus it is prudent to conserve natural resources to future demands. The Sugar Hollow area represents one of the most important watersheds for the entire County, yet, before protection of watershed regions could be evaluated in terms of the new Comprehensive Plan, VDoT officials made a decision which could alter the future of this area as a watershed. Through letters, telephone calls and a petition, over 800 people requested that Albemarle County citizens be made part of this decision-making process relative to improving this road. He asked who demised these citizens of their voices. Is it VDoT officials who say citizens do not pay attention to County plans so why should they care about public opinion, or is it the Board of Supervisors who by accepting %rDoT's authority, no longer are in a position to hold public hearings? It seems as though ordinary democracy with its checks and balances has broken down in this case. Common sense indicates that an initial emergency situation should not cause VDoT officials to circumvent ordinary procedures when the emergency no longer exists. There may have been an appropriate rush to restore the road, but the rush now to pave it cannot be justified. He asked why Albemarle County officials could not have been consulted and permitted time to hold public hearings and allowed to steer its own course. Mr. Bennett then requested that the decision-making process be returned to the public and to the elected representatives. He then read the following resolution from the Ivy Creek Foundation Board of Directors into the minutes of this meeting. "Consistent with its role of encouraging active protection of the Rivanna Reservoir and its watershed, the Ivy Creek Foundation wishes to express concern over the magnitude of road replacement along the Moormans River and Sugar Hollow. It is our hope that the health of such an important component of the County's eco system be given the highest priority in the decision-making process. We support open public debate on issues such as this and ask that our County exercise any authority it may have over the Virginia Department of Transportation in matters concerning the Moormans River corri- dor.'' Ms. Katherine Hobbs, President of the Charlottesville/Albemarle League of Women Voters, read a statement strongly supporting the request of Friends of the Moormans for a public hearing to hear and discuss the various solutions proposed for problems created by the disastrous June flood (see letter from the League of Women Voters to the Board of Supervisors and delivered November 1, 1995). Mr. Marshall agreed with Ms. Hobbs' remarks, but wondered if the decision-making relative to the solutions of problems created by the June flood is out of the Board of Supervisors' hands. He is hearing that VDoT officials have to do certain things, but he is also hearing opinions that asphalt is going to do harm, while others say it is not. He has never been so confused since he has been on this Board. This issue has been before this Board for innumerable meetings, and he really does not know what is best. The Supervisors set in motion things to happen with Mr. Hirschman and Mrs. Tucker, and he wondered what else the Supervisors can do and what else is expected of them. Will the Supervisors vote on a decision, or will they leave things as they are? Will the Supervisors continue to go to meeting after meeting and hear the same things over and over? He reiterated that he does not disagree with anything he is hearing, but he wants the problem solved. He wants somebody who has some knowledge to come forward and say certain things are going to happen. He wondered if a decision has to be made today. He recalled Mrs. Tucker's comments about her superiors. Regardless of what the Supervi- sors say, VDoT officials will have to start work at a certain time because of contractors' arrangements and because of necessity. Ms. Karen Dame, representing Citizens for Albemarle, stated that the community shares Mr. Marshall's frustration, and she thinks the horror is that things are proceeding without the citizens at least attempting to proclaim where they are going. She mentioned the 40 days alluded to by Mr. Perkins, and said these days might have been used for public hearings as well as to generate reports within the County which could be put in front of the public. 000136 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) She recalled Ms. Tucker's comments relating to grassing a bank in the Sugar Hollow area. She does not have a lot of faith in the VDoT agency as far as knowing what sort of grass this particular river bank should have. She asked if this is the same grass growing on the roadside between Charlottesville and Richmond, and she wondered if it would be appropriate for the Sugar Hollow environment. She said these are the kinds of things people want a chance to review. They want to plan for what is going to take place and to be able to look at each step and evaluate it. There is a huge amount of expertise in this community for environmental impact concerns, and it needs to be funneled into this process and not be driven by a VDoT schedule. She does not know what it takes for the Supervisors to intervene with VDoT officials, but she thinks the community is begging them to do so. She reminded the Supervisors that a letter came to them from Citizens for Albemarle on October 3. She read one paragraph from this letter which advised that Citizens for Albemarle is concerned that whatever repairs or improvements are performed, the impact of human activities upon the Moormans River be minimized so the environment can heal through natural processes. This organization strongly supports the petition sent to this Board by the Friends of the Moormans calling for a public hearing to discuss the immediate steps to be taken with regard to the protection of the Moormans River. Although this County Government has a great history of public participation, there has been no reply to this letter. She wondered if there will be an opportunity after Mr. Hirschman's report to Mrs. Tucker to hear what is going on, as well as react to it, or are County officials using the VDoT me~hod of just doing certain things. She is unable to suggest all of the answers, but she thinks there is an enormous need in this community for a plan to be made, and how far VDoT officials will cooper- ate. Mr. Dan Beeker, President of the Ivy Creek Foundation, reminded the Board members that they had adopted a resolution relating to this issue. It was arrived at during the last time this matter was discussed when Mrs. Thomas did the research to find out who had the ultimate authority in this matter. That research indicated that the Board of Supervisors have the ultimate authority given the unique status of the river, and the Supervisors decided at that time to give Mr. Hirschman the authority to decide these issues. He emphasized that Mr. Hirschman was not just to be consulted with, but VDoT i! officials would have to do what he said. He reiterated that the issue relates to who has the authority to make the final decision. It seems to him that it is the Supervisors. If the Supervisors need public hearings to help make the decisions, or if they need to consult experts, or if they just want to leave the decision to Mr. Hirschman, then that is what needs to be done. (Mr. Martin arrived at the meeting at 10:57 a.m.) Mr. Jay Carden, Conservation Chairman of the Piedmont group of the Sierra Club, explained that his club is an outings and conservation organiza- tion which has approximately 700 members locally, 300 of the members live in Albemarle County. By authority of a unanimous decision by the Sierra Club's executive committee, he is present at this meeting to second the voice of those who have already spoken in urging the Supervisors to call for a formal public forum to receive comments on this issue. The fact that enough is not known, as everyone seems to agree, is a good reason for waiting and finding out what should be known about this important issue. The Sierra Club members care about the Moormans River because of its recreational use, its natural beauty, its scenic properties and, also, because it represents a pocket of relatively undeveloped land in a county that is suffering increased pressures for development. Mr. Carden encouraged the Supervisors to use the full extent of their authority to look into this matter and make sure the Moormans River in Sugar Hollow is not harmed any more than it has been harmed by nature this year. Ms. Justine Taylor, a resident of the Moormans River area, stated that she lives right on the river, but she does not live in Sugar Hollow. She goes down to the river quite often, maybe four or five times a week, and she measures the high water mark of the river by plastic in the tree tops, a boot, - a twisted bit of barbed wire, car tires or whatever. They tell the sad side of the story of the Moormans River. She also goes down to the river for the beauty of it, since she is an aspiring artist. The river serves as an inspiration. She is extremely concerned about the tar surfacing of the road. She knows the material is toxic and there is lead and other things in it, which she cannot quote to the Supervisors, because she is not scientifically oriented. The only answer addressing this concern is that all of the lethal material is encapsulated in this particular medium which is being proposed for 000 37 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) the road. The word "encapsulated" to her means "enclosed". Assuming the surface is not disturbed, then it must mean it will be enclosed forever and it will be impervious to everything. Apparently there have been some tests done in France which have determined that acid rain will indeed break down this encapsulation, and eventually some material will leach out. Common sense or logic, and the fact that she has lived through several floods in Virginia, as well as many where she originally came from, tells her that the nature of the flood in this particular area is a violent one. The words ~high water" have been used here, but that is the gentle description. It doesn't really describe what takes place or will take place again in Sugar Hollow. Ms. Taylor mentioned that the rains which soaked the mountainside could have been accompanied by another Hurricane Camille which put down eight inches of rain in an hour in the middle of the night. She noted, too, that the dam could have broken. She has not heard one word about the dam in these meet- ings, although everybody is so concerned about protecting the people who are living in this area. This is a 50-year old dam, and she is sure it has some obligation to restore the road so people can get in and out of their proper- ties, which is an obvious solution to the immediate problem. The road should be restored so people can have access, and they can get out of their proper- ties in an emergency. These people have chosen to live in a delicate area, which would be her choice if she could make such a choice because of the beauty and specialty of it. She would have to see it change. She commented that because of its specialty and difficulty and natural beauty that the river needs to be preserved as such and appreciated as such. It is not the place for development where innocent people will be put there to live who come from different parts of the country and have never seen floods. When she goes to Sugar Hollow, she sees the big gap in the mountainside, and people can't believe how it happened. It could have happened at night to people in their beds. If the flood had happened at night, maybe there would have been lives lost. These are common sense issues. Ms. Taylor said she has indulged in an exercise of how to get a road paved. She called the VDOT office and said she is a citizen of Albemarle County, and she live on a dirt road. She asked how she could get the road paved. The answer was that it was not easy, but she would be sent a brochure. She does not have a copy of the brochure, but she is sure the Supervisors have seen it, because it is probably given to every citizen who goes through this process. The VDOT representative explained to her that she would have to get a consensus of everybody who lives along the road, and it is almost humanly impossible if there is not 100 percent of the people who live along the road who want to go along with having it paved. She knows this firsthand, and she really didn't even have to call the VDOT office. When she moved into the house where she lives now, an application had already been made to pave this particular road, and everybody agreed to it except the people from whom she bought the house. It was a dirt road and she went through the process in 1991 or 1992 out of curiosity to see the status of getting the road paved. Some things have changed about the process, but this particular regulation has not, and there still has to be 100 percent consensus of everybody who lives along the road. This regulation still exists, and the brochure mailed to her from the VDoT office states this fact. She wondered what happened in Sugar Hollow. Mr. Perkins said a flood happened there. Ms. Taylor responded that she knows a flood happened, but it doesn't mean the road should be paved or widened. It means the road should be restored to what it was before, and she asked what made the Supervisors go two steps further. The road is already wider. She has lived there a long time and frequents the area, and it is no longer a trail where a vehicle has to slow down to let someone else pass. She was in this area last week, and a car went by her approximately 50 miles an hour. The road is wide because it is being prepared to be paved. She wondered what decision was made, who made it and how was it made. She asked if she will be looking for tar chunks from a low river mark, instead of plastic, etc., from a high river mark. She said that living below the river, she will be affected, and she wondered about the quality of the drinking water in the Rivanna Reservoir. Will contamination affect human consumption? These are questions for which she would like answers. There are also other things needing to be addressed, and hopefully the Friends of the Moormans will try to address these problems and do some- thing about them. Mr. Perkins asked how many miles of paved road already drain into the Rivanna Reservoir, and he suggested that Ms. Taylor might want to find the answer to this question. The portion of road being paved would only be November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 0001~8 (Page 28) another couple of miles, which certainly should not cause too much more damage. Ms. Taylor responded that she does not know the answer to Mr. Perkins' question, but she wondered if a mistake was made in the past allowing paved roads in that area. Now there is a chance to keep the area natural and healthy, as well as a chance to help the environment. