The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-12-06ooo O December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 6, 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, 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. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 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. Certificates of Appreciation. Mr. Perkins read into the record the names of those who are receiving certificates for work on various boards and commissions: Betty Newell JABA Advisory Council on Aging Served from August 1, 1987, to June 1, 1995 Lawrence Cabot, Jr. - Jefferson Area Board on Aging Served from September 1, 1993, to March 31, 1995 Josephine M. Blue Monticello Area Community Action Agency Served from June 13, 1990, to September 6, 1995 Shirley B. Dorrier - Library Board Served from September 9, 1987, to June 30, 1995 Cyndy Caughron - Library Board Served from February 1, 1989, to June 30, 1995 Christine K. Baker - Library Board Served from September 2, 1992, to June 30, 1995 John Stewart Darrell - Industrial Development Authority Served from November 11, 1981, to January 19, 1995 Arthur H. Baker - Industrial Development Authority Served from March 20, 1991, to June 30, 1995 Scott B. Peyton - Public Recreational Facilities Authority Served from September 13, 1989, to December 13, 1995 Mr. Perkins also recognized a new employee in the Clerk's Office, Ms. Christine Petersen. Agenda Item No. 5. Other ~atters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Mr. Cary Branch was present to request that the naming of the new high school be revisited. He has been a resident of the County for 35 years. He said this Board and the School Board have a great opportunity to honor a great citizen of this area, Lawrence BrunL~n. He was disappointed when he appeared before the School Board and no one there knew the name of Lawrence Brunton. He has not been able to get anyone to give him the motivation behind naming the school "Monticello High" other than there were too many people of equal stature in the community to compete for the name. He does not believe many could compete with Lawrence Brunton for contributions to the com~t~Y[ He said there are other things in the community named "Monticello", but there is only one Lawrence Brunton. He handed to the Board a listing of Mr. Brunton's accomplishments, and said he intends to pursue with the School Board changing the name of the new high school. 0002 . December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) .... ~i~,_~~ Mr. Martin said he would like to comment. Although he knows the School Board can select whatever name they wish, he was frankly disappointed that did not take a closer look at naming the school for someone. There are a lot of people in the community who have contributed greatly over the years, and it would be nice for one of those people to be recognized. Mr. Marshall said Mr. Brunton is a member of his family, so he would not be voting on the issue, but he also feels that the issue could be revisited. Mr. Bowerman said he would not object if the School Board wanted to revisit the naming of the school. Mr. Perkins said this certainly is a decision of the School Board. This Board might have some influence with the School Board, but very little. Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 6.1 through 6.9 and to accept all other items with the exception on 6.19 for information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 6.la. Appropriations: Stormwater Fund - $897,856.83, (Form #95034). It was noted in the staff's report that the Virginia Code requires the reappropriation of unexpended funds from a prior year for projects that are uncompleted. The Stormwater Fund ended FY 1994-95 with uncompleted projects totaling $897,856.83, which are itemized on the appropriation form. Staff recommends approval of this request as detailed on Form #95034. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95034 FUND: STORMWATER PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM FY 94-95 EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1910041000950093 1910041035312400 1910041035800975 1910041036312400 1910041036360000 1910041036800750 1910041036800975 DESCRIPTION ENGINEERING DRAINAGE STUDY/PLAN FOUR SEASONS PROF SERV ENG FOUR SEASONS STORMWATER CONTROL BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE PROF SERV ENG BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE ADVERTISING BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE PURCHASE OF LAND BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE STORMWATER CONTROL 1910041039800975 ~LICKINGHOLE 1910041040800975 1910041041800975 1910041043800975 1910041049800975 1910041050800975 1910041053800975 1910041054800975 STORMWATER CONTROL BERKELEY STORMWATER CONTROL LYNCHBURG STORMWATER CONTROL FOUR SEASONS STORMWATER CONTROL WOODBROOK STORMWATER CONTROL WINDHAM/JAPdVuAN STORMWATER CONTROL PEYTON DRIVE STORMWATER CONTROL RICKY ROAD STORMWATER CONTROL TOTAL AMOUNT $136,188.15 12,164.54 75,085.70 1,546.45 300.00 3,000.00 85,100.00 207,800.41 685.98 17,500.00 20,000.00 60,000.00 82,075.60 156,515.00 39. 895.00 $897,856.83 REVENUE 2910051000510100 DESCRIPTION FLrND BALANCE TOTAL $897,856.83 $897,856.83 0002 2 December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) Agenda Item No. 6.lb. Piedmont Regional Education Program - $14,975.90, (Form #95036). It was noted in the Staff's report that the Engineering Department and Building Services were the project managers for the site work and set up of the five mobile classroom units installed this past summer at the Burgess Lane Project at CATEC for the Piedmont Regional Educational Program (PREP). Funding for this project was provided through Fluvanna County which is the fiscal agent. Engineering functioned as a general contractor by hiring and coordinating the various subcontractors to complete this work. The vast majority of the materials and supplies used by these subcontractors were charged to store and vendor accounts of Building Services with the agreement that PREP/Fluvanna would reimburse Building Services for these expenditures. Two reimbursements have been received to date, made out to the County of Albemarle and turned over to the County's Chief of Financial Management. They were for $2,131.55 and $12,844.35, for a total reimbursement of $14,975.90. Staff recommended approval of Appropriation Form #95036 in the amount of $14,975.90 to the Department of Building Services Cost Center for reimburse- ment of expenditures made on behalf of the Piedmont Regional Educational Program. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95036 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS RECEIVED FROM FLUVANNA COUNTY REIMBURSING EXPENSES INCURRED WITH SETUP OF BURGESS LANE SCHOOL EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1243362420600700 BUILDING SERVICES-MAINT SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $14,975.90 $14,975.90 REVENUE 2200018000189900 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT MISC REVENUES $14,975.90 TOTAL $14,975.90 Agenda Item No. 6.1c. Gypsy Moth FY 1995/96 Operating Budget - $24,121, (Form #95039). It was noted that the Gypsy Moth program was initiated in 1988 to address the encroaching infestation of gypsy moths into the County. Funded by Federal grant funds, local tax funds and fees from landowners have been a full-time coordinator, one part-time aide, 12 part-time surveyors and the operational cost of pest management. The current fee is $10 per acre of land sprayed. The local share of $24,121 was approved in the 1995-96 budget. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEA=R: 1995-96 NI3MBER: 95039 FUND: GYPSY MOTH PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1995-96 OPERATING BUDGET EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1123034010110000 1123034010130000 1123034010160900 1123034010210000 1123034010221000 1123034010231000 DESCRIPTION SALARIES-REGULAR SALARIES-PART-TIME SALARY RESERVE-BONUS FICA VRS HEALTH INS AMOUNT $29,500.00 11,400.00 1,157.00 2,900.00 2,600.00 1,800.00 ! December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) 1123034010232000 1123034010241000 1123034010270000 1123034010360000 1123034010390000 1123034010520100 1123034010520300 1123034010550100 1123034010550110 1123034010550400 1123034010580100 1123034010600100 1123034010601400 1123034010601700 1123034010800100 1123034010800700 1123034010800701 1123034010800710 DENTAL INS VRS LIFE INS WORKERS' COMP INS ADVERTISING OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES POSTAL SERVICES TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL-MILEAGE TRAVEL-POOL CAR TRAVEL-EDUCATION DUES & MEMBERSHIPS OFFICE SUPPLIES OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES COPY SUPPLIES MACHINERY & EQUIP ADP EQUIPMENT ADP EQUIP.-REPLACEMENT ADP SOFTWARE TOTAL REVENIJE DESCRIPTION 2123016000160502 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 2123016000160526 PRIVATE PROPERTY SPRAYING 2123018000189913 MISC LOCAL REVENUE 2123024000240900 MISC INCOME-STATE 2123033000330001 GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL 2123051000512004 TR3kNSFER FROM GEN'L FUAID TOTAL 000 13 60.00 55 00 1,703 00 350 00 9,000 00 125 00 1,500 00 1,500.00 800.00 500.00 50 00 '350 00 2,500 00 100 00 100 00 3,000 00 1,071 00 250 00 $72,371.00 AMOUNT $8,5OO.OO 18,000 00 100 00 650 00 21,000 00 24,121.00 $72,371 00 Agenda Item No. 6.1d. United Way Child Care Scholarship Program - $304,768.46, (Form #95040). It was noted in the staff's report that the United Way Child Care Scholarship Program helps low and moderate income working families in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District maintain employment through direct fee- subsidies to pay for child care. The program promotes quality child care for children, especially "at-risk" children, by allowing the parent to select a licensed or certified provider. Scholarships are awarded based on a sliding scale fee with parents paying a portion of the cost. In an agreement signed in May, 1992 between the Albemarle Department of Social Services (DSS), Charlottesville DSS, and Virginia DSS, the United Way is administering a local pool of funds. The 1995-96 program will expend $257,560 for scholarships, $39,390 for United Way administrative fees, and $7818.46 for Albemarle County administrative fees, a total of $304,768.46. The pool is funded by $151,505 in Federal funds, $68,400 in Charlottesville funds, $38,800 in United Way funds, and $44,305 in Albemarle County funds, and a Fund Balance of $1758.46. (Mrs. Humphris asked if administrative costs are large because there is a full-time person administering the program. Mr. Tucker said "yes". This is not a new program, and the amount for administration has remained steady throughout the program.) By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appropriation was approved: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95040 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1995-96 UNITED WAY PROGR3kM EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1155053110390055 ADM FEE-ALBEMARLE COUNTY 1155053110390056 ADM FEE-UNITED WAY 1155053110567910 UNITED WAY DAY CARE PROGRAM TOTAL AMOUNT $7,818.46 39,390.00 257,560.00 $304,768.46 December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) REVENUE 2155033501160502 2155033501160503 2155033501160525 2155033000330001 2155051000510100 DESCRIPTION CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE UNITED WAY MATCHING FUNDS FEDERAL PASS THRUFUNDS FUND BALANCE TOTAL 000 .4 AMOUNT $68,400.00 44,305.00 38,800.00 151,505.00 1,758.46 $304,768.46 Agenda Item No. 6.1e. Housing Assistance Program - $9,292.90, (Form #95041). It was noted in the staff's report that the Section 8 Housing Program is an on-going rental assistance program offered by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Section 8-001 program provides housing assistance with 178 subsidies and is funded through June 2002. The Section 8-002 program provides 34 housing vouchers. The Section 8-003 program provides housing assistance for 35 units. A fund balance of $9,292.90 exists from prior year administrative start-up funds received from HUD and not expended. The County's Housing Departments wishes to have the fund balance reappropriated in order to complete the computerization of the Section 8 Rental Assistance program by purchasing software, a computer, and a printer. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95041 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: SECTION 8 HOUSING PROGP~AM EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1122781900800710 DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE TOTAL AMOUNT $9,292.90 $9,292.90 RElrENUE 2122751000510100 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FUND BALANCE $9,292.90 TOTAL $9,292.90 Agenda Item No. 6.1f. Intake Crisis Manager - $32,905, (Form ~95042) . It was noted in the staff's report that currently there are no services in the Charlottesville/Albemarle community that deal with delinquent youths after normal working hours other than emergency intake that results in detention. This grant (No: 96-BS040JE95 was approved by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services for the period July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996, in the amount of $32,905) from the Department of Criminal Justice Services funds a crisis intake manager to provide mediation, referral and counseling services to delinquent youths needing immediate crisis intervention in lieu of detention (this position has recently been filled). The drop-in center case manager will be an Albemarle County employee and will be located after hours in the Albemarle County Police Department. Supplies, training, travel, and other expenses will be funded by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court budget. The County is to act as Fiscal Agent. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NIIMBER: 95042 FL/ND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: INTAKE CRISIS MANAGER December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1152029407110000 SALARIES 1152029407210000 FICA DESCRIPTION TOTAL REVENUE 2152033000330407 DESCRIPTION DCJS-INTAKE CRISIS MANAGER TOTAL 000215 P340UNT $30,565.00 2,340.00 $32,905.00 AMOUNT $32, 905.00 $32,905.00 Agenda Item No. 6.1g. B. Dan Dickerson Service Road - $21,989, (Form #95044). The Gypsy Moth program was initiated in 1988 to address the encroaching infestation of gypsy moths into the County of Albemarle. A full-time coordinator, one part-time aide, 12 part-time surveyors, and the operational cost of pest management have been funded by Federal grant funds, local tax funds, and fees from landowners. The current fee level is $10 per acre of land sprayed. The local share of $24,121 was approved in the 1995/96 Budget. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95044 FUND: CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FI/NDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO A T WILLIAMS/DICKERSON SERVICE ROAD ON ROUTE 29 NORTH EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1901041000950030 SERVICE ROAD-WILLIAMS/DICKERSON TOTAL ~40UNT $21,989.00 $21,989.00 REVENUE 2901018000189908 DESCRIPTION SERVICE ROAD-WILLIAMS/DICKERSON TOTAL AMOUNT $21,989.00 $21,989.00 Agenda Item No. 6.2. Resolution to take Berkmar Drive North Extension (Route 1403) and Hilton Heights Road (Route 1438) into the State Secondary System of Highways; and to also guarantee to the Virginia Department of Transportation, for a period of one year from the date of acceptance in the Secondary System of Highways, Berkmar Drive North Extension and Hilton Heights Road against defective materials and/or workmanship up to a maximum of $14,250. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Berkmar Drive North Extension (RIP- 92-001), Route 1403, and Hilton Heights Road (SUB-12.225), Route 1438 described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, 1995, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the/Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the roads in Berkmar Drive North Extension and River Heights as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) December 6, 1995, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease- ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation for a period of one year from the date of acceptance into the secondary system of state highways, Berkmar Drive North Extension and Hilton Heights Road against defective materials and/or workmanship up to a maximum of $14,250.00. The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Berkmar Drive North Extension from the end of existing Route 1403 (Berkmar Drive/Woodbrook intersection), 3664 linear feet to the end of Berkmar Drive Extension right edge of pavement where it intersects with Hilton Heights Road as shown on plat recorded 2/2/94 in Deed Book 1380, pages 490-491 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, showing a 50 foot right-of-way with additional right- of-way and drainage, sight and guardrail easement plats recorded in: Deed Book 1427, page 613; Deed Book 1428, pages 550-552; Deed Book 1429, pages 126- 127; Deed Book 1439, page 198; Deed Book 1446, pages 129-130; Deed Book 1446, page 136; Deed Book 1447, page 668; Deed Book 1454, pages 412-413; Deed Book 1454, pages 420-421; Deed Book 1480, page 34; Deed Book 1484, page 658; Deed Book 1484, page 662; Deed Book 1488, pages 695 and 698; Deed Book 1499, page 212; Deed Book 1499, page 207; Deed Book 1499, page 224; Deed Book 1499, page 217; Deed Book 1504, page 687; and Deed Book 1504, page 693, for a length of 0.07 mile. 2) Hilton Heights Road, Route 1438 from end of existing Route 1438 (center of Wal-Mart/Sam's entrance), 540 linear feet from edge of pavement of Berkmar Drive North Extension end (Route 1403) as shown on plat recorded 2/2/94 in Deed Book 1380, pages 490-491, in the office the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, showing a right-of-way width varying from 50 feet to 120 feet with additional right-of-way, signal pole easement and easements in Deed Book 1133, page 678; Deed Book 1174, pages 343-344 and Deed Book 1484, page 658 for a total length of 0.1 mile. Total length - 0.8 mile. Agenda Item No. 6.3. Resolution to take Dunlora Drive in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase iA, into the State Secondary System of Highways. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase lA (SUB 12.354 & SUB 12.354A) described on the attached Additions Form SR- 5(A) dated December 6, 1995, fully incorporated herein by refer- December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 0002 7 ence, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meets the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the road in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase lA as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5{A) dated December 6, 1995, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease- ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportat ion. The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: 1) Dunlora Drive from Station 10+25, right edge of pave- ment of State Route 631, 1775 linear feet to Station 28+00 as shown on plat recorded 12/1/89 in Deed Book 1078, pages 565-574 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, showing a 50 foot right-of-way. Total length - 0.34 mile. Agenda Item No. 6.4. Resolution to take roads in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase 2A, into the State Secondary System of Highways. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase 2A (SUB 12.354 & SUB 12.354A) described on the attached Additions Form SR- 5(A) dated December 6, 1995, fully incorporated herein by refer- ence, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the roads in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase 2A as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, 1995, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease- ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meetingi (Page 9) O00 S 1) Dunlora Drive from Station 28+00, 2750 linear feet to Station 55+50 as shown on plat recorded 12/11/92 in Deed Book 1276, pages 704 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, showing a 50 foot right-of-way. Additional plats were recorded 6/3/94 in Deed Book 1408, pages 344-353, and on 11/20/95 in Deed Book 1504, page 560, for a length of 0.52 mile. 2) River Oaks Drive from Station 10+11, right edge of pavement of Dunlora Drive, 1165.87 linear feet to Station 21+76.87, edge of pavement at the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 12/21/93 in Deed Book 1370, pages 615-619 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, show- ing a 50 foot right-of-way, for a length of 0.22 mile. 3) River Oaks Ridge from Station 10+10, left edge of pavement of River Oaks Drive, 517.48 linear feet to Station 15+27.48, edge of pavement at the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 12/21/93 in Deed Book 1370, pages 615-619 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, show- ing a 50 foot right-of-way, for a length of 0.10 mile. Total length - 0.84 mile. Agenda Item No. 6.5. Authorize Chairman to execute service agreement with North Garden Volunteer Fire Company advancing $70,000 to purchase new pumper truck. It was noted in the staff's report that several years ago Albemarle County established a revolving fund to be used by the ten volunteer fire and rescue companies in the County. This fund, currently funded at $2.0 million, provides the volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed firefighting equipment and buildings, interest free, with repayments being deducted from their annual County appropriation. Requests for disbursements from the fund are monitored and approved by the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Associa- tion (JCFRA). The current amount available for loan in the revolving fund is $260,559.13. North Garden Volunteer Fire Company has requested, and JCFRA has approved, an advance of $70,000 to purchase a new pumper truck. This advance will be paid upon request after the execution of this agreement. Repayment of the loan will be over an eight-year period beginning in FY 1996-97. By the recorded vote set out above, the Chairman was authorized to executive the service agreement as set out below: THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this __ day of , 1995, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the NORTH GARDEN VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY ("North Garden"); WITNESSETH: the has entered into service WHEREAS, County previously agreements with North Garden, dated July 19, 1985; September 14, 1988; and March 22, 1993, providing for the withholding ~f certain sums each year by the County from the County's annual grant to North Garden, as set forth in said agreements, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits A, B and C; and WHEREAS, as a result of said agreements, the outstanding indebtedness now totals $63,580.37; and WHEREAS, North Garden now desires to receive from the County Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000.00) to be used toward the purchase of a new pumper truck, and 0002:1.9 December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) WHEREAS, North Garden now desires to enter into an agreement consolidating its annual withholding of payments by the County; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by North Garden of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to North Garden Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000.00), which payment shall be made when needed from the County's fire fund. Thereafter, the sum of Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($16,697.50) per year shall be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to North Garden for a period of seven (7) years beginning July, 1996 and extending through July, 2002,' with a balance of Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-Seven Dollars and Eighty-Seven Cents ($16,697.87) due in the eighth year (July, 2003). Thus, at the end of the eighth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of One Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Dollars and Thirty-Seven Cents ($133,580.37) will have been withheld. This withholding consoli- dates the balance of all prior advancements as a result of prior service agreements with North Garden dated May 7, 1987; September 14, 1988; and March 22, 1993. If at any time during the term of this agreement, North Garden is no longer in the business of providing fire fighting services or the fire fighting vehicles are no longer used for fire fighting purposes, North Garden covenants that it will convey its interest in the fire fighting vehicles, or the property known as Albemarle County Tax Map 99 Parcel 5A, as the case may be, to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County or its assigns will use the property for fire fighting purposes. All covenants set forth in the agreements dated May 7, 1987, September 14, 1988, and March 22, 1993, remain in full force and effect. North Garden further covenants that it shall not convey the new pumper truck or any interest therein to any party during the term of this agreement. A copy of the title to the new pumper truck shall be deliv- ered to the County within 60 days of the purchase of the new pumper truck. Agenda Item No. 6.6. Approval of Alternative Sentencing Project for Joint Security Complex. It was noted in the staff's report that, in October the Albemarle/ Charlottesville Jail Board forwarded a request to the City and County to fund a study of Alternative Sentencing Programs due to concerns about the cost of incarceration and expansion. The Jail Board is also exploring the possibil- ity of a regional study with other localities and/or jails. One firm, The Sentencing Project of Washington D.C., submitted a proposal with a cost of $15,300. The scope of work will include review of data on historic and projected jail populations, Crime and arrest rates, pretrial release populations, jail length of stay, court case data, interviews and site visits where appropriate, and an analysis of sentencing and pretrial release practices in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. The final product will include recommendations for alternative programs and policies that might reduce the jail population without adversely affecting public safety. Staff recommended approval of the study and payment of the County's share of the cost ($7,150) from either the current operating budget of the Joint Security Complex or from an unexpended balance from prior year's appropriation. By the recorded vote set out above, the request was approved. Agenda Item No. 6.7. Set public hearing to repeal Article VII, Regional Jail Board, of Chapter 2, Administration, of the County Code. It was noted in the staff's report that the County and the City have now executed the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Agreement which l 000, 0 December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) creates an authority in place of the regional jail board. Article VII, Regional Jail Board, Chapter 2, Administration, of the Code of Albemarle is no longer appropriate because of the establishment of the jail authority. This section should be repealed to reflect that a jail board no longer exists. By the recorded vote set out above, a public hearing was ordered advertised for January 3, 1996, to repeal Article VII, Chapter 2, as recom- mended. Agenda Item No. 6.8. Reappoint Patricia L. Smith to the Jail Authority. It was noted in the staff's report that a couple of months ago, the Code of Albemarle was amended to allow for an additional term for Ms. Pat Smith on the Jail Authority. At the time of this amendment, no official action to reappoint Ms. Smith was taken. She is now eligible for appointment to the Jail Authority. That action is requested at this time. By the recorded vote set out above, Ms. Patricia L. Smith was reap- pointed as the joint appointee on the Jail Authority for a new term which will expire on April 30, 1997. Agenda Item No. 6.9. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for the month of October, 1995, was approved as presented. Agenda Item No. 6.10. Copy of letter dated November 15, 1995, from Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Mr. David J. Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, re: Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road), was received for information as follows: "Thank you for your letter dated November 10, 1995, detailing issues of concern with respect to proposed road work on Route 614. I would like to address each item individually as listed in your report. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Reservoir Clean-Out: RWSA advises that a project showing was con- ducted on Friday, November 10, 1995, and that award of the contract will likely be around December 1, 1995. Debris removal is estimated to take approximately 180 days. It is our intent to coordinate the remainder of our road work as closely as possible with RWSA'S proposed work. Stormwater Runoff: This office will work with the County to place and maintain BMP'S (Best Management Practices) that adequately address the "first flush" of stormwater runoff where needed. However, due to time restraints, it is appre- ciated that a retrofit option is available in order to address these concerns. We will begin reviewing the concep- tual ideas submitted as Attachment 1 (on file) for future discussion. Leaching of Pollutants From Plant Mix: Serious and due consideration will be given to addressing stormwater runoff as discussed in Item #2. The Department will need to con- sider cost, maintenance responsibilities and potential liability issues as specific BMP'S are reviewed. Vegetation on Fill Slopes: An annual/perennial rye mixture is being used to provide immediate erosion protection. This mixture will allow for easy takeover of native vegetation as subsequent growing cycles occur. Stream Channel Restoration: Further communication with respect to future work in the stream channel is appreciated. Work in the Vicinity of the Buxton's Low-Water Bridge: We will provide hardwood plantings along the Cabell property frontage in place of mature cedar tree removal. The exact December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) type and number of plantings will be discussed with the Cabell's. The appropriate planting season will be coordi- nated. Please find attached (on file) a copy of the report from Van Yahres Tree Company with respect to the sycamore tree. We will request additional inspections/fertilizations as deemed necessary to insure the prolonged health of this tree. The rock berm will be lowered to provide for sheet flow through a grass shoulder as previously discussed. Upper Cabell Property: We will address in similar fashion as mentioned in Item #6. 8o Section along Puppy Run Farm: We are requesting a design exception for the pavement and shoulder width along the section of road in front of Puppy Run Farm. It is expected that this exception will be granted with the understanding that should safety issues arise over time (documented by accident statistics) a full 18' pavement width with minimal shoulder would be pursued within available right of way. We have received no formal report which indicates that this grading would adversely impact the river, however it seems prudent to work with all parties to reach a compromise along this area. Stormwater runoff will be sheeted to the south side of the roadway and directed back to the river channel by way of a new cross.pipe at the bottom of the hill, approximately 300' or so east of the Brigg's entrance. This will likely be an area designed for BMP installation to address concentrated runoff. It will also preserve the integrity of the north slope of the road/south slope of the river bank which is severely eroding. We intend to install a cross pipe to carry runoff from the Brigg's property under Route 614 at their entrance. This pipe would be installed such that property runoff would be carried to the river, not road stormwater runoff. Since little/no change is occurring on the Brigg's property with respect to this runoff, it is our opinion that we are not increasing pollutants/toxins at this location with the installation of a cross pipe. We will address both the inlet/outlet ends to insure that erosion is minimized/halted. We will obtain formal concurrence from the Briggs that their property discharge can be addressed in this way. Will Additional Toxins enter the River due to Paving? We agree with your response. 10. Will Paving encourage more Development and Increase the Value of Road Frontage? No comment. 11. Will Paving diminish the Safety of Non-Vehicular Traffic (Pedestrians, Bicycles, etc.) along Route 614 due to In- creased Traffic and Higher Speeds? There is no conclusive evidence that paving roads diminishes the safety of non-vehicular traffic. We will review this road for appro- priate signing, speed limit posting, etc., making safety the top priority. 12. What is the Position of Shenandoah National Park on this Issue, considering Recreational Use ~nd the Related Lands Study? No comment. 13. How does Paving the Road relate to the Comprehensive Plan? No comment. 14. How will Paving alter the Qualities of the Area which Led to Its Designation as a State Scenic River and County Scenic Stream? No comment. December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) 15. HOW will Shoulder and Graded Areas be Stabilized? with your response. We agree 16. Can Flood Relief Funding be Used for Restoration of the River and Its Edge Vegetation to a More Natural State? We will discuss this potential with the appropriate agencies and share details. 17. What about a Public Hearing or Meeting? A public hearing is not required under the process of restoring roads with respect to maintenance funding. The Department has consid- ered all opinions submitted formally for review. Thank you for your thorough response to the issues raised regarding our work on Route 614. I wholeheartedly agree with your penultimate paragraph and have learned much from the experience. I will strive to enhance the relationship that VDOT shares with the County and apply wisely the wisdom that hindsight has pro- vided." Agenda Item No. 6.11. Letter dated November 21, 1995, from Mr. R. H. Connock, Jr., District Construction Engineer, Department of Transportation, providing notice of a citizen information/participation meeting to be held regarding the Route 29 Corridor Development Study, (Project 6029-967-F01, PE-100), Charlottesville to Warrenton, was received as information. Mr. Connock notes that the purpose of this meeting is to present alternatives under consideration and to discuss traffic issues. This study is a major undertaking that will help plan for the future transportation facili- ties, including rail, air and automobile travel for people and freight. Agenda Item No. 6.12. Letter dated November 28, 1995, from Ms. A. G. Tucker, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing the monthly update on highway improvement projects currently under construction in Albemarle County, was received as follows: PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ALBEMARLE COUNTY NOVEMBER 1, 1995 ROUTE LOCATION STATUS ESTIMATED NO. COMP. DATE 29 240 29 671 From Hydraulic Rd (Rt 743) To N of Rio Rd (Rt 631) Rt 240 Bridge Replace- ment Near Iht Rt 250 Bridge Replacement at Millington Construc- tion 92% Complete Construc- tion 61% Complete Construc- tion 36% Complete Construc- tion 45% Complete Dec 95 Dec 95 May 97 Dec 95 Agenda Item No. 6.13. Information on proposed joint budget review process with the City of Charlottesville for community agencies for FY 1996- 97, was received as information. Staff noted that in the spirit of collaboration and streamlining government, the County and the City are proposing a joint agency review process for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 budget. The common process includes one December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) 000,; 23 agency application, a combined review team, joint agency interviews and joint funding recommendations to the respective jurisdictions. Agenda Item No. 6.14. October 1995 Financial Report, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 6.15. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for November 7 and November 21, 1995, were received as information. Agenda Item No. 6.16. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Bond Program Report and Monthly Report for the month of October, 1995, was received as information. Agenda Item NO. 6.17. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for October 19, 1995, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 6.18. Acme Design Technology Company's October, 1995 operating results (on file in Clerk's office), was received as information. Agenda Item No. 6.19. Letter dated November 22, 1995 from Mr. Robert Martinez, Secretary of Transportation, Department of Transportation, to the Honorable Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, re: Route 29 Bypass Study, was received as follows: ~Thank you for your letters concerning the proposed Route 29 Bypass study that currently is under way. I apologize for the delay in responding to your request for information and I hope the following will address the concerns expressed in your letters. The consultant firm of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas has been contracted to provide the Virginia Department of Trans- portation (VDOT) complete engineering services for the proposed Route 29 Bypass. Included in their scope of work is the develop- ment and analysis of traffic data within the entire study area. This information will be used to develop the roadway requirements and intersection configurations based on the level of service; develop data for pavement design; and, develop traffic data for noise analysis and noise wall design. For this analysis to be beneficial to both VDOT and those citizens who will be affected by this project, a complete study of several different scenarios is very important. Analyzing the traffic volumes with interchanges along the bypass and without inter- changes (except at the termini) will allow everyone involved to be better informed of all the impacts associated with the development of this project. The consultant currently is coordinating the development of this traffic information with Albemarle County, as well as the City of Charlottesville, and once the analysis is complete it will be provided to each jurisdiction for their review. VDOT will then be prepared to address the questions if they arise on the need for interchanges as project development continues. VDOT is aware of the sensitivity of the study of interchanges on the proposed bypass at Barracks Road and Hydraulic Road as well as the provisions of the resolution approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on November 15, 1990, but development of this information in no way indicates VDOT's intention to construct interchanges at these locations. Thank you for your continued interest in this project. You can be assured that VDOT will continue to be responsive to the concerns of those citizens involved with the development of this and other transportation facilities in your area." 000224 December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) (Mrs. Humphris requested that this item be discussed with under Agenda Item No. 8, Highway Matters.) Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: July 5, August 16 and November 8, 1995. Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of July 5, 1995, and found one mistake on page 8, 5th full paragraph - delete the words "There are many people who do not represent ridership dependent upon CTS." Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of August 16, 1995, and found them to be in order. Mrs. Thomas had read the minutes of November 8, 1995, and noted the misspelling of the word "coloform" in two places on page 4. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 8a. Other Transportation Matters. Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, noted the Citizens Information Meeting which will take place later today at Madison County High School concerning the Route 29 North Corridor Study (see Item 6.11 on the Consent Agenda). Mrs. Humphris said she had been told by a citizen that after Albemarle's Western Bypass is completed out past Airport Road, if there can also be some connection with the Meadow Creek Parkway, that the Route 29 Corridor go much further north. When she looked at this proposal on a map, it appeared to go through the UREF Industrial Park. She asked if this study group knows about the industrial park. Mr. Cilimberg said he represents the County on the Study Committee and he told the group that if a parallel road to Route 29 is proposed, it could affect the UREF property. The line that will be proposed at the public meeting today shows the road just on the eastern boundary of the I/REF Industrial Park. There is area between UREF and Route 29 where this road could be built. The UREF property actually has little frontage on Route 29. Mrs. Humphris asked if it will be proposed that the road go through established S~bdivisions. Mr. Cilimberg said it is hard to tell exactly where the road would lie since all he has seen so far is a line on a very small map. What the group will be doing today is showing a general location that will put the road on the eastern edge of UREF, which means that the road would be on the western edge of those subdivisions which front Route 29. Mrs. Humphris asked how this would effect the proposed (Wendell Wood) mobile home park. Mr. Cilimberg said the road would be on the western side of that park also. Staff has been alerting the group to these things as they start to look at this NHS (National Highway System) concept. If a road parallel to Route 29 is built in that general area, the group has been alerted to what properties will be effected. Staff has also tried to make the public aware that this is being looked at as a possibility. It is not a recommenda- tion at this time; it is a concept. Mrs. Humphris said this concept does not sound good for this community. She hopes the group is aware that the idea of having a limited access road for the entire length of the area being studied will be hard to implement without causing severe hardships on human beings. Mr. Perkins asked why Route 29 has not been considered as a limited access road with service roads being built on each side. Mr. Cilimberg said that is another concept. Mrs. Humphris felt a better idea would be to build the road to the east of Albemarle County where there are not many people and the communities want economic development. There is open land and good topography for building a road to the east, it could be built in a straight 00022:5 December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) line from Orange County to Lynchburg. She does not understand the whole concept. Mr. Marshall said he asked that same question 16 years ago. Ms. Tucker said the committee is still in the information-gathering stage, and more or less "brainstorming" such issues as service roads, bypass extensions, etc. Mrs. Humphris said this Board has another meeting scheduled for that same time this afternoon, so she wanted Ms. Tucker to hear her concerns, and hopes they will be passed on to the committee. Ms. Tucker said she would like to spend time with individual members of the Board to look at the. revised Six-Year Secondary Road Plan before the public hearing. She has made some changes in the Plan which would benefit from individual discussions. Mrs. Thomas said she appreciates the response of Ms. Tucker to Mr. Hirschman's letter concerning Route 614. Ms. Tucker said the Highway Depart- ment intends to complete its work on that project this week. They will work with interested people in the future as the project continues, but the paving project will be completed this week. Mrs. Thomas mentioned that she met with Ms. Tucker in Ivy recently to discuss the traffic problems there. This was the day after a fatality in Ivy. Ms. Tucker said she does not yet have any information on that fatality and whether or not it was connected with sight distance. Mr. Tucker said the Police Accident Reconstruction Team is also investigating the accident, but has not yet completed its work. Sight distance will be a major consideration in that report. Mrs. Thomas said in Ivy the speed limit needs to be kept as close as possible to the posted speed. With the new "Smart Sign" the Police have, there will the opportunity to have that sign in different locations throughout the County. Batesville contributed $500 toward purchase of the sign in exchange for the promise of being able to use the sign once a month. It is a unique concept for law enforcement in this area. Mr. Perkins asked for an update on the Millington Bridge project. Ms. Tucker said the contractor has stopped work at this time waiting for steel from the fabricator. An exact date for receipt of this material could not be obtained. That is the only holdup on the project. Mr. Perkins remarked that the bridge project on Route 240 seems to be nearly completed. Ms. Tucker said the project should be finished this date. Mrs. Humphris mentioned the letter from Secretary Martinez listed as Item 6.19 on the Consent Agenda. She said this Board sent a letter to Mr. Martinez on September 7 expressing its unanimous concern about VDOT studying construction of interchanges on the proposed Western Bypass at both Barracks Road and Hydraulic Road. The Board reminded him of its consistent and continuing opposition to those interchanges in the Rural Areas and in the watershed. The Commonwealth Transportation Board said in their 1990 resolu- tion that there would be no interchanges unless it was at the request of this Board. They recognized the impact these interchanges would have on the environment and the development that could occur because of such construction. She does not know why it took such a long time to receive a reply to the Board's letter, particularly because the reply was not helpful. Mr. Martinez says it is within the work of the consultant, and the information will be used to develop roadway requirements and intersection configurations, etc. Mrs. Humphris said she finds the reply unacceptable. It raises lots of questions, particularly that the whole concept behind the Western Bypass was to move the through traffic keeping it off of the Route 29 Business corridor. There seems to be a movement to make the proposed bypass a road with addi- tional accesses and that will have a major effect on the watershed. It is more difficult, as time goes by, to keep in people's minds the reason this county acted in 1980 to protect the watershed. It is difficult for people to December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) oooaa ; understand the County does not have an infinite supply of water and that an additional reservoir will have to be built in the near future as a supplement to, but not a replacement for, the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Mrs. Humphris said it is disheartening to learn that the same group which defeated the three interchanges on the business corridor now wants to put interchanges out in the rural area, in the watershed, very close to the water supply and in established neighborhoods. She thinks the Board is facing another battle such as the one over the interchanges on Business Route 29 where the facts where not totally presented. She believes that next Spring when the plan design is reviewed for public hearing, there will be data showing that it will be convenient to have interchanges on the Bypass, and there will be no additional environmental information provided about the damage it will do and the way it will open the watershed for development. The state has said it is up to this Board to control land use and they would then be able to build interchanges without any impact. She is aware of the political reality, and she knows the pressures that can be brought to bear on any Board. With the changing complexion of boards such as this one, because of the political process, it is possible that in the future a Board "would cave in" and allow commercial development on the interchanges. That would be the end of the watershed and protection of the rural areas, a concept which is the basis of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Humphris mentioned again that the letter from Mr. Martinez said the analysis being done is to study everything to do with design of the roadway, an interchange at the North Grounds connector and what traffic levels will be there. She said the Westover property has no accesses to make it a useable piece of property unless it accesses onto the Western Bypass. It cannot use Old Ivy Road to serve any development that might be placed on that property. With the railroad bridges the only other way to get out of that property, the logical thing is to have an access from the Westover property onto the Bypass. Mrs. Humphris said that another question to do with that whole area is that UREF has said it is possible they will have an access onto the North Grounds connector thus eliminating their need to use the access they are now using over the University Village access onto Old Ivy Road. Since the Secretary says VDOT needs all this traffic data, and they are studying the whole area, are they including these necessary possibilities? Mr. Cilimberg said he knows VDOT is looking at the interchange at the Western Bypass/North Grounds connector. He does not know about the other possibilities. He said it was discussed by the Faulconer/Birdwood Area B Study Committee a couple of weeks ago. One of the things noted was that the Westover property frontage on the new Bypass is so close to where the interchange will be on the existing Route 250/29 Bypass that it is probably not feasible from a design standpoint to incorporate another interchange. Mrs, Humphris said that is all she needs to say. When she found out the other day that some of the same people who told this Board that interchanges are too ugly, too harmful, too dangerous, and so forth to have on Route 29, and that they now want to put interchanges right over the Reservoir, and in some of the County's neighborhoods, it was very disappointing. She finds it astonishing that anybody could come up with an idea to do that, and they are already starting to promote this to homeowners' associations out in the rural areas, to convince them it would make it more convenient for them to get to town, to work and shop, if they would get behind the effort to promote the interchanges. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 9:38 a.m.) There was no further discussion of this item. Agenda Item No. 9. Work Session: FY 1996/97 through FY 2000/01 Capital Improvements Program. It was noted in the staff's report that the FY 1996-97/2000-01 recom- mended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was developed using requests from the various General Government departments and the School Division by the CIP Technical Committee. The recommended five-year program was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 7 and then followed by a public hearing on November 28. 00022 December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) The recommended CIP totals $80.0 million, $69.0 million of which is allocated for School Division projects, $10.5 million for General Government projects and, approximately $0.5 million is for Stormwater Fund projects. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned at 9:40 a.m.) Ms. Roxanne White, Executive Assistant, made a slide presentation and answered questions. Mr. Martin asked if there is something slowing down the Zan Road extension. Mr. Cilimberg noted that most of Zan Road is in the City and has to become a city priority. At one time, it was thought there would be private participation. This project was initiated at Great Eastern Management's request, but at this time there is no private commitment. Mrs. Thomas said the County is always being criticized for not having parallel roads along Route 29, but the City ruined the one chance there was to have such a road when they approved Pepsi Place. Mr. Tucker said a lot of the issues have been worked out in terms of alignment, but there has been no financial commitment to share in the cost of the road, and the City has not made this project a high priority on the City's list. Mrs. Thomas asked if it is true that most of the pedestrian paths, sidewalks and street lights shown would not be done by V DOT if the County was not paying a share. Mr. Cilimberg said under the program that VDOT uses for secondary improvements, there is partial funding for sidewalks. VDOT will purchase the right-of-way and build half of the sidewalk and the other half of the cost is covered by the county. They would not build sidewalks if the county was not participating. Mr. Cilimberg said the bicycle facilities are shown because the regional bike plan was passed. In some cases, the full cost of a bike lane in the road is paid for by VDOT. When the bike lane goes off of the road, the cost is shared. Sidewalks are also based on local plans. Ms. White said the other project shown is for Route 29 North landscap- ing. About $25,000 has been added to the project to extend it from Rio Hill Shopping Center to the River. Mr. Martin asked if that is a 50-50 match with the businesses. Ms. White said the businesses are contributing $10,000 per year for that project. Mr. Marshall asked about the 1-64/Route 20 study. Mrs. Thomas said in the past, ~ungela Tucker reported to the Board that VDOT was working on the study and now she sees it in this CIP as something the County is to fund. Mr. Cilimberg said that the project was actually put in the CIP last year with the understanding there would be an overall look at the interchange to see what improvements could be made, including the possibility of other ramps that are not part of the interchange now. Ms. Tucker said VDOT's primary six-year plan shows an acceleration lane being placed from eastbound 1-64 onto southbound Route 20 to tie into the deceleration lane going into Piedmont Community College. It also includes building a right-turn lane on Route 53 onto northbound Route 20. That is being coordinated with the Thomas Jefferson Enhancement Project. These improvements are in the six-year plan and due to happen within the next year. There is no study in place. Mr. Cilimberg said the interchange study was for bigger improvement possibilities that might be needed due to traffic flow in that area and reconfiguration of the interchange possibilities. That study evolved out of the Area B study done for the Blue Ridge neighborhood. Ms. White went on to discuss School Projects. She noted that there are two projects which have been added to the School Fund, and those are the "Avon Street/Route 20 Connector" road at $1.4 million, and the "New High School Community Recreational Facility" at $3.8 million. She said this project shows in the fifth year of the CIP and it does involve a 50-meter swimming pool at the new high school site. The Technical Committee had questions about this project. The estimate shown is only a "ballpark" estimate at this time. This was an issue which the Committee felt should have some public debate. In reply to a question from Mr. Marshall, Mr. Tucker said if the swimming pool project is left in the School Fund, it is possible to borrow some of the needed funds from the VPSA. If left as a project under Parks and Recreation, the total cost would be borne by the County's General Fund. 000228 December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) Mr. Perkins invited the Board members to comment on the presentation. Mrs. Thomas mentioned she has heard from many citizens that the County's soccer fields are the worst in the league because they are so overused. The Athletic Field Study has been put off until the year 2001 and it is suggested that consultants be hired to do it. She does not understand the delay or the need for outside consultants. She said the community is playing a lot of soccer and more fields are needed. Ms. White said the study was not to determine if more fields are needed, but rather to look at whether current County property could be used for this purpose. Mrs. Thomas said if that is the case, why wait until the year 2001. Ms. White said, by policy, new projects are coming into the CIP in the fifth year. If there is a consensus that something needs to be done sooner, the Board has the option of moving a project forward in the plan. · .... Mrs. Humphris expressed her concerns about an indoor swimming facility at the new high school. She thinks the Board should think about the issues involved with such a project, such as liability, as well as the parity issue. In a facility such as this, it is usually not the original cost that causes a problem, but the maintenance and upkeep. She is aware of the benefits of using a swimming pool, but she is concerned about the enormous capital cost, the upkeep, plus the parity, plus the liability, and wonders if the Board should not think about whether that money could be better spent on education. Due to lack of time, the work session stopped at this point. Mr. Tucker suggested the Board might have time to pick up this discussion later today. It was noted in the staff's report that the FY 1996-97/2000-01 recommended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was developed using requests from the various General Government departments and the School Division by the CIP Technical Committee. The recommended five-year program was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 7 and then followed by a public hearing on November 28. Agenda Item No. 10. Authorize County Executive to execute agreements for permanent pump and haul for Randolph and Catherine Lange (formerly Captain's Table). Because the applicants were not present, this item was skipped temporarily. Agenda Item No. lla. Public Hearing: To amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include parcel 88B on Tax Map 56 in the Crozet Growth Area for water and sewer service. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 21 and 28, 1995.) Mr. Cilimberg stated that on April 5, 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer to include parcels 88, 88A, 89, 90, 90A and 93 on Tax Map 56 in the Crozet Growth Area. Recently, in the course of reviewing a development proposal including Parcel 88B adjacent to those parcels, it was realized that Parcel 88B was inadvertently omitted from the request to be included in the service areas for water and sewer. Parcel 88B had been included in the applicant's request for amendment of the Service Area boundaries, but staff had thought that parcel was already included for water and sewer service. Upon closer inspection, it was realized that Parcel 88B was included for "water only to existing structures." Staff is now requesting official action to correct this mistake. (Note: Mrs. HLunphris left the room at 10:11 a.m.) Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to extend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Author- ity to include parcel 88B on Tax Map 56 for both public water and public sewer service. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. A~SENT: Mrs. Humphris. December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) 00022 Agenda Item No. llb. Public Hearing: To amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to existing structures only at 1-64 East rest area; for water and sewer service to existing structures at 1-64 West rest area; and for sewer service to the Ivy Landfill. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 21 and 28, 1995.) Mr. Cilimberg said the Board considered this request on November 1, 1995, and agreed to set this public hearing after staff recommended that additional information be provided. The applicant has provided an overview of alternatives in two areas. The applicant for service at the rest stops has provided, through their consultant, further information regarding the feasi- bility of alternative non-discharge systems and the feasibility of relocating the rest areas closer to public utilities. No additional information has been provided regarding verification of existing well flow or alternative well site potential at the westbound rest stop. They all concur that the most reason- able and best alternative if these rest stops are going to remain open is to provide public sewage services. The County's Water Resources Manager has provided comments in response to the applicant's additional information, and that response is on file. The State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) also provided comments. Mr. Cilimberg said that based on all information provided thus far, staff makes the following recommendation: 1) Approve "Limited Service for Sewer" to the existing Rest Area Structures Only at the Virginia Department of Transportation's 1-64 East Rest Area (Tax Map 54, 1-64 Right of Way), and, the Virginia Department of Transportation's 1-64 West Rest Area (Tax Map 73, 1-64 Right of Way). The service should be provided by private sewer lines following existing VDOT right-of-way only. 2) Approve "Limited Service for Sewer" to the Ivy Sanitary Landfill for Leachate Management Only (Tax Map 73, Parcel 28). The service should be provided by private sewer lines following VDOT right-of-way only. 3) Due to lack of information justifying the need, staff does not recommend approving the request for water service to the 1-64 West Rest Area. Mr. Marshall said he did not realize problems were being experienced at the rest stop at Crozet. He had asked the Health Department to check the rest stop at Ivy. Mr. Cilimberg said the same kinds of problems are being experi- enced at both rest stops. Mr. Marshall asked if both rest stops use the mineral oil systems. Mr. Cilimberg said the letter from the Health Department gives background on information for their picking the mineral oil system manufactured by the Chrysler Corporation which he understands is no longer being manufactured. Mrs. Thomas asked if the line from the Ivy Landfill would go to the rest area line, hook up to it, and the sewage/leachate go on together from that point. It sounds like there are to be two private lines built. Mr. Cilimberg said in actuality that is probably the way it will be. There will likely be parallel lines in the same corridor once the line reaches the location of the westbound rest stop sewer line. It is a timing situation. The line for the landfill would probably happen first, so instead of hooking it into the line done for the rest stop, they would parallel that line with another private line. Mrs. Thomas said that means it would be dug up the second time to put in the line. Mr. Cilimberg said it is hoped it might be done all at the same time, but he would prefer that the applicant address that question. Mrs. Humphris asked if the recommendation is to size for existing use only so there could be no expansion of the line. Mr. Cilimberg said that could be included and perhaps Mr. Bill Brent should speak to how that should be best worded. Mrs. Humphris said in one of the reports given to the Board that was included as a recommendation. At this time, Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. First to speak was Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority. He could not comment on the sizing. All of the facilities to be built will be 00230 December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) designed, constructed and operated by VDOT or the Rivanna Solid Waste Author- ity (RSWA). The sizing of the pumps and the pipe are all related, but with a force main it is better to undersize than oversize because the material can be pumped more easily through a small pipe than a large pipe. Mrs. Thomas said she would like to discuss the public aspects of having a private line. Ordinarily, once the Albemarle County Service Authority has the lines, maintenance becomes the responsibility of the current water users. With a private line, would maintenance of the line remain the responsibility of VDOT? Mr. Brent said that is correct. Mrs. Thomas said to clarify, there would be no maintenance charges over the life of this line to be picked up by the other water users. Mr. Brent said that is correct. Mrs. Thomas asked if that private line could be opened to some other ~erty along that line or would that possibility always come back to this Board because it would be an expansion of the ACSA's service area. Mr. Brent said he believes the Board will limit what can be connected to it by the action which will be taken. Mrs. Thomas said it will remain the Board's responsibility even though it is a private line. Mr. Brent answered "yes." Mr. Jeff Kirwan of Peacock Hill was present to express his concern as a scientist and a nearby resident to the Ivy Landfill. His principal concern is that by having a sewer line which is committed (and which requires a substan- tial expense on the part of the County) to the Ivy Landfill, that in an indirect fashion, the County will solidify this commitment to what was supposed to have been a temporary solution to the landfill problems. He is afraid that most people will think that Ieachate is the major problem. As a scientist, he does not think that is the case. Leachate runoff into the headwaters of the Reservoir is an important problem to be addressed. From