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the Board move on with the meeting. He said he would put a motion forward when the public portion for this item is finished. Mr. Brad Sayler, a three-year resident of Sugar Hollow, said he moved there because it is an area of great natural beauty. He is concerned that VDoT representatives seem to be moving quickly and without approval of the Sugar Hollow residents, County residents and the Board of Supervisors. He asked the Supervisors to put this issue to public forum so the impact of VdoT's intended activities can be known and stopped if it is decided that it is not what is desired for this lovely area of Albemarle County. He echoed all of the concerns of the speakers before him. Mr. Phil Sheridan, representing the Isaac Walton League, spoke in favor of a public hearing on the Sugar Hollow road issue. He has been going to Sugar Hollow since 1952, and it is losing its mystique rapidly. VDoT's Resident Engineer tried to tell everybody this morning that there are no experts who can solve the environmental problems one way or the other. This is not true because when something is put in the water and fish die, something is poisoning the water. When something is put into the water and fish don't die, then it is not poisonous. The Resident Engineer also told the Supervi- sors this morning that work would go on with this project irrespective of what the Supervisors say. When the Supervisors are told such a thing, it seems as though he is being told the same thing, since the Supervisors represent him. This statement did not sit well with him. Mr. Jack Marshall, a landowner on the Moormans River, spoke next. He asked why the VDoT spokesperson said this project has to be done immediately. This road has been unpaved since Indians walked it, and suddenly the project is beginning on Monday. There are two different issues, and he hopes a distinction can be made between them. One is the process and the other is the content. He won't get into the content issue, but this can be done if the problems of the process are corrected. He indicated that normal democratic processes have been violated because there have not been adequate public hearings so the people could speak about the issues. He appreciates the opportunity now to do so. He has just heard %rDoT's Resident Engineer say it is not the intent to ramrod this project through, but it is happening. One way the Supervisors can rectify this situation is to open the matter up to public hearing. He noted that the last time he spoke to the Supervisors about this issue, VDoT officials were thumbing their nose at them. He said they still are. At this time, Mr. Perkins closed the meeting to public comment. He referred to the meeting with Mr. Hirschman and representatives of VDoT which was held at the White Hall Community Center. All of the landowners who live on Route 614 at White Hall and Moormans River were invited to this meeting. The room was packed even though the temperature was about 95 degrees, and there were a lot of comments made that night. This Board has heard comments from different groups. One week one group will show up at a meeting, and the next week another group will appear. His personal feeling is that there have been enough public comments made already. In many cases, VDoT officials will do their own thing because they are responsible for roads in Virginia. The Supervisors approve some of the money they spend, but it is less than ten percent of the total. VDoT can do a lot of things without asking the Supervi- sors' permission, and they often do so. He sat through a lot of public hearings, and he can sit through some more, but he does not know what else the Supervisors would learn about this issue. Mr. Bowerman said he has a position which he thinks should also be this Board's position. The Board's initial concern was the restoration of the Sugar Hollow road and this has happened. Now, VDoT officials have funds available to pave the road, so this new issue has arisen. The normal way to deal with such an issue is through the Six-Year Plan, if the Supervisors have input on the project. He thinks if the road is to be paved, it should be paved along with other priorities throughout the County. This is the way things have always been done, and it makes sense to continue in that manner. The issue has arisen because VDoT evidently has the funds to pave the road. ~ovember 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) Since the road has been restored to basically what it was before the flood, improvements should become part of a regular Six-Year secondary highway approval. This issue should be considered when the plan is done next year, and it should be considered with all of the other priorities. He thinks this should be the position of this Board, and he will make such a motion. - Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Mr. Perkins said he cannot support this motion because the funds are coming from a different place than funds for the normal Six-Year Plan. VDoT officials feel they need to put the road back into a condition so it won't wash out because of heavy rains. They have an opportunity to fix this road, which may withstand a ten-year flood, rather than having to go back and repair the road which is very costly and'damaging ecologically. The road certainly will not withstand a flood such as the one this past June, but maybe it can be fixed to last a long time so there won't have to be as many repairs. Mr. Martin said he understands Mr. Bowerman's position, but the only thing the Supervisors would be doing would be postponing a decision. When the Super-visors vote on the Six Year Plan, they will have both sides of this issue coming to them again. He is not sure what Mr. Bowerman is trying to accomplish. Mrs. Humphris said the important thing is not whether the road should be paved. The issue is the process, and VDoT officials have run roughshod over this Board and this community by not following the process. She said the presence of money, no matter how much it is, is not nearly as important as the public. She referred to the people who had spoken today representing groups such as the League of Women Voters, Citizens for Albemarle, Ivy Creek Founda- tion, Sierra Club, Isaac Walton League and Friends of the Moormans, as well as landowners and residents. These people are telling the Supervisors that they have betrayed and she believes they are right. The future of a relatively pristine Sugar Hollow is at stake, and it is critical to the County's water supply now and in the future. She more than strongly supports Mr. Bowerman's motion for having the project go through the normal process. Mr. Perkins responded that this is not a normal situation. All of the people and representatives of the agencies mentioned by Mrs. Humphris have had opportunities to speak at meetings before. There is nobody in the audience today who wants the road paved. If the people who want the road paved were to come to the Board of Supervisors' meeting next week, would the Supervisors change their minds? He reiterated that those people have been at the meetings, and they have demonstrated that the majority of landowners in Sugar Hollow want the road paved. This is good enough for him. There has been ample opportunity for people to speak. There have been public hearings. He mentioned that this is at least the fifth time there has been such an opportu- nity for people to speak. There was also an occasion where four members of this Board met in the Sugar Hollow area, and another meeting was held there on September 19. Decisions have to be made as far as whether 16 feet of road will be paved or 18 feet, and there are reasons for these decisions. He asked how long this project will have to be discussed. He wondered if it will be discussed until VDoT representatives load up their equipment and leave. Mrs. Thomas said she sees value in Mr. Bowerman's motion which would allow for this project to be handled in the usual and accepted way. She said this will give the Supervisors a chance to hear people, but it doesn't mean they will have to hear people at every meeting for the next six years. It opens up a particular date when the Planning Commission will deal with the project and then another specific date when the Board of Supervisors deals with the issue This process will allow the project to be handled as requests to have dirt roads paved have been handled throughout the County. This area, of all places, deserves at least that much consideration by this Board. Roll was called on the foregoing motion which failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. 000 40 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) Agenda Item No. 7a. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. George Larie, representing the Charlottesville/Albemarle Transporta- tion Coalition, reported that eight weeks ago numerous residents and members of organizations appeared before this Board to object to the order for traffic studies for interchanges at Barracks and Hydraulic Roads relative to the Alternate 10 bypass. He pointed out that this is a direct contradiction to the November 15, 1990, Commonwealth Transportation Board resolution stating that access to the corridor would only be provided at the request of County officials. This Board responded by unanimously passing a resolution, dated September 7, 1995, opposing all studies and/or construction of interchanges on the bypass. This resolution was sent to the Secretary of Transportation and to all Transportation Board members. At a meeting of the MPO Bypass Design Advisory Committee on October 17, 1995, the VDoT Project Leader for this project, as well as the Project Manager for the contractor, both indicated that traffic studies for possible interchanges would continue to be made and such studies were routine procedure. At least a dozen citizens protested this action, but he has not heard if Secretary Martinez has responded to the Board of Supervisors' action. Recently, Mr. Larie said he heard that Governor Allen is alleged to have written a letter to Secretary Martinez stating he does not want interchanges on the bypass. Mr. Larie said he believes this matter is too important to Albemarle County to allow the consultant to continue making traffic studies and not bring all of the information out for people to examine and to get these matters resolved promptly. He asked the Supervisors to insist that they get an immediate answer from Secretary Martinez, as well as to request a copy of the Governor's letter. Mr. Perkins asked for an update on the Millington Bridge project. He said he talked with one of the workers yesterday, and apparently there has been trouble getting steel for the bridge. He added that the worker reported that the steel would not be here before December. Mrs. Tucker agreed this is correct, and explained that there is a monopoly supplier of steel for the bridge. She understands the order was placed soon after the project was started, and it is on the list, but it hasn't been fabricated yet. There is a delay, but the steel should be here for the Millington Bridge project in early December. Mr. Perkins noted that this work can probably proceed even in bad weather, because all of the cement foundation work has been done. Mrs. Tucker concurred with Mr. Perkins' statement. She said all of the cement work is complete and'unless there are extreme weather conditions, work can resume as soon as the steel is received. The work should then be finished in six t° eight weeks. Mr. Perkins asked if the wooden deck work could also proceed, since there is no concrete involved. Mrs. Tucker answered affirmatively. Mr. Martin inquired if Mrs. Tucker had any new information on Crestfield Court. Mrs. Tucker responded that Crestfield Court will receive some patching on the cul-de-sac area. The delay has been due to the need for a piece of equipment to do this work, because it is being shared between five areas. She added that this work will probably be done next week. Mr. Bowerman thanked VDoT staff for the cooperation they extended relative to the Old Brook Road pathway. He stated that VDoT officials allowed the pathway to be put almost immediately adjacent to the edge of the pavement. The Supervisors appropriated some money for this project, but the flexibility on the part of VDoT officials has made this pathway a possibility. It should be complete in the next couple of weeks. (Note: The Board recessed at 11:25 a.m. and reconvened at 11:36 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 8. Family Partners Program (which is a voluntary, early intervention, home-based resource for families with young children who are at risk for emotional and behavioral problems. It is designed to encourage positive family interaction). November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) Ms. Kathleen Flanders, Coordinator of the Family Partners Program (FPP), thanked the Supervisors for the opportunity to speak to them and for the funding match for the Early Intervention and Prevention State Trust Fund Program. The FPP has been identified at the state level in home visitation and early intervention out of 200 such programs, and it has been selected to be included in a compendium. This program was put in the category of the "almost healthy family", which was a mistake, because it should have been put in the category of a ~modified healthy family program". The other program in the community included in this compendium is the CHIP program. The FPP is working with CHIP to expand services to some of CHIP's clients, although there will not be a duplication of services. Representatives from the FPP will be working very early with newborn children in high risk families identified by CHIP. Ms. Flanders said she would like to bring Board members up-to-date on some key things accomplished after two years of the program. There have been no repeat pregnancies in any of the families. Program representatives are working with 31 families now. They have now worked with a total of 60 families. There have been no reports of abuse or neglect in any of the families, and no foster care placements have had to take place. She said more information will be coming to this Board. Mrs. Thomas asked if the Family Partners Program is coordinated with the Family Preservation and Support Program. Ms. Flanders responded that the program to which Mrs. Thomas referred is a part of the grant proposal for CHIP. That money is separate and comes from the Federal government for preservation of families. Mrs. Thomas wondered if these two groups are talking to each other so services will not be duplicated. Ms. Flanders said no duplication of services is taking place, but services will be expanded. The Family Partners Program is a part of the Family Preservation Program and is within the concept of that program. Mr. Martin commented that he thinks the Family Partners Program has an excellent success rate. Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal, Decision of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) re: Cove Creek Baseball Park, Condition #1 for Certificate of Appropri- ateness for a Building Permit. It was noted in the staff's report that the site development plan for this project was reviewed by the ARB on March 6, March 10 and March 20, 1995. A certificate of appropriateness with conditions, was granted for the site plan ARB-F(SDP)-95-02 on March 20, 1995. At the meeting on the 20th, he ARB deferred action on the building permit after determining that the basic building concept submitted was acceptable, but the ARB required additional information and suggested the following: UNo colors other than earth tones should be used on any of the appurtenances proposed, this should include but not be limited to the bleachers." SP-95-03 for Oakwood Foundation Charitable Trust was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 25, 1995, and that permit allowed the construction of baseball fields and appurtenances in the Rural Areas District. The ARB reviewed the building for a certificate of appropriateness on October 2, 1995 when they voted unanimously to grant a certificate if the following condition was met: ~The color included in the submission is not acceptable. The paint proposed for use on the concrete masonry unit portion of the concession stand and the dugouts should be an earth tone. The color should be closer to brown." The earth tones would tie the building to the surrounding rural, large tract landscape and make the concession stand and the dugouts less visible from the entrance corridor (Route 29S) . Although there are other single family homes in the rural areas that are white or off white in color, residen- tial use is expected in this zoning district. Because this use requires a special permit, it is not a use one expects to see in the Rural Areas, the ARB believes it does not fit contextually into the Covesville area. The ARB determined that the lighter color would draw the eye to the concession stand thereby making the contextual anomaly obvious. The Oakwood Foundation Charitable Trust is appealing the ARB's decision. November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32 ) 000 4;8 Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner, said the appeal before this Board is to remove the condition imposed by the ARB concerning the color of the concession stand and the dug-outs. The applicant proposes using a color called "Old Virginia White," but the ARB required a color closer to brown (a darker earth tone color) to minimize the visual impact of the use within the rural area. The lighter the color, the greater the tendency to draw the viewers' attention to the concession stand which resembles a building one might expect to see in the rural areas. The issue of visibility is important because existing vegetation near the corridor may screen the use for only a portion of the year which means the site will be visible from November to April. This use is allowed in the rural areas only if a special permit is granted by the Board of Supervisors. That special permits are required in the rural areas for many uses to benefit the community living in the surrounding region, including fire and rescue, day care and community centers. They all require special permits because they intensify the use within the surrounding zoning district. Special permits are expected to respond to the specific site and the specific context. She then discussed the background of the application, and asked the Board members to affirm the decision of the ARB. Mr. Marshall said he has been on the property many times, and he has looked at the pictures. The part of the park to be painted is not visible from Route 29. He was on Route 29, and he couldn't see it. After standing on top of the portion of the building that is there, he could see Route 29 from that point. He said there is a ridge between this portion of the building and Route 29. He emphasized that he is not talking about trees. There is an actual ridge in that location. He pointed out that there is only a very short distance on Route 29 involved, and vehicles going 55 miles per hour will not notice the building. There is a house located on top of a hill in this vicinity. He said if drivers' eyes are going to be attracted to anything, they will be attracted to the house rather than the park building. Ms. Joseph remarked that it is difficult to determine if anything is visible from the entrance corridor because of vegetation and the topography of the land. Mr. Marshall reiterated that the building is already there. Mr. Perkins noted that the building is not finished yet. Mr. Marshall responded that the bottom portion is there, and is has been built with cinder block, and it is not visible from Route 29. Mrs. Thomas asked if Mr. Marshall was standing at the first floor level. She pointed out the area on the sketch, and noted that the cupola would then be placed on top of. this area. Mr. Marshall answered that he was not standing on the part of the building to which Mrs. Thomas referred. He then pointed to the sketch to show exactly where he was standing. Mrs. Thomas asked if Mr. Marshall is saying that he could see Route 29 from the point where he was standing, but he could not see it from a lower point. Mr. Marshall answered affirmatively. He said he is five feet, nine inches tall, and from the place he mentioned he could see Route 29. He reiterated his point that there is a ridge in front of the building, and if someone is driving on Route 29, or even standing on Route 29, the person will not be able to see this portion of the building. He had stopped his car on Route 29 and looked, and he could not see the portion of the building that is to be painted. Mrs. Thomas wondered if the roof is to be a shiny green. Ms. Joseph replied "no". She said the colors are slightly different from the sketch, but the color is a green and it matches the green fences surrounding some of the fields. Mrs. Humphris inquired as to the colors around the portion of the cupola that has glass and columns. Ms. Joseph replied that the trim around the glassed area is green. She then pointed out the areas that are proposed to be white or brown. Ms. Humphris said it appears there will be some white area of this building visible from Route 29. She is conscious of such things because she spent a long time in a meeting on Monday afternoon where she was shown slides of the viewshed from Monticello. Anything painted white really stands out. Everybody was discussing a new residence that had been built on a hill overlooking Route 20 and which can be seen from the Route 250 bypass and Rio 000 43 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day'Meeting) (Page 33) Road. Even with only one small area involved, when it is against a certain background, it can really be an eyesore. Mrs. Thomas recalled the comments of an architect when he wrote in the late 19th century that houses should never be painted white because they didn't blend with the background except in the eastern part of the United States where all the houses were painted white. She said she was intrigued that this was written in the 19th century because houses all over Albemarle County, are painted white and it is what people expect to see. She can see both sides of the issue, and she is looking for some guidance with this matter. Mr. Richard Carter, an attorney with the firm of Taylor, Zunka, Milnor and Carter, Ltd., represented the applicant and passed around some informa- tion. He is not at this meeting to say bad things about the ARB which plays an important part in protecting the entrance corridor. The ARB members had some ideas, and his client accepted them. His client had some ideas, and the ARB members accepted them. Most of the ideas were negotiated, and a suitable compromise was reached. After hours of meetings and review and a spirit of compromise, it is remarkable to be down to only one issue on which an agree- ment was not found. That is the issue the color of the building. Mr. Carter called attention to the artist's drawings posted at the meeting showing the basic color scheme which has been used from the beginning. A light color was always proposed for the concession building. This is a baseball field, the users are children and their families, and the white and green color scheme provides a cheerful atmosphere for the type of activity taking place in the park. White and green is probably the most prevalent color scheme in the area, the County, the state and the region. He referred to Mrs. Thomas' comment about the color of houses, and was happy to hear the second part of her sentence. He has been to the park recently, and he allowed his son, who has a learners' permit, to drive back up Route 29. He did this because his son needed the experience, and Mr. Carter wanted to see how many white houses were in the vicinity. He said he stopped counting before he got to North Garden, and it was in excess of 20 houses. If a person stands on the hillside beside the park, two white houses and one brick house with white trim can be seen. He thinks the reason the color of white is so popular is because it is appealing to the eye. He does not disagree with the fact that a white building stands out in some areas and is unappealing. However, when people get used to something, they like it. He thinks the concession stand, as it is designed, is pretty, and if it were not so, the applicant would not have chosen it. Mr. Carter then referred to the staff's report received by the applicant dated March 20, 1995. This was early in the process when the color scheme was being decided upon along with many other things. He quoted from the staff report that, "The Albemarle County design guidelines require that the building relate to historic structures'within Albemarle County, however, the building must also relate contextually to its surroundings. The buildings proposed should reflect the rural character of the area. The design and material of the building should mimic outbuildings that one would expect to see accessory to agricultural use. The largest building proposed is the concession stand. This building is located 1600 feet from Route 29 South and will be visible from the entrance corridor. The building uses a roofing material in a color that is used on historic properties in Albemarle County. The color of the siding should be beige, white or gray. This would make the building more compatible within its rural surroundings. Because the concession building and the dugouts resemble buildings that you associate with rural barns and accessory buildings, staff can support the designs as submitted." Mr. Carter emphasized that the colors beige, white or gray were given as a guideline, and there was no novelty to the reason the cream color was chosen. It is called "Old Virginia White" because it is the white that is used in Old Virginia. He called attention to the handout involving the cross section from Route 29 through a portion of the Cove Creek Park. This was a cross section the applicant developed, at staff's request, early in the process. It is apparent the cross section was done early because the lights are still included in it, and at this time the applicant is still trying to see the effect of the lights from Route 29. The top of the cupola is visible. It is all wooded along Route 29 except for a 50 to 80 foot gap in the woods. Through this gap, it is 1600 feet from Route 29 southbound, 1500 from Route 29 northbound and 1450 feet from the property line. His calculations show that going 55 miles per hour on Route 29, a driver would be going 80.67 feet per November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) 000:1.44 second. At 80 feet per second, assuming it is an 80 foot opening in the trees, a driver would have one second to turn his or her head 110 degrees at an angle of 47 degrees upward in order to see this building. He again referred to the cross section distributed to the Board members, and said it can be seen that in the line of sight there will be a 90 foot tall, 32 inch pine; a 93 foot tall, 22 inch pine; a 90 foot tall, 23 inch pine; and a 128 foot tall, 23 inch poplar tree. If a person could see through these trees, he or she could then see the four-foot outfield fence as shown on the handout. Assuming a person could see through all of this, and assuming that the hill for whatever reason wasn't there, a person standing on top of a car would then see a four-foot outfield fence. This is a woven green vinyl fence going through the baseball field to the backstop which is a 24-foot tall woven green vinyl fence. He does not think anybody will be able to see anything but the top of the cupola if a person is fortunate at this speed to see even that. It is difficult enough standing at the site, to see Route 29. He remarked that some staff people couldn't find Route 29 while standing at the ball park, and he wondered how the ball park can be seen when vehicles are going 80 feet a second. He added that some people are going to wonder why these facts are important. They are important because a lot of time and money have been spent, and the park is for the children and families of Albemarle County. Mr. Carter said the applicant has tried to let no detail go unturned. This color scheme blends with the surrounding area better than any other color scheme. The people who live in the area like the color scheme. When they are asked why they like this color, they reply that it is the color of their houses. All details have been given attention. The concession stand's proposed color is not unreasonable. If the applicant was proposing to paint it chartreuse or polka dot, and if it could be seen, the applicant would be more understanding of this request. He said this was the plan from the beginning. Mr. Carter said he cannot tell the Supervisors in some zoning cases not to worry about a project because it is so far away no one will ever see it. In zoning, many things have to be considered. This park goes back 500 feet from the entrance corridor overlay. If this property went back ten miles, the ARB's influence would also go that far. In this type of situation, distance makes a difference. If the Supervisors looked out the window to see the trim on the County Office Building, they would probably see the color the applicant is proposing. The columns in the front of this building are probably painted this color. He said this County is being kept beautiful for its citizens, as well as the people passing through it. If someone is coming to Albemarle County at 80 feet per second and for one second could see 1600 feet through four trees over 90 feet tall and through two green vinyl fences and the concession building, they would also see a Little League Baseball Field. He does not think anybody coming to this County could see anything better than a Little League Baseball Field, because it shows that this is a County that is nurturing families and children. The park would be nice to see, but he does not think it can be seen from Route 29. He informed Board members that also present tonight are, an engineer, as well as the construction superintendent who has been at the site every day. They would be happy to answer questions. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to overrule the Architectural Review Board and allow the applicant to use "Virginia White" on the concession stand. Mrs. Humphris said she understands the ARB's point, which is that this use requires a special permit, and it isn't a use that would be expected to be found in the rural area. Therefore, the ARB wanted to ensure that the lighter color wouldn't draw people's eyes to it. She added that she will support the motion. Mrs. Thomas said she was interested in the comment indicating that the neighbors were supportive of this request. This fact is important to her even though it is not what the ARB is supposed to consider. She asked if this has also been Mr. Marshall's experience in dealing with the citizens in that district. Mr. Marshall replied, "yes." He was in this area on Sunday, and absolutely no one voiced any opposition to him concerning this project. Mrs. Thomas commented that she thinks the members of the ARB are always puzzled as to why the Board of Supervisors overrules them, and she understands the intention of the ARB. However, the small amount that can be seen for the short distance and the feeling of the neighbors about a somewhat controversial issue is also important to her. November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) Mr. Marshall recalled that only one citizen from the Scottsville District opposed the ball park when it was approved. The remainder of the opposition was from people who lived in Nelson County. At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. Airport Impact Area-Overlay Zoning District, Report on Request from Pleasant Grove Baptist Church to Allow Church Extension into the AIA. Mr. Tucker suggested that the item concerning the AIA be deleted from the agenda. The applicant and his attorney are working with the Airport Authority staff to try to speed up funding for possibly relocating the Pleasant Grove Baptist Church, and those deliberations have not been com- pleted. Mrs. Humphris asked if this item could be brought back to the Supervi- sors sometime in the future. Mr. Tucker said it might come back to the Supervisors, but it will take some time for further negotiations. He added that it will also take time to find out if the FAA will be able to provide funding to relocate the church. Agenda Item No. 11. Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA), Request to Support a Petition to the General Assembly for Tax Exempt Status for the Proposed Adult Health Care Center. Ms. Roxanne White, Executive Assistant, summarized JABA's request for tax exemption for the proposed adult health care center being built on Hillsdale Drive. She said JABA officials have requested that the Board adopt a resolution supporting their request to the General Assembly for tax exempt status. Tax exemption would cost the County approximately $18,000 based on building and land costs of $2.5 million. If this Board chooses to support the tax exempt request, it will require a public hearing as well as a letter of support to the Legislature. Ms. White said staff does not recommend supporting this request for several reasons. Staff considered this request in light of requests from all nonprofit organizations asking for tax exempt status. Staff's reasons for denial are not aimed just at JABA, but are meant to address how all nonprofit requests should be handled in the future. Granting tax exemption is an ~off- the-record expenditure" because it is a revenue loss. It doesn't follow the same process of allocation during the normal budget process which looks at how County officials want to spend the County's dollars. It is not something that usually gets reviewed although it is an expenditure. It restricts the ability of future boards to make decisions about the level of support they may wish to give to an organization. Tax exempt status can be taken back, but it probably is not something any board of supervisors in the future would do. JABA already receives an annual contribution in program revenues from the County, which is a part of the annual budget review process. Ms. White pointed out that staff is trying to do an equitable distribu- tion of resources to other community agencies. Tax exempt status would, as an expenditure, have to be considered in conjunction with other agencies, as far as their contributions. Tax exempt status would have to be considered as a way of allocating it as part of the local share of local services. Regional agencies have to be considered, as well as other levels of support coming from other counties, and services Albemarle County is actually purchasing also have to be examined. It is very difficult to monitor those services, and the fact that it is an off-the-record expenditure, makes it more difficult to monitor, as far as the services that are provided. Restrictions could be added, but in order to enforce them, the restrictions would have'to be put into the legisla- tion. They