history, Mr. Kirwan said it is known that several industries in the County have put thousands of gallons of known carcinogens into an unlined cell that is known as the "paint pit." That is a concern to nearby residents who drink well water from the Peacock Hill subdivision water system (which is a County-approved well system), since some homes are less than a quarter of a mile from the boundaries of this landfill. He mentioned an article from an issue of the Cape Cod Times of October 19th about problems of organic pollut- ants that have been left in the ground by a federal airbase. Already they have spent nearly $60 million on testing in the first phases of trying to stop this pollution which is 170 to 200 feet underground. Mr. Kirwan said it is known from the records that there have been hundreds of gallons of known carcinogens put in the paint pit. He is concerned that there are 130 people living in a county-approved development whose property values and personal safety are being impacted by the decisions to continue using the Ivy Landfill. He is afraid that the addition of the sewage system which is supposed to remove leachate will just solidify this continuing behavior of addressing the landfill problem with Band-Aid-like solutions. He thinks something more significant needs to be done. His credentials include work with environmental consulting firms as an undergraduate at Cornell University and he is a biologist. He does not believe there has been an environmental impact statement done on the Ivy Landfill. Mr. Art Petrini, Executive Director of the Rivanna Solid Waste Author- ity, spoke next. He said it is intended to have a separate line in the same trench as the line for VDOT. The construction would occur simultaneously, however, leachate pumping through that line would not begin until such time as it is found to be necessary. He anticipates that the construction job will be one job for both projects. Mrs. Thomas asked if it is technologically impossible to join the lines and join the leachate to the sewage. Mr. Petrini stated that from an engi- neering standpoint, it is not feasible. To size a line, the quantity of flow through the line must be known. VDOT knows their quantity of flow and is ready to implement their program shortly. RSWA does not know, at this time, its quantity of flow. That is why they are only asking for a service area designation to give them the option to put the flow through the line. Mrs. Thomas said RSWA is going to size the line because it is to be constructed now. Mr. Petrini said "yes" There are several things happening too fast to be comfortable with. The ultimate answer to the landfill and solid waste management has not been produced yet. Therefore, RSWA has to use its best engineering estimate as to what will happen. If RSWA feels the line can be sized with the VDOT project, that will be done. If that would be an December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) 000; 8 inappropriate use of funds to fund that project, the project will not be implemented at the same time. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Petrini to address Mr. Kirwan's question about whether or not it is appropriate to run a line for the leachate when it may not be appropriate to have the landfill there. Mr. Tucker said it is his understanding that since there will be leachate regardless of when the landfill is closed, this is a mechanism to eliminate the leachate as effi- ciently and effectively as possible. He does not believe it was ever the intent of the RSWA Board to solidify the use of the landfill for any specific period of time. Mr. Petrini responded that legally the RSWA is required, upon closing the landfill, to maintain environmental and other controls for 30 years. Leachate is one of the environmental issues they will have to control. Controlling it means capturing it within the boundaries of the landfill and either treating it on-site or pumping it out through trucks, or through the force main being discussed. Legally, RSWA is required to manage the leachate for a minimum of 30 years; morally RSWA is required to manage it until such time as it is not an issue. That could be even longer. Whether the landfill is open or closed is not material at all to the request in front of the Board today. Mr. Jennings Wagoner, a resident of Peacock Hill, said he was encouraged by the statements today, but is also concerned about promises going back 27 years about the landfill that each step would not be a permanent step, but the landfill is still there, and still growing. He handed to the Board a letter and petition signed by 30+ people who do not live in the Ivy area, but who oppose the landfill. The residents of Peacock Hill are concerned that the landfill be closed down and if the line will be used to continue the landfill, he is opposed to the request. Mr. Ed Strange, a resident of Ivy, said he is concerned only with the portion of the request relating to the landfill. He feels this is a prece- dent-setting request and caution is in order. He asked why RSWA wants approval for something they admit they may not need. Once they get the approval, the Board has lost its control. The cost has been estimated at $1.0 million and that money is desperately needed for clean-up of the three million gallons of hazardous chemicals that are now on-site at the landfill. The estimated cost by Joyce Engineering is $4.0 to $8.0 million. RSWA does not have that money, yet they are considering a million dollar expenditure. He, others, are concerned that RSWA believes it can continue the landfill in the headwaters of the Rivanna Reservoir and pay for the eventual clean-up and this sewer line by continued landfilling. He believes a mistake was made by putting the landfill in the headwaters in the first place. Another mistake should not be made now by approving a sewer line that may not be needed. Let RSWA come back for approval when it has been proven it is needed. In that way, the Board will retain control. In the meantime, he thinks the money they do have ShoUld be spent on the removal of hazardous chemical waste. Money is going to be the critical issue. Just recently there was a "Subtitle C" cap put over the paint pit which contains most of the hazardous waste. He does not believe that was a good move, but time will tell whether there is a need to remove the cap, get in and remove the waste physically. He guesses that the cap cost $2.0 to $3.0 million and the chemicals are still there. If the sewer line were free and it took care of the matter, that might be reasonable, but does not feel it will take care of the matter. The chemicals will still remain on the site. Mr. Petrini responded that the RSWA has done a cost evaluation and is not before the Board for an economic consideration but for health and safety reasons. It could cost up to $2.0+ million per year to control the leachate the current way which is to pump it into a truck and haul it to the Moore's Creek Sewage Treatment Plant. He has one estimate of $2.5 million which compares to $1.0 to $1.5 million if it is put in a pump station and pumped to the Moore's Creek Sewage Treatment Plant. The $1.0 to $1.5 million is a one-time capital cost and there will also be some yearly operating costs. The $2.0 to $2.5 million is a yearly cost that would be perpetuated as long as there is leachate. Just on a dollar value, it is not reasonable to continue this practice if the type of leachate quantity anticipated is generated in the future. Mr. Petrini further stated that RSWA anticipates having the pipe installed with the VDOT project. However, he will get confirmation of that from the RSWA Board and let them decide the criteria that would make it not usable. He cannot go to them unless he has permission through the County Board first. December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) Mr. Perkins asked if any representative from V DOT would care to speak. No one replied. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at this time. Mrs. Thomas asked if the Board was to consider all three requests together. Mr. Tucker said it is a joint application. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff set out the report with three separate recommendations, one of those is not to provide public water. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board could set aside the request to deal with the water because, in addition to what staff has said about lack of justification, she did some calculations on her own and they show that there really is no justification. She asked if a motion was needed to dispense with that part of the request. Mr. Tucker stated that action is needed on that part of the request. Mrs. Humphris moved that the Board not extend the service area and not provide water to the westbound service area for VDOT. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thomas. Mr. Martin asked if the Board should just deny or should some wording be used in case VDOT does comes back with the type of information needed. Mrs. Thomas said, at this point she would be more comfortable just denying the request. They can always reapply. Mr. Marshall asked if there is a time frame for reapplying. Mr. Cilimberg said there is not a time limit, but a new fee may be required. Mrs. Humphris said it evidently was not important enough to VDOT to furnish the type of information the Board needed for deci- sion-making. Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT has been trying to get more tests done. He understands the test was done last week, but he did not get the informa- tion. Mr. Marshall said his concern is health and safety, and that is not an issue with this request. He would not object to deferring the request if it may come back in 30 days with the needed information. Mr. Tucker said he does not believe that will happen. At this point, Mr. Perkins restated the mokion to not extend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water service to the 1-64 West rest stop. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Mrs. T~s said she would like to discuss the rest areas, since they have not been discussed today. The Board will be breaking a substantial precedent by allowing this hook-on. Once the private line is allowed to hook onto the "Ivy intersection" of the Crozet Interceptor, she feels everyone living in Ivy who is having sewage disposal problems will want the same courtesy. Mrs. Thomas said she will admit that she is one of the people who were opposed to the Crozet Interceptor back in the 1970s. She did not feel there would ever be a board of supervisors who would be able to resist the temptation to allow people to hook onto the interceptor, thus, there would be more development in that corridor which would be more harmful with its pollution and runoff than the sewage that was going into the creek in Crozet. She never thought she would be one of those people at the table making that kind of decision. Mrs. Thomas said she just wants everyone to be aware that the Board is making that kind of decision because the material presented to the Board for making this decision does not bring out that point. Talking to Mr. David Hirschman and reading everything presented so far, because of the quantity of waste that is produced at these rest stops, it seems that there is no present system that can recycle the waste and not have a discharge and a pump and haul situation. It looks like VDOT is trapped into either having to move the rest stops or close them. She is not convinced that the rest stops help this area's tourism that much. This is a State item and that is why she wanted to make sure there was not going to be any expense to the local water users. She does not see that anything can be done except to allow the hook in. She does not like it, but that seems to be the limit of technology. December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) Mrs. Thomas said as to the Ivy Landfill issue, the people who spoke said what she thought the people in Ivy would be feeling. There is a lot of mistrust. There is a bad thing in their midst. This is something that no one wants in their backyard. The concern is, if the line is allowed, will the Board be cementing the existence and use of that landfill. She has decided that is not the case since leachate is going to be there, even after the 35 years. Digging up the paint pit is not related to the leachate. They are right in saying that solving the leachate problem is not solving the paint pit problem. The leachate problem has to be solved. She does not know if it makes good sense to put in a line when its size is not known, nor how it will be used. She hopes the RSWA Board does some thinking about whether they are going to use it now and the different costs of putting it in now, or putting it in later. She does not want the Board's action today to be misconstrued to mean the RSWA should go ahead with this project. She would appreciate hearing the thoughts of the other Board members, but unless others have thought of ways which are better than what has been presented, she feels this is the least of the possible evils facing the Board. Mr. Bowerman said he agrees one hundred percent with what Mrs. Thomas has said and sees no. reason to repeat it. Mrs. Humphris asked what language could be recommended to the Board for a motion that would show how the Board is attempting to distinguish this problem and its potential solution from any other so as to minimize the opportunity for a precedent. Mr. Davis said the record will be clear that it is for an environmental problem for this landfill but language could be constructed that it is to solve an existing environmental identified problem at the landfill for this aspect of this approval. Mrs. Humphris asked about wording for the rest stops. Mr. Davis said they are more problematic because it is an existing use and the criteria already addresses a situation where there is an existing structure that otherwise has no alternative sewage disposal. He does not believe there is any way to separate it further from that criteria. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Davis if he believes any approval of the request by the Board today will be setting a precedent. To him, he feels this request is distinguishable from other issues that may be brought up. Mrs. Humphris said the existing criteria says it has to be both adjacent to existing lines (which they are not) and be a danger to public health and safety. She asked how the Board can word a motion so as not to establish a precedent. Mr. Martin said he cannot see a situation coming up were someone living two miles from this line would be willing to pay the cost involved to hook to the line. Mrs. Thomas said the "No-Problem Cafe" did that very thing. Mr. Martin asked if that is bad. Mrs. Humphris said it is bad in that it destroys the County's comprehensive planning of not allowing expansion of growth in the rural areas. Mr. Marshall said the Health Department is going to close that rest stop unless something is done, and it will cost millions of dollars to relocate it. Mr. Brent said as to the precedent aspect of this question, one thing that these two facilities have in common that is unlikely that anybody else would have is that they are existing, publicly-owned and are both environmen- tally distressed. Therefore, if the County could create a service area for existing, publicly-owned facilities in environmental distress, it would alleviate the precedent problem. Mr. Perkins felt it should make no difference if the facilities are publicly owned. If there were private concerns with problems of this magni- tude, and with this much of an investment, the Board would look favorably upon those things too. Mrs. Humphris said it would help the Board now to include that in the motion. It is needed so if the Board deals with something like this again, it will be there, but it can be changed if the occasion arises. It is protection for now in the event the Board should receive a similar request. She will not repeat what Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman have said. It is acknowledged that there is a problem with the rest areas. VDOT does need to have access to the Crozet Interceptor because of public health and safety concerns. Recognizing that they do not meet the Board's existing criteria for such a connection because they are outside of the designated growth area boundaries, she then December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 000 34 offered motion to approve amending the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for limited sewer service to the existing rest area structures only, at the Virginia Department of Transportation 1-64 East rest area (Tax Map 54) and at the Virginia Department of Transportation 1-64 West rest area (Tax Map 73). In addition, the service area boundaries for limited sewer service are extended to provide limited sewer service to the Ivy Sanitary Landfill for purposes of leachate management, only (Tax Map 73, Parcel 28). Mr. Davis suggested that the motion include the recommendation that service to these areas is required to be provided by private sewer lines within existing Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) right-of-way. Mrs. Humphris agreed to that addition to the motion, and added that the line be sized for existing use only. Mrs. Thomas mentioned that this is a health and safety distress, and it is also an environmental issue. There is a study which people may be inter- ested in seeing. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will have their independent consultant say, in the near future, what the danger is to the water. There are also deep wells being drilled to find the impact of things which are not being discussed today, which are in the landfill and what their impact is to the wells in the neighborhood. At this point, the motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Ms. Angela Tucker said VDOT does not have a design yet for this line. It is the intent of VDOT to use existing right-of-way and not to take anything cross country. However, if VDOT should need to use minimal easements (to cut a sharp corner or bypass rock), how would that be effected by the clause "VDOT right-of-way only"? She said things become complicated when they have to purchase right-of-way. While that technicality could be taken care of by purchasing property in lieu of using easements, it wOuld still be nice to have the availability of not stopping anything should they need 100 feet of easement to get around a restriction. Mrs. Humphris said the whole consider- ation and recommendations of the Water Resources Manager and the consultant was that it seemed to be very important for keeping this a private (non-accessible to another party) sewer line, and that it be within VDOT right-of-way. That is the way the recommendation came to the Board. Mr. Tucker asked if VDOT would purchase any right-of-way needed to cut a corner or something of that nature, or would they use just an easement. Ms. Tucker said it would be VDOT's preference to pursue a permanent easement. It would not be a formal right-of-way. She Suggested that they take this project one step at a time, working carefully with their designer. Mrs. Thomas suggested that if VDOT needed to go outside of their right-of-way in some specific area, that they come back to the Board for an amendment. Mrs. Humphris agreed that might be the best way to handle this matter. Since this has been brought up at the last minute she would not be comfortable with changing the recommendation. Ms. Tucker said she knows this was the recommen- dation put forth by County Staff, but VDOT does not have a design for this line at this time. Mrs. Thomas asked if there is a reason VDOT needs to proceed now instead of six months from now if that would make a big difference with the landfill pipe. Is the problem unbearable, so the project needs to go forth in the middle of winter? Ms. Tucker said winter is a better season for VDOT to do the construction. There are peak seasons at the rest stops where VDOT would not consider disrupting the convenience it provides, but it is a problem at this very moment. They have the same consultant available for design purposes if VDOT gets the agreement from the Board today. Maybe there is some logic that can be discussed concerning the joint application. Mr. Perkins said it sounds as if no one is ready to start digging, so while the landfill is gathering additional information, planning can go forth, and maybe both projects will be ready at the same time. Ms. Tucker said they would prefer to coordinate so the right-of-way will not be disturbed twice. With no further discussion by the Board, Mr. Perkins requested that the roll be called on the motion which reads in its entirety: "Approve amending the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for limited sewer service to the existing rest area structures only, at the Virginia Department of Transportation 1-64 East rest area (Tax Map 54) and at the Virginia Department of Transportation 1-64 West rest area (Tax Map 73). December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) 000235 In addition, the service area boundaries for limited sewer service are extended to provide limited sewer service to the Ivy Sanitary Landfill for purposes of leachate management only (Tax Map 73, Parcel 28). Service to these areas is required to be provided by private sewer lines within existing Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) right-of-way, and the line be sized for existing use only. Expansion of the limited service areas is supported by the findings that it is necessary for existing publicly-owned uses and is necessary to address identified public health, safety and environ- mental problems. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (Note: The Board recessed at 11:03 a.m. and reconvened at 11:16 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 12a. Public Hearing pursuant to Va. Code Section 30- 19.04 for the purpose of considering a request by the Jefferson Area Board on Aging ("JABA") for a resolution of support for exemption from taxation of certain property purchased by JABA to be developed as an adult day care center, said resolution required prior to consideration by a committee of the General Assembly of legislation involving the designation of property to be exempted from taxation. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 21 and 28, 1995) Mr. Tucker summarized the request. In addition, staff is recommending adopting of a resolution to set future policy for tax exempt requests to the Board. If the Board chooses to approve tax exemption, staff will furnish a proper resolution for adoption at the Board's meeting on December 13. At this time, Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. First to speak was Mr. Ed Jones, Chairman of the Board for JABA. He thanked the members of the Board and staff members for their willingness to listen to this request. He thinks a bigger issue may have been made of this request than the number of dollars involved. The JABA Board believes in working hard for every dollar. They believe that every dollar should be used for meals and to provide critical service to the citizens of the community. They take pride in the quality and effectiveness of their services. Mr. Jones said JABA's second reason for wanting favorable consideration of their petition is related to the fact that they will be borrowing substan- tial sums in the near future for a bridge loan during the construction phase and then for a term loan. Their financial advisors have said that a favor- able decision by the Board will help them in being granted the loan and acquiring a lower interest rate. A one-half percentage point on the interest rate makes a big difference in a substantial size loan. Mr. Jones said JABA's Board believes it is time to build a state-of-the- art adult, health care facility in the County. They have made substantial progress in raising the $3.0 million it will take, but success in this enterprise is not assured. He requested that the Board grant favorable support of their request. Mr. Joe Brown from Earlysville said he recently retired as general manager of Leggett Department Stores so he has had more time to work on this project to build a new senior day care center in the area. He has been involved in lots of fund-raising activities at Leggett and always felt they were a real part of the community. They have made a sizeable pledge to this campaign. He has never worked for an organization that he was so sold on. He personally feels this is something that is really needed in the community. He mentioned that Mrs. Thomas had talked earlier today about soccer fields, and they are needed too. He realizes that some time a cap must be put on because the County can't just continue to give away funds. If this were a big, money-making project, and JABA would get a windfall in return for this investment, he would not be here today. He is convinced JABA will need more of the Board's support in the future to make this center a reality, and in order to operate it successfully. He invited the Board members to look at the plans and the rendering of the facility. Mr. Brown said the Center is to be build on a piece of property on Hillsdale Drive across the street from Our December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) Lady of Peace and directly behind the Marriott Motel. They feel this is a wonderful location and will aid in serving the community. The present Center on East Market Street is not easily accessible. He thanked the Board members for listening and requested favorable consideration of the request. Mrs. Frances Hill, a resident of Crozet, said she owns property there. She attends The Meadows, another JABA project, and said anything progressive for the community is needed. Mr. Carlton Luck, from Esmont, said he represents the southside of Albemarle County. He feels this center is greatly needed in the community. His wife works with the seniors at Esmont. He thinks the JABA Board is doing a wonderful job for the seniors. He said even members of the Board will be seniors some day, and may want to benefit from these same services. If the Board can give JABA a tax exemption, they would appreciate it. If taxes are going up, all will be paying anyway. He thanked the Board members for whatever help they can give. Mr. Thomas Morton said he goes to the day care center every day. Without the day care center, he would be completely alone because his daughter and her husband and grandchildren are out of the house all day. He is picked up by JAUNT and taken to the day care center and he loves it. He would be lost without it. Mr. Leonard Loman said he does not believe the money could not be better spent. All of us will need this type of service at some point in the future. He does not know that the County should make any change in policy at this time, but this organization does a phenomenal job. Mr. Alex Jordan spoke about arriving in Albemarle County in a wheel- chair. He is an alumni of JABA. He spent all of 1992 in the wheelchair, and JABA brought him up to a level where he was able to attend Woodrow Wilson Rehabilitation where he spent another year. He had not been up and about until 1995. If this Board can do anything to make JA~A a success, he asked that they get all the help possible. He said they need it and do a wonderful job. Ms. Mary Lou Weiss, Director of the Thomas Jefferson Adult Health Care Center, and a resident of the White Hall District, asked that the new center be tax exempt. JABA and its programs support the County's mission of service to the community. JABA's objectives are to advance the development of community-based services to empower families to provide cost-effective, quality care for frail or disabled adults. The community has experienced an unprecedented growth of elderly and frail who have unique needs. JABA, in collaboration with the community, provides advocacy and cost-effective community-based services for adults who are at risk in the community and who may need assistance and supervision during the day so their families can continue to work and provide care in their homes in order to avoid premature institutionalization. The program is multi-disciplinary, in collaboration with all community resources. The Center works with the departments of Social Services, with Protective Services, with the Health Department, the Police Department, Region Ten, MACAA, Martha Jefferson Hospital, University of Virginia Hospital, the Alzheimer's Association, local schools and businesses. Together, with community, the Thomas Jefferson Adult Health Care Center supports continued community living, disease prevention and health promotion, maintenance and improvement of functional abilities, acquisition of coping skills, and improvement of the quality of individual and family life. Ms. Jane Crobach, a resident of Albemarle County, said she works with individuals with disabilities, many of whom have become disabled due to aging. She coordinates with all of the local agencies including and foremost, JABA. She has found JA~A to be well-managed and a productive organization with dedicated staff working with limited resources. She said every person in the room today will at some time need the services of JABA. She thinks JABA deserves the requested level of support from Albemarle County. Mr. Gordon Walker, a resident of Batesville, and also Director of the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, said JABA is asking Albemarle County to be an active partner in their endeavor to build a center. For 20 years JABA has fulfilled the charge given to it by the County to provide necessary services to the aged and the families that care for them. JABA has delivered millions of dollars of service to Albemarle County residents, and that also contributes to the local tax base. JABA's record of consistency should provide the Board December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) 00023 with an assurance that this is a credible organization that will fulfill its obligations if they are granted tax-exempt status. There is substantial precedent for granting the tax-exempt status to meet human service objectives. Relief from property tax will enable JABA to succeed. It is a major undertak- ing and they are concerned that without the Board's support they will not be successful. Without the help of JABA, the task of caring for the elderly is difficult primarily for families who may be forced to quit work or make decisions to place people in nursing homes, and increase the cost of health care. Mrs. Nancy Barnett, a member of the JABA Board, said she speaks as a concerned citizen. She does home care for her husband and knows that eventu- ally she will have to have some relief. She knows she can drop her husband off at JABA in the morning and pick him up in the evening. She urged the Board to support this request from JABA. With no one else from the public rising to Speak, Mr. Perkins closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Marshall said he intends to support this motion because sometimes you have to spend money to save money. In this case, he thinks the Board will be spending $18,000 to save ten times that amount in services provided by this organization to the community. He then offered motion to support JABA'S request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Davis said action by the Board will require the drafting of a resolution setting forth the specifics required by State Code. If the Board supports this motion, staff will draft that resolution and return it to the Board on the consent agenda at next week's meeting. Mr. Marshall said that was the intent of his motion. Mr. Bowerman, as seconder, agreed. Mrs. Humphris said she has had a very frank discussion with Mr. Jones and Mr. Walker about this request. She is the senior member of the Board of Supervisors in years, is a senior citizen, and has had a lot of experience caring for elderly, disabled, ill parents. However, she feels bound by the facts of the situation to support the staff recommendation, which is not to support tax-exempt status for JABA. The reasons are all set out in the staff's report. To approve the request would be precedent setting, which is always important to the Board because of the doors it opens for future requests from other worthy organizations doing things for the citizens in the County. The County's ability to help JABA is not limited by whether or not the tax exempt status is granted. Because of the reasons laid out by staff, doing this does not permit the annual oversight or review by the Board of Supervisors. The Board is accountable to the citizens for expenditure of taxpayer dollars, and because tax exempt status is a thing which is granted in perpetuity, it would never be rescinded and would not