should be targeted to a certain number of low income individuals, and if there were other restrictions put on the tax exempt status, they would have to be part of the resolution passed by the legislature. Staff recommends that the Supervisors adopt a resolution to apply to all future requests, 000:1.46 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) because it is staff's feeling that this request opens the door to other nonprofit organizations to request tax exempt status. This resolution would set a policy in place as far as how to deal with such future requests. She clarified that the staff's recommendation is that the Board not support the tax exempt status request from JA~A but, instead, approve a resolution which would give the Board a policy for future requests. Mrs. Humphris said she needs an explanation about JABA's health care center being a revenue producer and a nonprofit organization, as well as being in competition with the private sector, but asking for tax exempt status and for $72,000 for its capital campaign. She wondered why the Supervisors would support a facility operating for a profit in competition with the private sector, and she asked why a capital or a tax exempt status should be given to this organization. Ms. White answered that JABA officials are applying for tax exempt status through JABA, Inc., and she explained that JABA is involved with three different types of organizations. One is JABA which is the joint exercise of powers for area aging activities. The second is JABA, Inc., which is the fund-raising entity used in a nonprofit status. The third entity is Jefferson Eldercare which is the not-for-profit organization. Mrs. Humphris said she still does not understand how an organization can be not for profit, but it can be revenue producing and in competition with the private sector. She referred to the staff's recommendation for this Board to approve an additional $18,000 to JABA to provide scholarships to low income people. She asked if staff means this to be an additional $18,000 without reducing the amount of annual support the County provides to JABA. Ms. White said this is the staff's recommendation. Staff is suggesting that County officials support JABA officials' efforts since there is a need for the adult health care center. There is also a need to provide more scholarships for Albemarle County residents, and this is a legitimate way to do that. This would be a way of actually monitoring how the money was used and making sure that the money was used for scholarships rather than just providing an off-the-record expenditure. Mr. Martin asked if all organizations receiving tax exemption could be listed routinely during the annual budget process so there is a feeling of the amount of tax exemptions being given, as well as the tax reductions used for the elderly. Ms. White said the resolution attempts to do that. If another agency with a request for tax exempt status came before this Board, the tax exempt status would be considered as part of the revenue already going to that particular organization. Mr. Gordon Walker, Executive Director of JABA, said Mr. Ed Jones would deal with the tax exempt issue, but he will try to answer Mrs. Humphris' question. Mr. Walker said all three entities referred to by Ms. White are not-for-profit, and JABA is no different than any other not-for-profit organization. Fees for services are on a sliding scale basis, and if people are below a certain income level, they pay nothing. If they have over a certain amount of income, they pay for services. All kinds of nonprofit organizations do this type of thing. The revenue generated from these services goes back into providing care for poor people. The basis for nonprofit organizations is to charge some fees for the services provided. He added that this is not by any means a for-profit venture. Mrs. Humphris commented that JABA's services comp~te with the private sector. Mr. Walker answered that there is no other adult day care center, of which he is aware, west of Richmond. Mrs. Humphris asked about the other services mentioned in the literature given to the Board. Mr. Walker responded that there would be overnight respite care available, which is not being provided now in Albemarle County. The project will basically try to provide services to people under one roof for families dealing with aging issues. If any agency can be made to work, and if it is able to provide services to people who cannot afford to pay, something has to be charged to those who can afford to pay. There is a mix of private and public dollars being used to meet a concern and a need in the community. He gave an example of organizations such as Family Services and Region 10 which provide counseling services on a sliding scale basis. These November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) 000 47 organizations also serve a large proportion of poor people, but if there was not some income based on a sliding scale for the services being offered, the poor people would not be served. Mr. Ed Jones, Chairman of the JABA Board, said JABA officials are applying for a tax exempt status for the new Adult Health Care Center for a variety of reasons. For 20 years the JABA organization has proven itself to be reliable and effective as a provider of services to County residents, particularly to the poor. JABA is, therefore, eligible under state statute to receive exemption from real property taxes. To his knowledge, granting this tax exempt status to other nonprofit organizations has not created any particular problem, and there is no reason to believe that granting such status to JABA would cause any trouble. The door is already open to grant tax exempt status, and he is asking that it not be closed at this juncture. The exemption will lower JABA's operating expenses, thus freeing up funds to subsidize care for persons unable to afford the services at the new center. This is already being done at the Market Street Center, and it would continue at the new center. Removing annual property tax liability will enhance JABA's capacity to obtain more favorable terms for financing building loans by reducing annual expenditure obligations. Tax exempt status would help fund annual equivalent dollar value allocations for scholarships. The tax exempt status could be eliminated or reduced any time for reasons other than JABA not fulfilling a nonprofit obligation in service to the County's indigent popula- tion. That exemption provides greater financial security and continuity in the provision of scholarships from year to year. Mr. Jones requested tax exempt status for the JABA organization as quickly as possible, because money spent on property now could be better used to provide services. He commented that County staff expressed concern about granting tax exemption in perpetuity. He recalled a comment by Delegate Van Yahres and the General Assembly Legislative Services staff indicating that tax exempt status can be revoked, and restrictions or stipulations can be attached to a statute granting tax exempt status, therefore exposing JABA to revocation should it fail to meet the County's desires and needs. There is no reason to believe the JABA organization will fail to serve the indigent people of Albemarle County as it has done in the past. Mr. Davis clarified the last comment made by Mr. Jones by saying that tax exempt status is only granted or revoked through action by the General Assembly. County officials do not make the ultimate decision because legisla- tion simply provides a process whereby county officials can make a recommenda- tion to the General Assembly as to whether or not they favor the request and as to whether or not they recommend conditions. It is misleading to say county officials can revoke tax exempt status because this Board has no authority to do so. Traditionally, the General Assembly has followed the recommendations of governing bodies in granting tax exempt status and in imposing reasonable conditions. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Martin to hold a public hearing on December 6, 1996, on supporting a petition to the General Assembly for tax exempt status for JABA's proposed Adult Care Center. He 'thinks this Board should hear comments from the public on this issue. Mr. Marshall remarked that he does not disagree with having a public hearing, but he is not sure he will support tax exempt status for the Adult Health Care Center. He will support staff's recommendation to appropriate $18,000 to be used for low-income people. He thinks this operation will compete with the private sector at some time in the future, and it may discourage someone from getting into this type of program. Although he supports what JABA officials are trying to do, he would prefer to get them the funds in a different way. Mr. Jones commented that it is fair to say that the Adult Care Center is not a profitable enterprise. Mr. Martin said he understands Mr. Marshall's remarks, but he has a problem with appropriating the $18,000. Anything done at the General Assembly level can be changed, but it still has more permanency to it in terms of being able to count on it. There are other private entities providing services to the elderly, but in his opinion, JABA is the group doing it mostly for the poor and indigent, although Our Lady of Peace also provides some indigent care. He has no problem with the Adult Care Center having the tax exempt November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) 000 48 status. It would be different if there were no other nonprofit agencies in the County with tax exempt status. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Martin's motion is only to hold a public hearing. Mr. Martin answered affirmatively. Mr. Marshall agreed to hold a public hearing, but indicated that, as of this moment, he does not feel he can support the request. He then seconded Mr. Martin's motion for a public hearing. Mrs. Humphris commented that she is always willing to hold a public hearing, and she wishes the Board members had been as willing this morning to hold a public hearing on the Sugar Hollow road issue. She recognizes, however, that if a public hearing is held, JABA supporters will pack the room. The Supervisors have to be careful to understand that the whole public needs to be represented when putting more tax burden on the citizens is being discussed. She really believes the staff report was extremely thorough in examining all of the possibilities of what would happen if this tax exempt status were granted. She thinks this County would be better served by following the staff's recommendation to provide the scholarships. In this way, County officials would be involved rather than granting tax exempt status which takes it out of their hands. Mrs. Thomas remarked that she certainly understands Mrs. Humphris' point relating to the year-by-year allocation as opposed to a relatively permanent tax exemption. She thinks the Supervisors owe it to the public to be as clear as possible about where tax dollars are going. This method is unclear, and she does not think this Board should make a practice of doing such things, however, she is certainly willing to have a public hearing on the issue. At this point, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 12. 1996 Legislative Program, Presentation by Bonnie Fronfelder. Ms. Bonnie Fronfelder, Legislative Liaison for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) . She said she would not go through the draft piece by piece, but will mention six or eight items which might come up in the 1996 session. She received several comments during the last session indicating that the Legislative Program was going mostly unread. Ideas are being developed to get the legislators to look at the items. Information is being offered to the legislators in position papers that can be used in defending some of the TJPDC's positions. She went on to say she would be happy to accept any changes or answer any questions about the additions or the format of the position papers. Ms. Humphris said she wants to make sure this Board and the public hear what she has to say because she has strong feelings about some things included in the draft of the Legislative Program. She does not care when and where she says it, just so this Board and the public are aware of her comments. Mr. Tucker inquired if any discussions have been held by the Planning District Commission regarding the distribution of lottery profits by points of sale rather than population. Mrs. Thomas pointed out that the draft indicates disapproval of this type of distribution. Mr. Tucker stated that the Commis- sion opposes the return of lottery profits which rewards those localities' collecting the BPOL tax. Mrs. Thomas said this information is not in the action paper, but she read in the revenue section of the draft that the Commission was not interested in lottery profits coming back to localities based solely on the point of sale. Ms. Fronfelder said this point is made in one of the position papers. Lottery profits and the BPOL tax are somewhat connected in this specific paper. Last year, lottery permits were discussed as being one of the possible replacement sources for BPOL revenue. Since some of the localities don't impose a BPOL tax, they opposed the money being taken from the General Fund because they would be penalized for not having a BPOL tax. November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) 000i49 Mr. Marshall wondered if replacing the BPOL tax with lottery profits was discussed. Ms. Fronfelder answered that it is ambiguous at this point. Administration suggested that a distribution of lottery profits for local governments be supported, but she does not know if this is connected to a repeal of the BPOL tax or whether it is a completely separate item. Mr. Marshall said he may be the only Supervisor on this Board who objects to the BPOL tax. He is a businessman, and in 1977 when he was President of the Retail Merchants' Association, he lobbied to do away with the BPOL tax. It is the most unfair tax because a person has to pay tax on sales of merchandise and professional services and not on profits. He knows of many small businesses that went broke just paying this tax. There is no way to generate funds for this tax, and it is very unfair to small businesses. He is adamantly opposed to the BPOL tax. Mr. Tucker mentioned some wording in the draft to which Mrs. Thomas referred, it opposes any distribution of lottery profits that penalizes local governments which do not collect a local BPOL tax, and that relies solely on points of sale for its distribution formula. He asked if distribution based on population rather than point of sale has been discussed. Ms. Fronfelder answered that this discussion has not taken place, but it could certainly be included. Mr. Tucker said he is not sure how this would affect the other localities, but it is possible that the rural counties could receive the greatest benefit. At this time, Mr. Tucker suggested to the Chairman that if there were no further questions for Ms. Fronfelder, there are a couple of items the Supervi- sors should discuss before lunch. Mrs. Humphris inquired as to how she would get her questions back to the TJPDC. Mr. Tucker answered that he is suggesting that this item be discussed after lunch if nothing else needs Ms. Fronfelder's attention. He said there are other legislative items which should be discussed which are not from the TJPDC. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 12:41 p.m.) Mrs. Humphris was agreeable to Mr. Tucker's suggestion. She said there were a few typographical errors in the draft that she would pass on to Mrs. Fronfelder. Mr. Tucker referred to Mr. Marshall's comments about the BPOL tax. said the TJPDC draft opposes elimination of the BPOL tax, but if it is eliminated, they would prefer that it be revenue neutral. He Mr. Marshall said he does not want to leave the impression that he wants to do away with the BPOL tax and not have an alternative source of taxation. He would prefer to see businesses be taxed on their profits rather than on sales. If it is done any other way than the way it is being done now, he would support it. He went on to say that the economic impact of just stopping the BPOL tax now would be catastrophic to a lot of localities. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned at 12:44 p.m.) Mrs. Thomas mentioned a model BPOL proposal, which has not begun to be implemented here. She wondered if anyone else in the Planning District is involved with this proposal. Ms. Fronfelter answered that no one else in the Planning District has adopted the model BPOL ordinance, or any of its compo- nents. Members of the Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia Municipal League have made a strong effort to distribute information about the model ordinance during the summer, and there has been a fairly good response rate. These two groups tried to encourage localities to enact all of the ordinance because members of the business community complained that if they operated in two different localities, they would have to manage two different taxes. Mr. Davis said not many localities have adopted the BPOL ordinance. A survey of local government attorneys done a month ago indicated a very small number of localities were involved with the model BPOL ordinance. Ms. Fronfelter advised that northern Virginia has had the strongest interest in the ordinance. She also mentioned that the Legislature starts its session next year on January 10. If the Supervisors are going to ask for any ooo 5o November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) legislative patronage of bills, Legislative Services staff prefers to get the request in December. This gives more turnaround time and assures a good product for the legislators. Agenda Item No. 13. Albemarle County Service Authority Service Area Boundary Change. Request for sewer to existing structures at 1-64 East rest area; water and sewer to existing structures at 1-64 West rest area; and, sewer service to the Ivy Landfill. It was noted in the staff's report that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VdoT) desires to replace currently operating zero discharge mineral oil sewage waste systems at its two Albemarle County rest areas on 1-64 with connections to the Crozet Interceptor. One rest stop is located on the westbound lane approximately 1.4 miles west of the Ivy exist, and one is located on the eastbound lane approximately 0.2 mile west of Route 691. Sewage handling is provided at each of the rest areas by zero discharge mineral oil systems. Oil transports the waste material from the rest rooms to a separate facility for separation of the oil and waste matter. The solids are held in a sludge tank and transported to the County wastewater treatment plant several times each week. VdoT also wishes to connect to public water at the 1-64 West rest area. The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RsWA), in anticipation of the possible need to dispose of leachate from the Ivy Land- fill, desires to connect to the Crozet Interceptor along the same corridor as used for the 1-64 West rest area connection. All connections will be via private service lines not available to other properties. VdoT's consultant notes numerous problems with the mineral oil sewage waste system, attempts to remedy some of the problems and systems demands that have made the system malodorous at its current and anticipated levels of usage. While several alternatives to this system are possible, the Water Resources Manager supports connection to public sewer as much preferable to package treatment, pump and haul or spray irrigation. Another type of non- discharge waste recycling system is a possibility, but has not been explored by the applicant at this time. Non-discharge systems do require some level of pump and haul. RSWA currently has leachate waste hauled and considers connection to the Crozet Interceptor to be a desirable future alternative. Again, other alternatives exist, but are either not desirable (point source discharge treatment, and pump and haul) or limited in their utility (in-situ treatment of groundwater through bio-remediation). As to water at the 1-64 West rest stop, the VdoT consultant cites reported inadequate capacity to meet future demands. A draw-down test for the well is expected to verify flow, but results have not been made available as of this writing. Additional wells have not been drilled to determine if adequate groundwater exists elsewhere on the site. Ail of these requests are for properties located in the Rural Areas as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding provision of public utili- ties, the Comprehensive Plan is intentionally specific in objective and strategies as to where and under what circumstances public utilities should be made available, i.e. ~Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Growth Area boundaries in cases where the property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and, 2) public health or safety is endangered." Further, the Comprehensive Plan warns that asuch utilities are not to be extended to Rural Areas as these services can increase development pressures." In addition, the Crozet Interceptor was constructed and has existed with the intent to serve only growth area properties, particularly the Community of Crozet, without intervening connection to Rural Area properties. The service requests in each case lie several miles from existing public utilities (it is not known if relocation of the rest areas closer to public utilities near the Crozet Interchange would be a feasible alternative). Connection would either be constructed along existing VdoT right-of-way or cross country. The sewer connections would involve pumping and force mains. Although intended to be via private lines, such connections have the potential of creating additional pressure for connection and setting a precedent for connection in the Rural Area, particularly to the Crozet Interceptor. The requests do not satisfy the adjacent to existing lines requirement. The malodorous condition of the existing rest area waste systems is characterized by the applicant as ~unsanitary", although it is of some question that public health and safety is endangered. The landfill leachate can pose a public November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~51 (Page 41) health concern if not property disposed of. In both cases, it should be noted that as water supply watershed properties, package treatment and point source discharge is~esirable. (The County Attorney believes that VdoT could install package treatment plants without County approval should the permitted agencies allow.) Regarding water to the 1-64 West rest area, there is no evidence of endangerment to public health and safety. The reliability of water in the area has been of some question and connection of the rest stop would bring public water in close proximity of subdivisions currently on central well systems that have expressed concerns about reliability. Staff notes that this is a unique, yet potentially precedent-setting consideration. The sewer connection aspect seems to deserve particularly careful consideration in that, while not meeting the Comprehensive Plan's intent for such service in the Rural Area, it is to address existing waste disposal problems in the Rivanna Reservoir watershed that can only be expected to increase in volume unless the facilities are shut down and waste flow ended. Short of alternative non-discharge systems which still involve some pump and haul, connection to public sewer seems to be the preferable way to address these problems. For this reason, staff recommends that this aspect of the request proceed to public hearing for sewer to existing structures only. Staff notes that the necessity for public water does not seem to exist based on information provided to this point. Should the Board decide to hold a public hearing on this request, it should be for water to existing struc- tures only. Regarding the rest areas, staff notes that the Board may also want information regarding the feasibility of relocating them closer to public utilities near the Crozet Interchange. Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, summarized the staff's report. He added that Mr. Bill Brent of the Albemarle County Service Author- ity was present to answer questions, as well as Mr. Taylor, a representative of VDoT. Mrs. Thomas wondered if the water is under force the whole way to the rest area, or is it under force only when it turns toward Ivy. She said this question relates to how much approval would open up the area to people who want to connect to the waterline. Mr. Taylor replied that the intent is for this to be under pressure from the VDoT rest stop to the connection at the Crozet interceptor. Mrs. Thomas asked if there is an estimated cost avail- able. Mr. Taylor said VDoT officials have asked for help not only in Albemarle County, but also in New Kent County. In New Kent the study has been finished and a recommendation made. Now, the project is being taken to design. In Albemarle County, before any recommendations are made, he wanted to come and find out what the Supervisors prefer, and what would be the best solution for the community, VDoT and everybody concerned. A few cost esti- mates have been done, and the discharge of a treatment system seems to be the most costly. As far as putting in forced mains and a water line, it would be approximately in the $0.5 million to $1.0 million range. These are very rough estimates at this time. Mrs. Thomas next asked how much it would cost to move the rest area to another site. Mr. Taylor replied that it would cost approximately $5.0 to $10.0 million per rest area. A justification would have to be given to the taxpayers as to why the rest area was moved two miles where it could poten- tially compete with private businesses in the future. Mrs. Thomas inquired if alternative treatments could be considered. She said Health Department representatives are not going to be enthusiastic about a discharge, but she wondered about another circulating system. Mr. Taylor said as far as the other alternatives noted in the staff's report, a bibliog- raphy search was done for technical research papers, etc. Of the over 20 papers found, only seven of them seemed to be even in part related to this matter. Of the seven, three of them dealt with the Fairfield rest stop on 1- 81. This is not a feasible system because an existing conventional plant, which would cost approximately $1.0 million in today's market just for construction costs, was converted to a recycling system. There would also be operational costs. This operation did not seem feasible, and neither did the other alternatives considered. Even when addresses could be found for different companies, they could not be located, and no record of them could be found. He talked to Health Department representatives yesterday, and they are not aware of any other non-discharge systems. They wholeheartedly support November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) O001~ (Page 42) connection to the Crozet interceptor. Also, with the non-discharge or recycling reuse systems, there is a five to ten percent discharge. Even the mineral oil systems have some discharge, and, at least on a weekly basis, the sludge from these facilities is trucked to the local wastewater treatment plant. It has been cited that even with the Fairfield recycling system, there is approximately 15,000 gallons a year of sludge discharged. He has talked with Albemarle County staff, as well as members of the Virginia Department of Health, and no other alternative systems can be found. Mrs. Thomas asked what is proposed for New Kent County. Mr. Taylor said the Colonial Downs Race Track is approximately a mile from the rest stop. The two rest stops will be combined, and pumping will be done to a new wastewater treatment plant for the race track and development of golf courses. A connection will also be made to the water system. There are two VDoT wells in that location, but due to homes being constructed in the future and the close proximity of the proposed water system, it is one less thing VDoT officials will have to worry with. New Kent County will be paid for this use. Mr. Taylor mentioned having held conversations with representatives of the Department of Environmental Quality who are encouraging VDoT officials to get out of the wastewater treatment business. The other alternatives in the staff's report have been researched, and he does not see another alternative. As far as the sewage connection is concerned, he referenced comments from the Albemarle County Service Authority that staff sees no technical problem with VDoT's connection to the Crozet interceptor. He said VDoT's connection will not adversely impact the system or any potential growth in the area. Mrs. Thomas noted that technical problems are different from developmen- tal pressures. Mr. Taylor said he understands what Mrs. Thomas is saying. However, if growth was proceeding in the community, flows under the original design were expected, and, this capacity was going to be needed, then he would have expected a negative response. Mrs. Thomas responded that this is not the totality of the issue. Mr. Taylor said he is sure there are development issues, but he is looking at the matter from the technical side. There is not a public health problem with the well at the 1-64 westbound lane rest stop. The sole reason for the request is based on Health Department records because the well is only able to produce 15 gallons of water per minute. Based on peak flow days, it needs approximately 71 gallons per minute. Other than the mineral oil system, any system needs water to operate. The statement about lack of capacity in the area was based on Health Department records, as well as conversations with representatives of the RWSA, who said they had heard of capacity problems in this area. He said Peacock Hill, Langford Farm and Glenaire are all experiencing well capacity problems. Since the VDoT rest stop is on the back side of Peacock Hill, it was an assumption on his part that there is a good chance there will be capacity problems in the area. He understands draw-down tests are being done this week with the well at the westbound lane to determine capacity there. If the tests should find 70 gallons a minute, then public water is not needed. It would be nice if this happens, because it would definitely reduce VDoT's cost, as well as the cost to taxpayers. The Department of Health records show approximately 70 to 72 gallons of water a minute for the well at the eastbound lane, which is adequate. A storage tank could be put in that area if needed. Mrs. Humphris inquired if there has been a new well drilled recently at the westbound 1-64 rest stop. Mr. Taylor said there is not a new well there, but Department of Health records indicate only 15 gallons of water per minute. He is not putting any weight on this information because he does not know who made the report and on what information is it based. VDoT's waterline would probably be a four-inch forced main, and it would be under pressure from the rest stop to the connection with the Crozet interceptor. This line would belong to VDoT and nobody else could connect to it. The pumps would not operate correctly if someone else made a connection. Mrs. Humphris asked if there is any water storage at either of the rest stops. Mr. Taylor said he assumes that these rest stops are similar to the other rest stops in the area. They probably have a 2000 gallon hydrodynamic tank with a 5000 gallon storage tank. This assumption is based on the fact that most of the rest areas were done by the same consultant in the late 1970s, and probably the plans were all the same. He mentioned the comment in the staff's report about the unsanitary conditions at the rest stop. The well system is a recycled filtration system in which the mineral oil acts as a medium to transport the waste matter to a treatment plant behind the rest stop. The waste matter is then filtered out, and the water recycled. He said 000&53 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 43) the water in the toilets and urinals should be crystal clear, but it is brown. The brown color is from the fecal matter that has been recycled, and in his opinion, this is unsanitary. He noted that Mr. Hirschman made the same comment in his report to the Planning Department. While this is his opinion, he thinks most people would agree that this is not a sanitary condition. Mrs. Thomas mentioned the Sprint tower public hearing where people in that area indicated they could smell the rest stop from their subdivisions. Mr. Taylor said he has not heard this remark, but he doesn't dispute it. The Governor gets numerous letters, particularly from residents near the New Kent rest stops, during the summertime. The New Kent rest stops are much worse than these in Albemarle County. The odor from the facilities has been one of the main complaints, as well as the aesthetics issue of walking into a rest stop and seeing brown oil on the floor. Mr. Marshall said if this is happening, he thinks the rest stop should be closed. Mr. Taylor responded that he is trying to help get the problem fixed. He does not think Health Department representatives will say the rest stops are unsanitary, because there is disinfection there. If there is fecal matter on the floor, it is definitely unsanitary. He said if this is happen- ing at the Ivy rest stop, he is going to have it closed. Mrs. Thomas asked how much more water is needed if a water system is involved. Mr. Taylor said the usage is extremely erratic. It depends a lot on the season. During the winter months, basically there is not much use at all. Mrs. Thomas said this is an area where people worry about their wells. The residents of Peacock Hill now have their problem taken care of with additional wells and a lot of additional expense. If water is pulled out of the ground, then it is not going to increase the amount of water for the subdivision residents. Mr. Taylor said he has tried to do everything requested by staff, and the different alternatives have been examined. While a discharge treatment plant could probably work, he, the Health Department and the County staff agree this is not the best solution for the community. County officials have worked for over 20 years getting rid of all of the point source discharges, and it would get everybody upset if one was put in that location. The best alternative he can see is a connection to the Crozet interceptor. This would reduce the risk and hazards to the community, and it makes a safer operation at the rest stop. He requested, on behalf of VDoT officials, to be allowed to connect to the Crozet interceptor. At this time, Mrs. Humphris offered a motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to set a public hearing for December 6, 1995, relating to the VDoT request for sewer to existing structures only at the 1-64 East rest area; as well as water and sewer to existing structures only at the 1-64 West rest area; and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority's request for sewer service to the Ivy Landfill. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Mr. Marshall asked if fecal matter is on the floor at this rest stop on a daily basis. Mrs. Angela Tucker responded that VDoT officials have to report through the Department of Health, and they have to have water inspections, as well as health inspections. When these inspections are missed, public notice has to be posted on the informational boards at the rest area for public view. She thinks Mr. Taylor was speaking about the potential for leakage due to damage to the components of the plumbing, if there should be a breakdown of valves, etc. In the past, there have been several oil spills where the rest area has had to be closed and cleanup and sanitation done. When such things occur, the rest stops are closed to the public. There are frequent shutdowns of the rest areas, and portable toilets have been brought in for use by the public while the repairs and cleanups were done. The rest stops are not open for the public again until they are properly sanitized. She pointed out that the water is potable and tested quarterly. It is such a unique system, and people November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 44) don't make the association between this and the problem with odors. She Said the cost is very high to maintain these systems. Mrs. Thomas said she is certainly going to want to know about the alternatives, although she appreciates what has been learned about the situation. This should come out in the public hearing. Moving or changing the whole system is one of the alternatives, and it is going to have to be considered. Agenda Item No. 14. Appropriation: Sustainable High School Design and Land Acquisition (Form #95028), $535,000. It was noted in the staff's report that on October 4, 1995, the School Board and the Board of Supervisors approved four recommendations related to sustainable design for the new high school and the additional funds needed for the land purchase. Since that time, staff has continued negotiating with the consultants involved in this project and have reached agreement on design fees which will require $135,000 in additional funds in the current fiscal year rather than the $235,000 noted in the October 4th approval. This negotiation brings the total amount involved in sustainable design within the $2.0 million total indicated during discussions on sustainable design for the new high school. Secondly, additional funds needed for the land purchase above the $1.5 million originally built into the school construction budget are needed based on the approval by the Board of a purchase price of $1.9 million. Staff's requests approval of an appropriation for $135,000 in engineer- ing planning funds, and $400,000 for land purchase, for a total of $535,000 to come from the County's General Fund. The $135,000 will be returned tO the County's General Fund upon receipt of the Virginia Public School Authority funds for the high school in a future bond issue. Mr. Tucker said the appropriation will allow the consultants to move forward in the analysis of sustainability design. The analysis would come back to the School Board for action as to whether or not to proceed with the expenditure of $1.7 million on the sustainability component of the new high school. Mr. Bowerman asked if the analysis would be to the School Board in December. Mr. Tucker said it should happen in either December or early January. He asked Ms. Jo Higgins, Director of Engineering, or Mr. A1 Reaser, Director of Building Services, to correct him if his statement was wrong. Ms. Jo Higgins said she just handed Mr. Bowerman a schedule of the process for the sustainability design. The schematic design will be posted in three schools as well as the County Office Building prior to November 8. December 11 is the target date to bring the information to the School Board. Mr. Marshall asked if the consultant is hired, if he will report to the School Board and not to this Board. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. Mr. Marshall asked if the Supervisors will be in any position to say whether or not they want to move forward with the sustainability component of the new high school at that time. Mr. Tucker said the Supervisors will be given this opportunity, but the School Board has to make a recommendation to this Board as to whether or not to approve the additional funds. Mr. Marshall inquired if the School Board will be able to vote on the consultant's plan as to whether or not it is sustainable. He does not mind spending $2.0 million if it will save him $5,0 million, but there should be proof of the savings at some point in time. He does not think this money should be appropriated for an experiment. Mr. Tucker answered that there will be proof as far as an analysis can provide it. Mr. Marshall referred to his home where years ago he put up two by sixes instead of two by fours to get extra insulation. He said this has proven to be very economical, but the solar system has not. He asked if the Supervisors will be shown things that have been proven, instead of just guessing about the possibility of saving money. He would like examples of things being done in different places, as well as how much money was saved in those areas. He asked if the things off-the-shelf can tell the Board members what they need to know. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. 000&55 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 45) Mr. Marshall next asked if the consultant has already been hired by the School Board at $135,000. Mrl Tucker responded that the architect of record has hired this individual. The architect of record)is a subcontractor of the existing architects for the high School. ~O~ ~+(:t~iI~ ~ Mr. Marshall asked if this individual has already been paid $45,000 by the School Board. Mr. Tucker said he is not sure of the expenditure. Ms. Higgins said the charette fee has been paid. She went on to describe costs associated with the architectural contract. She then mentioned a study done in 1992 for ice storage for the Sutherland Middle SchOol, and she passed around some information showing what the payback would be in 11 years. The total additional fee for adding the whole sustainability package to the new high school is $299,000 of which $135,000 is proposed to be appropriated today. That amount is based on an analysis of what was in the cost center of the new high school and what will be expended in this fiscal year. The difference between that number and $2.0 million will be appropriated in the next fiscal year. Mr. Marshall asked how much of the $135,000 has already been spent. Ms. Higgins responded that there is a basic contract for $49,995 involving programming elements for the new high school, and $45,000 was added to this amount for the initial charette and research (she recalled that this Board and the School Board received a packet on the research of the two schemes devel- oped in the charette) . At this point, there is a contract totaling $94,995, as well as another contract for $1.028 million and the $299,000 sustainability package can be added to that amount. Mr. Perkins asked what information came out of the charette. Ms. Higgins replied that the Supervisors had received information in their last packet showing drawings and a list of two different strategies to be re- searched in the basic design for the school, as well as two different compre- hensive schematics which were developed in site plans for the high school. The School Board members have decided on Schematic "A," and options will be developed using Schematic "A" as the basic footprint. These will be posted around the County for public input, and the School Board will then make its decision to proceed on one of the options from Schematic "A." Mrs. Thomas said she sees this as a continuation of what was done for Sutherland Middle School. The same architects were hired, so there is no surprise that the architects are very good at listening to the community. Some of the Board members have been attending meetings since June to develop this high school based on the education that is going to take place there. Contrary to the suggestion that it is an inflexible building, it is a very flexible building. It doesn't have folding partitions because those have been found not to work, but it has the kind of walls where changes could be made over the summer months. Everything has been totally based on the education needed, but it is hard to predict what will be needed for fifty years. The architects approached the McDonough firm, and the firm representatives originally refused indicating that they were not in the business of doing this type of consulting work. Later, they agreed to do it. The charges that somehow the Dean of the Architecture School is trying to get in on this project is unnecessarily insulting and erroneous. Mr. Marshall said he doesn't know Mr. McDonough, but from what he has learned, it seems as though the consultants have already been paid some money, and it is too late to get bids from other people for several reasons. To get other bids would hold up the project, and some money could not be recovered. He would like to know if the Supervisors will have any influence on how the remainder of the $2.0 million is spent. He wondered if the Supervisors will be asked to make an appropriation after the money is spent, such as this request today. Ms. Higgins responded that up to $1.7 million of additional money will be spent on the building based on the analysis of modeling being done during the research and design stage. A decision will be made based on this analy- sis. A combination of strategies can be applied in the development of contract documents going out to bid next summer. There will be a presentation back to the School Board on this matter, which will reflect what has been done so far, and information will continue to reflect which strategies can be incorporated into the building. She referred again to the sample she had passed around showing an initial cost and an ll-year payback for the ice 000156 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 46) storage facility at Sutherland Middle School. She said the same sort of decision-making process is necessary for the new high school strategies. Mr. Bowerman asked how much the ice storage study cost. Ms. Higgins replied that the ice storage study cost $14,000. She recalled that $2098 was paid for two mini studies done because there was a controversial issue about whether to make the school one story or two stories. Information WaS brought to the School Board on June 4 and June 17, 1992 which was the basis for the School Board to make its final decision. It is not a new concept to evaluate different features of a building, but things of magnitude take special evaluations and a decision has to be made in a timely way so it doesn't hold up the overall design. Mr. Perkins mentioned his concern that there is a public institution at the University of Virginia and the Dean of the School of Architecture happens to be doing this study. He feels as though the University of Virginia and other public institutions should be providing leadership for this kind of thing, yet, he doesn't see the University of Virginia building any sustainable buildings. Rather than charging a fee, he thinks the University of Virginia School of Architecture should be in the forefront offering its services for nothing. People involved with this institution could show County officials what can be done, and $1.7 million could be saved rather than having to pay an additional $1.7 million. He said the public is very confused about this matter. Ms. Higgins said the University has a policy allowing its professors to consult one day a week. The firm of McDonough and Associates has McDonough's name, but he is only available one day a week. The man on Mr. McDonough's staff who is the research analyst and research architect is originally from the Andersen Windows Company. She said the County is con- tracting for his expertise on Mr. McDonough's staff but not necessarily for Mr. McDonough himself. Mr. Perkins indicated that this is the real conflict, and he wondered who is keeping count of Mr. McDonough's time. He said Mr. McDonough is either working for the public, or he is working for himself. He (Mr. Perkins) stated that he works for Westvaco, and he couldn't hold such a position. He is allowed to come to these meetings, but if he was practicing forestry as a forestry consultant, he would be told that he had to do one or the other full- time. This is the real problem he has with the matter, and he thinks that is the question in the public's mind. He asked why the University of Virginia is not providing this as a service to the Commonwealth and as a service to the County of Albemarle. Ms. Higgins said this project has nothing to do with the University of Virginia. Mr. Perkins said it is hard to separate the two when the Dean of the School of Architecture at the University of Virginia is the principal of the firm doing the work for Albemarle County. Ms. Higgins pointed out that the County staff has used other professors at t he University, as well as their consulting firms, for consulting work. One of the environmental scientists has a firm which does the County's asbestos tests on an occasional basis. Mr. Bowerman wondered if the Curry School has been of assistance with the asbestos testing. Ms. Higgins replied that whenever there is a need for asbestos testing, an environmental scientist at the University does it. He is head of his department, but he also has his own consulting firm. It is not University related. She went on to explain that the relationship between the architect of record and McDonough and Associates is that there is a special- ist, a consultant for the new school on the McDonough staff. Mr. Marshall asked again if the firm of McDonough and Associates has already been hired by the School Board. Mrs. Thomas said the architect has been hired. Ms. Higgins suggested that the matter be considered from the perspective that the County is fortunate to be associated with a firm of this caliber. She said the University brings in such architects because of the name they carry, and it is beneficial to the County. County staff always considers the proximity to the project, as well as recognition and the type of projects the architects have done. The architect of record was hired from Richmond, and they are the ones who brought McDonough into this project. The County is fortunate to have a person of this expertise, as well as one who is local to this project. Mrs. Thomas remarked that when she was doing community relations for the November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 47) 000i57 University of Virginia, she often got the complaint that the university was not involving itself in local projects. When this particular dean came to town, he seemed to be eager to learn about the community, and he wanted to get himself involved. She thought it was a wonderful step forward, and it is ironic if this is the basis on which criticism is given. She is no longer in the business of protecting the University, but it is ironic, since complaints usually go the other way. Mr. Marshall said he is not criticizing McDonough and Associates at all. He is the first person to advocate hiring local people for projects. He commented that this money was spent before he knew it was going to be spent. He thought the Supervisors would be given figures to examine, and he thought bids would be taken. Ms. Higgins stated that the construction work is done by bid, but architectural selection is done by competitive negotiation, and it is not done by low bid. Mr. Perkins commented that in developing a sustainable product, Mr. McDonough and others have advocated doing certain things. He asked Mr. McDonough about sustainable forestry products, and he wondered what will happen if Mr. McDonough states that only sustainable products are going to be used. He does not know of any forestry products labeled as coming from a sustainable forest, and he asked how this matter can be dealt with, if this is one of his guidelines. Ms. Higgins replied that any requirement for material for the school has to be put into a specifications document. If there isn't any way to limit the competition or if it is a sole source, it will still have to meet the current regulations. She emphasized that staff will work with the County Attorney's office on this matter. There has been the same problem with brick, because there have been difficulties and a lot of pressure to specify brick from Virginia only to keep the business local. The brick needed to meet the needs of the school will be specified, and the market will take care of it. She then referred to forestry products. She said Mr. Perkins can be involved, and he can have input in this matter. The project is not so far along that there is a specification available. A problem could occur with carpet products, or brick or mortar. There is actually a local business already starting some research on the same type of issues addressed with pavement and the type of volatile, etc., compounds coming out of materials. A lot of industries are trying to have ecologically acceptable products, but it all has to be coordinated and specified to fit this school. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that he knows of one local consultant who has been asked to examine sustainable wood products. This particular person is considering Montpelier which has sustainable hardwoods. This consultant is putting together a proposal for the use of sustainable wood products in the high school, and it is based on sustainability, costs and all of the factors which need to be provided. Mr. Marshall asked for someone to give him the definition of sustainable hardwood. Mr. Perkins remarked that this is the problem, and he wondered who can give such a definition. When he asked Mr. McDonough that question, Mr. McDonough answered that it is when big trees are cut. Mr. Perkins said this is not the answer at all. He explained that Westvaco was brought into the American Forest and Paper Association guidelines for sustainable forestry, and this means that when a stand of trees are cut, they are planted back. Mr. Bowerman said this is not the issue. The issue is whether or not oak, if it is going to be used in the new school, will be brought in from another place so that transport costs will have to be paid, or whether it will be bought locally. Mr. Perkins said he feels the oak would be bought from the cheapest source. Mr. Bowerman said the oak would be bought from where it is available. The point is that it has to be determined if sustainable wood products are available locally and, if so, at what price they are available. Mr. Perkins emphasized that he is bothered by this fact. He said Mr. McDonough might go to Orange County, Virginia, to get forestry products to take to Lawrence, Kansas, to build a Wal-Mart store. This doesn't make any sense to him because if anything is saved by cutting trees in Orange County, it is all spent in diesel fuel in getting the trees to Lawrence, Kansas. Mr. Bowerman concurred with Mr. Perkins' remarks. Ms. Higgins commented that there is another concept dealing with embodied energy which is the energy it takes to produce these components. Transportation and everything else will be taken into consideration. 000&55 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 48) Mr. Perkins suggested that County officials not be put into a box where products have to be bought from a certain place, and they can't take advantage of the open market. He recalled the specifications for red oak doors at Meriwether Lewis School. The red oak doors were cut from the plans, and birch doors used instead. Birch doors are fine, and he wondered why there were red oak doors included in the specifications in the beginning. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he is obviously an advocate for sustainability. He wondered why windows with high insulation and raised floors can't be put out for bids. He asked why $299,000 has to be spent to put all of this together. Ms. Higgins said Mr. Bowerman has touched on two major items. She said the raised floor has a component of air quality and energy relating to lights, heat and air conditioning to be considered. All of this is a three dimen- sional volume, and there has to be some kind of an arrangement where a schematic is developed. She is renovating her own house, and she has to tell the HVAC contractor how many windows are involved, as well as the square footage of the windows and the volume and height of the ceilings. The contractor models the information and tells her the size unit she will need to drive the air conditioning anc/or heat for her house. There is a sophisti- cated and complex analysis done on a building of this size in complexity, use and orientation. Someone who works with Mr. McDonough's group, and who was involved with the charette, has a lap top computer and can model this informa- tion. The money to which Mr. Bowerman referred is being spent on integrating these features, as well as the architecture. Such information has not yet been developed for a school, although it has been done for office buildings and possibly for stores such as Wal-Mart, etc. It is integrating it into the architectural design that makes it so critical. Mrs. Humphris remarked that she supports the sustainable school concept. She then made a motion to adopt a resolution of appropriation (Number 95028) for $135,000 for engineering and planning funds and $400,000 for land purchase making a total of $535,000 to come from the County's General Fund. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Mr. Marshall said he is not sure if he is ready to vote on this issue. The way he understands it, there is really no way of backing up on either one of these appropriations. Mr. Bowerman said the whole concept can be aban- doned. Mr. Tucker explained that construction costs cannot be developed, and the School Board cannot make a decision to move forward on a sustainable design and integrate it into the construction of the new high school if the analysis is not done first. Mr. Marshall stated that, in other words, bids cannot be gotten from any other people to do the analysis. Ms. Higgins agreed that Mr. Marshall's statement was correct. When this matter was first discussed, she said there was a high school to open in the fall of 1998. There is a schedule for the design of the new high school, and the architect of record has been asked to provide some specialized consulting. The architect of record has brought in a highly qualified local firm to the project, and the staff has been working with this firm. It would be the compelling reason to abandon this firm and go to another. She said it would be sacrificing the schedule, and it is not known if the project would be any cheaper. Usually if the firms are a long distance away, transportation back and forth has to be paid by the County. There is a highly qualified local firm which can meet the County's needs and that is a strong reason not to change. Mr. Marshall said he would go back to his original question. It seems that if he wants a sustainable school, he doesn't have any other choice except to support this motion at this time. If he would be forced into a situation to vote for something such as this again in the future, will there be Several people's opinions involved so the Board members will be able to analyze the information and know that it is not an experiment, and it will work. He is not opposed to spending $2.0 million if it will save more money in the future, but he wants to make sure that somewhere in this process, he will see the savings. Ms. Higgins noted that the Supervisors will be voting on appropriations in the Capital Improvement Program package for the next fiscal year. Mr. Bowerman asked if the maximum appropriation will be $1.8 million. Ms. Higgins 000 59 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 49) replied that the Supervisors are appropriating $135,000 now, so it will be the difference between that amount and $2.0 million which is $1.865 million. Mr. Bowerman said if the consultants bring back recommendations that the School Board accepts in total, the maximum appropriation will be $1.7 million in terms of the actual capital cost additions to the high school. It won't be more than this amount, but it could be less depending on the recommendation the School Board accepts. Mr. Tucker agreed. Mr. Perkins asked if staff is comfortable with the idea that when the bids go out for the sustainable design of the high school, the contractors are familiar enough with these types of building techniques that there will be no surprises when the bids come back. Ms. Higgins said it is the staff's intention to pre-qualify general contractors as was done for the middle school. With a project this size, a lot of competition is expected, and she believes the contractors will do everything possible within the specifications to promote the competition. She then inquired if Mr. Perkins is asking if the building will cost more because of the new concepts. Mr. Perkins replied that the contractors may not have done this type of job before, and they won't know what they are getting into, so they will have to hire accordingly. Ms. Higgins stated that because of the recognition this school will get, staff is hoping that industry will be aggressive about getting their products into the school. Staff saw a building in Roanoke which has had a raised floor system for five or six years. This has been done before, but it hasn't been done in a school. Mr. Marshall asked if anyone in Roanoke indicated how much money was saved with the building to which Ms. Higgins referred. Ms. Higgins responded that pricing for the school could not be compared to a floor system that was built five or six years ago, but it could be used as a basis for pricing on the construction project. Mr. Marshall inquired as to why the building in Roanoke had a raised floor. Ms. Higgins answered that there were special needs. The floor had to be raised two feet to get it out of the flood plain, and to accommodate a lot of computer cabling. A raised floor also gives flexibility for wiring, etc. When a school is involved, there is a lot of changing of rooms, and it costs a lot of money to redo everything. She said there has been a problem with cabling, even in the County Office Building. Mr. Marshall said Ms. Higgins did not answer his question. Mr. Tucker explained that the people who built the raised floor in Roanoke did it for physical rather than sustainable reasons. He said Ms. Higgins and Mr. Reaser went to look at this raised floor from an infrastructure and practicality standpoint. Ms. Higgins noted that the air flow was much better with the raised floor. Mr. Marshall said this must have saved some money. Ms. Higgins replied that she does not have this information. It costs more initially, but money is saved over time. Mr. Marshall said he is not opposed to this. He wants to make an intelligent decision so that when he spends money, he will get more back. Staff is saying this will happen, and the Supervisors should have an opportu- nity to see it. Mr. Martin explained that the Supervisors will get a document similar to a feasibility study, which will predict but not guarantee what is going to happen. He said when people open businesses, they get a study informing them that their businesses should make money, based on an analysis. Mr. Marshall stated that along with a feasibility study, he always gets a prospectus, and this tells him whether or not he will make money. Mr. Martin asked if the prospectus guarantees that money will be made. Mr. Marshall answered, "no." It does take a lot of the gamble out of it. At this point, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) O001GO (Page 50) AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Mr. Perkins thanked Mr. Cox and Mr. Carter for their questions. He said it is very important as this project proceeds for the public to be informed and ask questions. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that Mr. Cox asked 35 questions of staff all were thoughtful and deserved answers. He hopes the answers provided were satisfactory, except in cases which have already been discussed. (Note: The resolution of appropriation is as follows.) APPROPRIATION REQUEST NUMBER: 95028 FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 FIIND: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - SCHOOLS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FIIND FOR THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 19ooo6o3o4312350 ENGINEERING/PLxNNING 19oo06o3o48oo75o PURCm~SE Or Lm, m 1100093010930004 TRANSFER-SCHOOL CIP TOTAL AMOUNT $135,000.00 400,000.00 535,000.00 $1,070,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION 2900051000512004 TRAlqSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 2100051000510100 APPROPRIATION FROM FI/ND BALAlqcE TOTAL AMOUNT $535,000.00 535,000.00 $1,070,000.00 Agenda Item No. 18. Executive Session: Personnel. At 1:45 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to go into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to discuss appointments to boards and commissions, and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters concerning reversion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 19. Certify Executive Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 3:32 p.m. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman to certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 15. Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Agreement. Request approval of agreement to create a regional jail authority. The staff's report notes that the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Board has proposed the creation of a regional jail authority to facili- November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) O00~Gl (Page 51) tate the operation and expansion of the Jail. State approval for funding a ll5-bed jail addition and other improvements is moving forward. The creation of the authority will allow a financial plan for the project to be prepared based on the authority's issuance of bonds. The Regional Jail Authority Agreement created a nine-member Board to govern an authority to provide a regional jail for the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle. The authority will essentially operate the same as the existing jail board except that its proposed board will be expanded to include the County Executive and the City Manager, or their designees to issue bonds to finance capital projects. The operating expenses are proposed to be paid on a usage basis with a per diem rate applied for the prior month's actual usage. The County's and the City's prisoners are defined as those persons being held for offenses committed within its jurisdiction. Capital costs are shared equally for administrative, program and support areas. The capital costs for improvement of cells or other prisoner housing areas is included in the per diem charges, and therefore, will be shared based on actual usage. No capital project can proceed without the independent approval of both the County and the City. An annual budget will be reviewed by both the County and the City to establish the per diem rate. The budget must be approved by a majority vote of the entire jail board. The County will act as the fiscal agent for the jail until the authority assumes this responsibility. Such a transition is anticipated to occur in fiscal year 1996. Creation of the authority is necessary for the jail board to proceed with the financial planning necessary for final approval of state funding for the jail improvements by this year's General Assembly and to proceed with the capital project. The authority will be created upon approval of all parties with the financial terms being effective July 1, 1996. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution authorizing and directing the County Executive to execute the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Agreement to create a regional jail authority in cooperation with the City of Charlottesville. (Mrs. Thomas returned to the meeting at about 3:35 p.m.) There was no discussion. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. (Note: The resolution, as adopted, is set out in full below.) RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville are currently operating, through a Regional Jail Board, the Albemarle-Charlottesville Join Security Complex which serves as the jail for both jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, Chapter 3, Article 3.1 of Title 53.1 of the Code of Virginia, authorizes the creation of a regional jail authority to replace the existing Regional Jail Board and to assume the powers and responsibilities for the operation of the jail; and WHEREAS, the County has determined that the creation of the jail authority will facilitate and improve the operation, financ- ing and maintenance of the jail and thereby enhance the public safety and welfare within the region. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby authorized and directs the County Executive to execute the Albemarle-Charlottes- ville Regional Jail Authority Agreement to create a regional jail authority in cooperation with the City of Charlottesville. O00 G2 November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 52) Agenda Item No. 16. FY 19'96-97 Preliminary Revenue Projections and Budget Guidance proposed distribution of new revenues to General Government and the School Division. It was noted in the staff's report that in developing budget guidance for FY 1996-97, preliminary estimates were made for General Fund revenues. Overall they are projected to increase by $5.7 million (7.2%) over those in the FY 1995-96 adopted budget. Of this total, real property taxes are projected to increase by $2.0 million (6%), personal property taxes are projected to increase by $2.3 million (15.3%), other local revenues are projected to increase by $0.62 million (2.8%), and state/federal revenues are projected to decrease by 1.7 percent. Preliminarily, FY 1996-97 revenues look positive, as do the revised projections for FY 1995-96 which show an increase of approximately $700,000 over the adopted revenues. An increase of $5.74 million in revenues is projected for FY 1996-97. Debt Service remains level, while an additional $200,000 is added to the Capital Projects/Debt Service Reserve Fund to prepare for the $1.2 million increase in debt service anticipated in FY 1998-99 for the new high school. The Revenue Sharing payment to the City will increase by $120,882 with a projected FY 1996-97 payment of $5.17 million. Although the planned General Fund transfer to the Capital Improvement Program fund in an off assessment year was to remain level at $2.3 million, staff is recommending that an additional $500,000 be added in FY 1996-97 in order to increase the County's efforts to fund repair and maintenance costs, particularly in the School Division, with current revenues, rather than borrowed funds. Two additional categories are recommended to be added to the committed funds: $500,000 for anticipated expenditures for the jail, either in the form of a proposed reserve fund or in anticipation of a substantial increase in the per diem charges in FY 1997-98; and $500,000 in anticipation of major changes in the prefunding of the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) payments. The remainder of the committed funds of $750,000 are added to the Board's Reserve Fund to be allocated at the Board's discretion during budget work sessions. Based on net remaining revenues of $3.3 million and the current 60/40 percent distribution policy between the School Division and General Government, approximately $1.97 million will be allocated to the School Division, with $1.3 million being allocated to General Government. This proposed distribution of revenues supports the Board's approved financial policies by increasing the Capital transfer, Building capital and Debt Service Reserve for anticipated one-time needs for the new high school. It also funds anticipated expenses for the projected jail expansion and changes in the VRS payment requirements. It supports staff's goal of limiting increases in operational budgets to the combined rate of growth and inflation, which for 1996 is estimated to be five percent (1.5 % growth and 3.5% CPI). Operating budgets for both the School Division and General Government will stay within the five percent guideline. Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed FY 1996-97 revenue allocation that addresses both the short-term operational needs and the long- term capital requirements for the County. Mr. Bowerman called attention to the staff's goal of limiting increases in operational budgets to the combined rate of growth and inflation which for 1996 is estimated to be 3.5 percent for the Capital Improvements Program. He asked where this percentage was obtained. Mr. Tucker responded that this type of percentage comes from a couple of sources, and the Kiplinger Report is one of them. Mrs. Thomas mentioned her concern that only a slight decrease in State and Federal revenues is shown, but there have been drastic cuts and there will be more in Federal support for programs that affect County residents. She said the County will have to pick up some of these expenses. Everything would be fine if business could be done as it has been done in the past. She added that there are going to be increasing pressures to support things the County has never had to support before. She does not know where this is leading, except that she recognizes this as a problem. Somewhere there will have to be flexibility, and County officials will have to recognize these increasing demands. Mr. Tucker said it is difficult to make predictions at this time be6ause November l, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 53) of what is happening not only with Federal funds, but also at the State level. Legislation relating to the BPOL tax will be brought up again, and there is always a chance that it will pass. He hopes any change will be revenue neutral, but this is not known. He pointed out that this is one reason the Board's reserve fund is as high as it is. The numbers in the Capital Pro- jects/Debt Service Reserve Fund can be squeezed, but state officials have not yet given a firm figure for the VRS amount. Mr. Tucker told Mrs. Thomas that everybody is in limbo, but he thinks there will be a better knowledge of the figures in March or April. Mrs. Thomas said this is a reason not to suggest that there will be more than the $1.970 million allocated to the School System. She said the demands will come in the non-school area for the most part. Mr. Tucker said the composite index has changed, and the Schools will receive fewer funds from the State, although it is not known how much it will negatively impact the School System. Mr. Bowerman asked how the start-up costs for the new high school are being handled. He said that it is a couple of years away, but he wondered if the necessary costs are being anticipated now. Mr. Tucker said staff has had discussions with the Superintendent of Schools on this subject. He has asked the Superintendent to start reserving some money. He suggested that school officials not spend all of their carryover funds and start building up the School Fund. These are guidelines, but it gives the School Board something on which to build their budget. Mr. Marshall said he was privy to these projection figures last Wednes- day, and he was pleased with them. He was surprised, however, because of Mr. Tucker's comments a week before. Mr. Tucker said he and Mr. Marshall were talking about the reassessment. Mr. Tucker said he was referring to the real estate tax projections at six percent, which he considers low for Albemarle County. He added that overall, the projections are much better than antici- pated. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. B0werman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the proposed FY 1996-97 revenue allocation (attached to the staff's report) that addresses both the short-term operational needs and the long-term capital requirements of the County. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 17. Appropriation request: Replacement Van for the Sheriff's Department. Mr. Tucker said the Sheriff has succinctly described in his letter of October 26, 1995, what happened to the existing van as well as the need to move forward in providing the Sheriff's Office with a replacement van. There is already a new van on order for the Sheriff's Office. He went on to say the Sheriff was planning on replacing the older van next year, and he has indi- cated that two vans are needed for this office. He stated that no funds are available for replacement of the existing van that was damaged. Mr. Tucker then asked approval to appropriate up to $20,000, which would include replacement costs of the new van, plus $4000 for a cage, lights and other equipment. He stated that the specific amount to be appropriated will be brought back to this Board within the next couple of weeks. Motion by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the Sheriff's request up to $20,000, for a new van to replace the van which was damaged, with the actual appropriation to be made on November 8, 1995. Mrs. Thomas asked if the Supervisors can expect to have this much less money requested of them next year by the Sheriff. Mr. Tucker explained that the Sheriff was planning on requesting in his budget this coming year funds for a replacement van so he could have two vans, and he won't have to do that now. He said the old van was approaching 100,000 miles. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the County normally has collision insurance, which is dropped on older vehicles, or is it not carried at all. Sheriff November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 0001G4 (Page 54) Hawkins stated that if it had been a 1990 or newer vehicle, it would have had collision insurance. Because the van was a 1989 van, it did not have this insurance. There is a clause in the County's policy stating that it does not cover these older vehicles. At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 20. Appointments. There were no appointments made. Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Mr. Tucker said a request had been received from the Clarke County Board of Supervisors late last Friday asking that all counties join them in request- ing legislation to restore the fair-share state aid for public schools. They state that the Department of Education reports shows that between 1986 and 1994, the state share, on the average, went from 43 percent to 38 percent of total school costs. Mr. Tucker said this is informational, and they will request the Virginia Association of County (VACo) to support a resolution to the General Assembly on this matter. Mrs. Thomas said she would be willing to propose a resolution to support this request. Mr. Tucker said Albemarle's share went from 37 percent to almost 35 percent, so it is not as bad as for some communities. Mr. Perkins asked if the Board members wanted to take any action. Mr. Tucker said a general consensus that the Board's voting delegate to the VACo Annual Conference support that resolution will be enough. There was such a consensus. Mrs. Thomas said one of her constituents asked that the Board do something about Work-to-School. She told him that the School System, the Planning District Commission (TJPDC), the surrounding counties, and the City have been working on this. The State's refusal to get any Goals 2000 money has drastically reduced anything the County could get in terms of funding for any of Albemarle's projects. There is a small amount of planning money. The TJPDC has two applications pending. A report was done of what the TJPDC learned about how local employers view the product they are getting out of the local school systems. There were some surprising answers such as "we never hire high school graduates anyway, wherever they come from. In this community you can get clerical staff that all have bachelors degrees, and sometime masters degrees." Mrs. Thomas said the Board could have an interesting discussion about this at another time when the agenda is not so full. There are things going on in the community along these lines (this is in Walter Johnson's request), people have not been sitting still. There has been a lot going on if the Board members want to know about it. Mrs. Thomas said she has not been involved, and believes the School Superintendent would be the one to tell the Board about it, and maybe someone from Piedmont Community College. The Board members may want to put this on an agenda after the budget is completed. There seemed to be a general consensus to do this. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board members had received a copy of the report by the architects, Farmer, Puckett and Warner, who did the study on whether a juvenile detention facility could be placed on the site with the Joint Security Complex. Their conclusion was that while it might be physi- cally possible, it probably was not fiscally helpful to do that. The problems would probably offset any savings to be generated by not having a superior product. Mrs. Humphris asked if there are any implications by the Kessler Group withdrawing its offer to construct the road across the Hollymead Dam. Mr. Tucker said there could be some implications. The Kessler Group wants to get out of the liability they have with the dam. The Homeowners' Association I County Board of Supervisors Initials November 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) {Page 55) would end up being responsible for the dam. The County had the opportunity to build the road across the dam, and that has not moved forward because of the various plans for the Meadow Creek Parkway connectors. Staff feels that even if The Kessler Group gives up that right-of-way and gives up the dam itself to the responsibility of the homeowners, if the County ever wanted to build the road across the dam more than likely it would be with the support of the homeowners in the area. His impression from the Board members is that it may not be receptive to building that road while there is so much opposition in Forest Lakes and Hollymead. Staff does not know if there is a down side to letting them take over the liability and responsibility for the dam. Mr. Tucker said he does not believe the County will lose anything because if the County ever has to build the road, the homeowners will give the right-of-way so the County will not have to purchase the right-of-way. This has come about quickly since receipt of the letter and with discussions with Planning and Engineering. Mrs. Humphris said she was handed a list from the Chairman of the Board of Directors at Tandem School about their areas of concern related to the new high school, particularly, construction of the four to five-lane highway going through that area and whether it needs to be that big of a road, and what it will do to Tandem's entrance. She does not know who else might have gotten the list, and who will respond. Mr. Tucker said Jo Higgins is aware of the concern, but he does not know if she has seen the letter. He will be sure that somebody responds to their concerns. Mrs. Humphris said the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority's bathymetric analysis of the Sugar Hollow reservoir notes that even with the recent storm on a 50-year old water supply reservoir, only 15 percent of capacity has been lost in that reservoir, whereas the reservoir closer to development has lost 22 percent of its capacity in 25 years. It is interesting to note what development can do a water supply. Mr. Bowerman asked that Mr. Tucker thank Mr. Pat Mullaney for taking care of the Branchlands detention basin. It is obvious that maintenance is taking place. Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. At 4:02 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. ~ha~ma~ /