allow future Boards to decide on the level of support they chose to give to JABA. For all those reasons, she will not support the request, although she wholeheartedly supports JABA and will do so during future budget considerations. Mrs. Thomas said she does not think the concept is the support of JABA, but rather how up-front the Board is with the citizens and taxpayers. This kind of support is hidden in the budget. She did get a listing of the things which currently receive this type of support, and she was surprised to learn which entities already receive support. She is opposed to the request in principle, but on the other hand, it apparently makes a great deal of differ- ence to the banks and the kind of loan JABA would receive. To the County, it is not an advantage because she thinks the Board should be allowed to decide each year on priorities and decide where the taxpayer's dollars go. At this moment, she is still undecided as to how she will vote. Mr. Martin said this is an easy decision for him. It is not the first agency to receive a tax-exempt status in terms of a building, so he does not feel it would be setting a precedent. One of the discriminations the State Code allows the Board to have in the way of taxation has to do with the elderly and allowing them a tax exemption. This is just a continuation of that same kind of exemption. It is obvious that JABA needs this exemption in order to convince the banks to help them with the loans. Mr. Bowerman said he understands what Mr. Martin is saying, but it seems to him that the Board is actually penalizing an agency that is successful in December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) 000235 pursuing its mission, which this Board is a part of. The County is not collecting taxes from JABA now, except for the raw land it owns, and it seems silly to be taxing that real estate and then giving them money. Right now they are not paying this and yet they are going to create a new facility, which is going to become an additional cost to them. Because of their mission, what they do for the community, and this Board's relationship with them, it makes sense to grant them a tax exemption for the facility. Ini- tially, he did not support it as evidenced by Mrs. Humphris' concerns, but, upon reflection, it does make sense, and he will support the motion. Mr. Davis asked if it is the Board's intent to grant JABA tax-exempt status for this piece of property only, because the general approval would be to grant tax-exempt status for any property owned by JABA now or it might acquire in the future. Conditions could be recommended to the General Assembly. One condition used in other localities is to limit it to a specific piece of property or a specific use. Mr. Marshall said the intent of his motion was for this single piece of property. Mrs. Thomas concurred that this is what the banks are concerned about. Mr. Davis then asked if the Board would want a resolution that would limit tax exemption to this one piece of property identified for this center. Mr. Martin agreed that is what he had been discussing. Mr. Perkins said since JABA is a regional entity, how does this Board balance the tax-exempt status against what other localities will be contribut- ing to JABA? There will be citizens from other localities using the center. Mr. Tucker said that is difficult to discern, because it could change daily. He does not know how to balance it on a regional basis. Mr. Perkins asked if there is some way the loss of tax revenues can be identified. Mr. Tucker said staff tries to bring that forward in a budgetary discussion on any properties where the County is providing tax exemption. Staff also reminds the agencies of their tax exempt status. Mr. Bowerman said that should be counted as Albemarle County's contribution when other governments look at the contribu- tion Albemarle makes. Mr. Perkins asked if the County Attorney had researched whether a tax- exempt status can be revoked. Mr. Davis said it would require an Act of the General Assembly to revoke it, and he has never seen one done, but he thinks it could be legally done. Mrs. Thomas said if this request is granted, she hopes staff will make the tax exempt status of organizations evident in the budget. Mr. Tucker said that is a good point and it can be made a part of every budget. Mrs. Humphris said it gives her no pleasure to oppose this request. is just being consistent with her own thinking and with her past votes on issues like this. She Mr. Perkins said he voted against Our Lady of Peace because he felt that was a private, for-profit entity, but he will support this request. There being no further discussion, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 12b. Public Hearing pursuant to Va. Code Section 15.1-504 for the purpose of considering a resolution which would set a policy for future requests from nonprofit organizations for exemption from taxation of real property. Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wanted to adopt the resolution setting out a general policy for tax exempt requests. Mrs. Thomas felt it might be helpful to have a resolution like this. It says "compelling circumstances," which leaves it up to the Board as to when something is a compelling circumstance. If the staff would find it helpful to have something like this when dealing with applicants, she is wiling to move that it be adopted. It is the same as the one used by the City, and could help in the Board's efforts to be consistent in dealing with applicants when there are joint budget meetings with the City. Mrs. Thomas then offered December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) 00023,9 motion to approve the resolution as presented to the Board. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Humphris. Mr. Martin felt that sometimes the Board gets too much into trying to have a rule or a plan so the Board can just act like robots. He just thinks that "if something is not broken, just leave it alone." He does not think anything is broken in this case. Mrs. Thomas said that is why she said if the staff thinks it would be helpful she is willing to offer the motion. Evidently, staff thinks it would be helpful, of they would not have proposed it to the Board. Mrs. Humphris felt it would be guidance to the staff. The Board would still be making the decisions. It is important because the number of requests for resolutions supporting tax exemption are likely to increase in times of budget cuts. Mrs. Thomas felt the Board will be hit with an increased number just because some entities are going to move out of the city into the county. Mr. Bowerman said he did not think it will make any difference. He feels that any organization compelled to pursue tax exemption is going to do it in spite of the resolu- tion. Mr. Marshall agreed. Mr. Tucker said this resolution will require the staff to make an analysis and identify compelling reasons for the request. With no further comments, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: Mr. Martin. R E S 0 L U T I 0 N WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly requires qualifying entities desiring property tax exemptions under state law to first seek a resolution of support from the local governing body, and WHEREAS, the number of requests to the Board of County Supervisors for such resolutions supporting tax exemptions are likely to increase in these times of budget cuts, and WHEREAS, many of the applicants seeking such tax relief already are subsidized by the county through its regular budget funding, and WHEREAS, this Board, to be fair and orderly in its treatment of all organizations, both those that have been granted property tax exemptions under Virginia law, and those which do not have property tax exemptions, would prefer that most of all of its subsidies be analyzed as part of the budget process rather than piecemeal during the entire fiscal year through the tax exempt process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors shall not adopt resolutions supporting tax exempt status for organizations under state law unless there are compel- ling circumstances, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that during its annual budget process this Board will take into account whether a funding applicant has a property tax exemption, and if so, its nature and extent, and then shape the aggregate County funding amount accordingly, all with the goal of treating every applicant fairly. Agenda Item No. 13. Tourism Council Presentation. Ms. Sandy Greenwood said she was present to give an update of activities of the Tourism Council. Mr. Bryan Elliot will give a financial report on tourism dollars. The next portion will be how the tourism dollar travels through the community and why it benefits all. She will then give a report on what the Council has been doing and what the committee goals are. Their mission statement is: "The Council is organized to provide business leader- ship, to enhance the ecumenic climate of our regional tourism industry, and to promote cooperation, coordination and communication within the regional tourism industry, between the industry, the County/City/State governments and the citizens in this jurisdiction, to facilitate cooperation and cross- 000240 December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) promotion between tourism entities, and create a better understanding of tourism's contributions to our regional economy." She thanked the Board for its support and for establishing this Council. The next speaker, who did not identify himself, said he is an educator, and his task is to set a definition for tourism, for the travel industry as it is known locally. He handed out several charts for his presentation. He said that tourism is a very complex industry. It is highly segmented. In the United States, it has the third fastest growth rate of all U.S. industrial segments between now and the year 2000. In the Commonwealth, it is the second fastest growing industry. Tourism is the opportunity to provide quality services for individuals coming to the community, while having minimal impact, with maximum economic return. For every tourist dollar that is spent in this community, it has a spending power of eight fold. Mr. Bryan Elliott went over some information provided by the Virginia Department of Tourism (on file) which relates to traveler spending, payroll and employment in the area, plus the local tax c6ntribution. He mentioned three areas which the Council believes are critical to the industry. Tourism is a catalyst for the local economy, tourism is a contributor to the local tax base, and tourism enhances the overall quality of life for the area's citi- zens. In 1994, over $204.0 million was spent by travelers in the local economy (from the Virginia Department of Tourism). That is a six percent increase between 1994 and 1988. In terms of annual employment and payroll, they have linked about 4000 jobs in the local economy to tourism. This ~employment level provides $53.0 million in annual payroll, and 37 lodging, and 329 restaurant establishments support this payroll in the region. Thirty-five percent of all taxable sales in the City and County in 1994 could be traced to traveler spending; $4.35 million was attributable to the local tax dollars, all types of taxes. Mrs. Humphris said this shows how much the County is losing by not having a meals tax. Mr. Elliott said that for the support both the County and the City make, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, to supporting the Visitor's Bureau (about $200,000 a year), there is a return of $4.35 million. Thirdly, as to the quality of life, if one looks at some of the infrastructure improvements planned or already completed, they benefit not only the tourist, but all people who live in the area. Tourism is vital, it is thriving, and is a growing industry, one that is critical to the future of the area. Ms. Greenwood said the travel and tourism business is a very attractive business for the obvious reasons. As a result, it has become highly competi- tive. Everybody wants it. It has become a "dog eat dog" type of business. It is still a fixed market. It is one of the few areas in business where you cannot create demand, only respond to that demand. As a result, the area needs to stay competitive because it cannot stay status quo. Different states are going after the same market, and Canada is going after the same markets. The Council set some short-term and some long-term goals, feeling it had a great deal to accomplish. Ms. Greenwood said one of the first things facing the Council was the Internet. They have put together a plan for the Internet and have also requested matching grant funds from the State to go on the Internet locally. They are deciding what the home page will look like and are being sure they can be assessed through the State. Virginia Tech has been very aggressive on the Internet with tourism. They want to be sure they have taken advantage of all of the special events in the way of public relations. There is now a Special Events Committee (Olympic Torch Relay Race which is to be in Char- lottesville in June) and a Public Relations Committee (to insure that there is good coverage for any events in this area). They have set up a long-term strategy and by-laws for the council and established the committees and goals necessary to insure success. There is an Education Committee which will coordinate efforts between private industry and educational partners for hospitality training and training of the local workforce. They want to be a conduit and communication vehicle for the City, the County, the Chamber, public and private industry. The Marketing Committee wilt develop a coopera- tive marketing effort. They will coordinate the financial resources and maximum expenditures to market the regional area. They need to determine which markets will benefit the local area most. They also want to get guest satisfaction feedback. The Technical Committee is responsible for capturing and making useful all the data that is available for travel and tourism, and they will also take on the Internet project. December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) 00024i Ms. Greenwood said there is natural beauty in the area, historic value, and all the things that tourists truly value. As a result, the tourism support will extend throughout the community when matching grant funds are accessed, and when ISTEA funds are requested, the community benefits. She thanked the Board for its support, and offered to answer questions. Mrs. Thomas said she has been interested in the World Wide Web and what other communities are doing. She has noticed that the information quite often is out-of-date so it is not very useful. She asked if between the grant they have applied for and their Committee, they will be able to keep the informa- tion up-to-date. Ms. Greenwood said they have discussed getting an intern from the Curry School. The first intern will be paid for helping to develop the information, but in the future, they hope to get interns, to keep the Internet updated, and to do this work for college credit. Mr. Tucker said the Tourism Council was created recently. Structurally, they are to provide advice to the Convention Bureau while working with Ms. Bobbye Cochran, to keep this Board, City Council, and the Chamber of Commerce, up-to-date on what the Council is doing. At this time, Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Tucker if the Board could return to Agenda Item No. 10, Authorize County Executive to execute agreements for permanent pump and haul for Randolph and Catherine Lange (formerly Captain's Table). Mr. Tucker said the Board saw this request on March 1, 1995, and authorized the County Attorney to draft the necessary contracts to provide for pump and haul for the Captain's Table Restaurant. The County Attorney has done that. It is in the form of three contracts: 1) an agreement between the County and the owner, 2) a hauler's agreement which includes the owner, the County and the septic hauler, and 3) between the owner, the County and the State Health Commissioner. The agreements were forwarded to the owner and have been signed. There is a draft policy included in the staff's report which is meant to become a part of the Comprehensive Plan. The staff feels the Comprehensive Plan is the best place to identify various adopted policies. If approved, the County Executive would be authorized to sign the agreements with the condition that the owners verify, to the satisfaction of the Zonin~ Administrator, that the restaurant's non-conforming status in the Rural Areas District will not expire within 90 days from the date of approval. If the Board accepts the policy for future pump and haul requests, it should direct that the policy be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. There is some language in the staff's report just prior to that recommendation regarding when their non-conforming status expires. Mr. Tucker said he believes that has been clarified to be November 30, 1996. Mr. Davis said that is the information received by the Zoning Depart- ment, but they have not been able to confirm that date. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board can take action if they do not have confirmation of the expiration period. Mr. Davis said once the staff confirms what the expiration date is, if it is more than 90 days out which would allow for the Health Department to review and approve these agreements, Mr. Tucker can then execute the agreements, but that would be contingent upon confirma- tion that the non-conforming use has not already expired. Mr. Tucker said it was his understanding that it was expected to expire on December 31, 1995, and he did not know how the applicants could implement all of these contracts in that time period. Mr. Davis said that was the initial information received by the Zoning staff last Spring, but when they tried to confirm it, they were given different information, and now they are looking for confirmation of the different information that says it is a later date. He does not believe the Langes have provided any satisfactory information to Zoning at this point. Mr. Tucker asked if it was Mr. Davis' opinion that the Board could approve these agreements and if that time has expired, he will not si~n unless he has those confirmations. Mr. Davis said he did not believe the applicants were present even though he had written advising them of the date of this meeting. In March there was a Realtor present who was prepared to speak to the issue. He has continued to be involved in this to some extent. The circumstance is that the Langes have sold the property, the restaurant went out of business and they reacquired the property. The restaurant has not been reopened primarily due to the septic tank problem. He has no information at all as to how real their plans for reopening are or how they intend to December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) 000242 operate. The agreements are very restrictive in that they limit the Board's approval only to the Langes and only for a restaurant that is the same level of activity that was in existence when it went out of business. Mrs. Thomas asked if the Langes have accepted the agreements with the conditions. Mr. Davis said that was the information provided to him in March and April when he asked them about the level of business they were trying to continue. They provided that information to him and have executed the agreements, so he assumes the agreements are acceptable to them. However, they have not pursued this matter aggressively. Mrs. Humphris said if they are not "knocking on the door" and are not here today and the Board does not really know what is going on, she cannot see proceeding with the matter. She feels it should be deferred. Mr. Marshall said they might decide not to do anything. Mrs. Thomas felt it would be better to defer, because she feels this would be precedent-setting action and it is probably better not to set the precedent if there is not a business that wants the permit. She asked if there is any legal reason why it cannot be deferred. Mr. Davis said after hearing this discussion, it would be better to defer until the Langes can be present to present their case. He said it is an important decision this Board is making. He does not know of any permanent pump and haul agreement that the County has entered into in the past. Mrs. Thomas asked if the matter could be deferred until January, 1996. Mr. Tucker answered "yes", because if their non-conformity runs out at the end of this month, there is no way the Langes could execute all of the things they need to do. Mr. Davis suggested that he write a letter advising that the matter will be back on the Board's agenda the first week of January and ask if they want to appear and argue their case. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to defer the matter of a permanent pump and haul for Randolph and Catherine Lange (formerly Captain's Table) until the meeting on January 3, 1996. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Thomas noted that all members of the Moorman's Scenic River Advisory Board (a committee appointed by the Governor) have been removed and replacements named. Although they are not appointments made by this Board, she requested that all of those people receive a letter of appreciation because they did serve the interests of the County for a long time. Mrs. Humphris mentioned an article she believes is significant which was in the November 27, 1995, NACO County News about the problem of the tax give-away war which has been waged across the country by states trying to get companies to move to their state. This is a practice which is bankrupting the localities and is a practice which needs to be stopped. Probably the only way to do it would be for the Federal Government to do it under the commerce laws which say that any kind of a tax break has to be available to everybody and not the kind that is decided upon on a state-by-state basis. They can do that under the Interstate Commerce laws, because there will be more of the tax-give-away wars in Virginia. Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Legal Matters and Personnel. At 12:30 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344.A of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to discuss an employee evaluation and appointments to boards and commissions, and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters concern- ing reversion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000243 (Page 34) AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Executive Session. At 2:10 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 17. 2:00 p.m., Room 235 - Joint meeting with School Board and State Legislators to discuss the County's 1996 Legislative Program. (Note: Mr. Mitch Van Yahres and Mr. Peter Way were present, but Senator Emily Couric was not present). SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Russell Madison Cummings, Jr., Mrs. Susan Clayton Gallion, Mrs. Karen L. Powell and Mr. Michael J. Marshall. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. William W. Finley, Mr. George C. Landrith, III and Mrs. Sharon Wood. OFFICERS PRESENT: Dr. Kevin C. Castner, Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Frank E. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services; Mrs. Diane T. Ippolito, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction and Mr. Mark A. Trank, Deputy County Attorney. At 2:10 p.m., Mr. Perkins called the Board of Supervisors to order. Mrs. Powell, Vice-Chairman, called the School Board to order. Mr. Tucker said that everyone had been sent a copy of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's Legislative Program for 1996 which gives a regional perspective of the requests from the localities in Planning District 10. One big issue has to do with reversion and there are three pieces of legislation proposed by staff. That has been reviewed with the legislators. One piece of legislation deals with preventing a city from reverting back to a city once it has reverted to town status; a second piece of legislation suggested provides for a cooling-off period after a reversion and a five-year period from the date of that reversion before any annexation proceedings could begin; and the third piece of legislation provides for a referendum. Reversion is the only major change in government that does not provide for any type of referenda for the voters of a locality. Staff is proposing that a referendum take place after the actual ruling has been made by the three-judge panel so that both localities would know what the actual reversion consist of. The vote would take place within 90 days in both the city and the county. The proposed legislation is an attempt "to level the playing field" as well as trying to provide some fairness for counties. Dr. Kevin Castner, Division Superintendent, said he speaks for himself and not for the School Board which did not take a formal position on some of the issues coming up. He was asked to summarize his thoughts, and that summary should have been distributed to the Board members. Albemarle County has had considerable growth for the last several years. When a locality grows by 200 students each year, that is a cost of over a million dollars just to stay the same as the year before. When other things impact the budget (such as mandates and keeping up with the cost-of-living increases for employees), the budget is really stretched. This year there are a couple of things which create a potential impact. One is the prefunding of the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) . That could have a substantial impact, one that is not known at this time because there is a range on it between $80,000 and $1.9 million. If that is passed to the locality, it will cut into new revenues and growth of December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000244 (Page 35) the budget. The School Board would appreciate anything the Board of Supervi- sors can do to help ease that impact. Dr. Castner said the next issue involves unfunded mandates. The School Board is committed to having a curriculum in Albemarle County that will be aligned with the SOL's (standards of learning). Testing on the SOL's will begin in the Spring of 1997. On the subject of social studies, Albemarle's curriculum is not aligned and the materials that Albemarle is using are not at the correct grade level and this could create an impact on the budget between one-half million dollars to one million dollars in order to provide materials and adequate training so that Albemarle's children can be taught the curricu- lum they would be tested on in the Spring of 1997. They do not disagree that this program is a good program, but the money to fund it is not in the School Board's present budget. If that is where the money is to come from, they would appreciate any additional support that can be given. Dr. Castner said that as Federal regulations for entitlements change, the Chapter I Funds that are designated to help the neediest students, are going to be reduced by approximately $200,000. Since that is money which has always been received from the Federal level, it is now competing against local dollars. Anything that can be done from the State level to try and balance that reduction in funds would be a great help. They think that funds spent on at-risk and elementary students will have a greater impact than funds spent across-the-board. Mr. Way asked if Dr. Castner was giving a worst-case scenario. None of these things will necessarily take place. Dr. Castner answered that in the VRS payment he tried to show the limits; however, for the SOL's, the figure he gave is fact. Mr. Way said it is not fact that the SOL's are not going to be funded. Dr. Castner agreed. He said that on the issue of Federal legisla- tion, they have been told those are the numbers the School System is going to receive. He said they have been told to anticipate in the future, especially in Chapter I, that the reduction could continue over the next few years. Mr. Van Yahres asked if there any schools in Albemarle that will be eligible for the "disparity funding" which will be coming into place. He understands there are two elementary schools that would be eligible under the guidelines of 25 percent and 50 percent students getting a free lunch. Dr. Castner said he was not familiar with the legislation. Mr. Michael Marshall said he feels the most critical issue on the SOL's is the second issue, materials that are appropriate to those instructions. This does put a large burden on school boards statewide to come up with more and different books for the kids to read. For the SOL's to have a meaningful impact, there will have to be one or two years of funding on a per head basis which is dedicated strictly for materials purchases to accommodate the requirements of the SOL's. Otherwise, the SOL'S are not being implemented, Dr. Castner said the social studies curriculum is the most dramatically changed, so, like Chapter I, it is more than a local issue. Mrs. Thomas asked if the School Board could show figures which have been incurred for the SOL's that would be helpful for the legislators. Mr. Mike Marshall said in the first year they asked for $650,000 and tot about $380,000. Last year they put in another $250,000. They have spent a lot of money the last couple of years on books to try to accommodate the requirements of the SOL's. Since the state is making an SOL requirement, he thinks they should fund some part of that requirement for the counties. Mrs. Karen Powell said the School Board had a summary done on how the SOL's compared to Albemarle's curriculum. There have been a lot of grade level changes with different reading levels. Whether or not the information has changed, the grade level has changed, and appropriate materials are needed in order to meet the SOL's in that regard. Mrs. Thomas asked if studying Virginia history in the third grade as opposed to the fifth grade means you have to buy entirely new books. Mrs. Powell said "yes" because the material from one grade is not appropriate to the other grade. Mrs. Susan Gallion said she is interested in the views of the legisla- tors on the issue of binding arbitration. There were two different votes last December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) 000245 year which were different from the original vote. Mr. Van Yahres said this is an issue which comes up each year before the Education Committee. He believes binding arbitration should follow the state guidelines which are different from what has been requested. So far, that is the way he has voted, but he will look at the legislation if it is presented again this year, He reserves the right to change his mind. Mrs. Gallion said she believes it would significantly increase the legal costs of the School Board. Mr. Way said it comes closer every year to passing, but he will continue to vote against it. Mr. Madison Cummings said he would like to speak to the potential legislation to support education. He has talked to several principals in the area, and one of these has a school where over 25 percent are free and reduced-cost lunch kids. Last year the School Board had an initiative to provide some at-risk money for these kids, and now with the potential loss of Title I money from the Federal level, this particular school is $35,000 "in the hole." He thinks that is going to happen with a lot of schools where there are significant numbers of at-risk kids. Changes on the Federal level are definitely impacting Albemarle. Mr. Martin asked if any Federal money toes to the Comprehensive Services Act, or is that just State money. Mrs. Gallion said it is just state money. Mrs. Thomas said the Board will hear this from the Virginia Association of Counties, but the CRS is considered a sleeper, and it is going to hit local governments very hard, and the poorer the county, the harder the impact will .be. Mr. Perkins asked if there were any further education issues to be discussed. Since there were none, he asked what changes should be made in the reversion laws. Mr. Van Yahres asked what the Board wanted. Mr. Perkins said the Board will meet with City Council on December 12 and there is a resolution on education and a housing strategy which has been developed with City Council. Mr. Marshall said the present reversion laws are unfair to counties and he thinks counties should be on a "level playing field" with cities. This can be done by making sure they cannot revert, annex and then revert back to city status. He thinks that is the number one issue with the reversion laws. Mr. Van Yahres said during the last campaign, this is an issue he addressed. He has all ready asked for legislation to be drafted along those lines. Mr. Bowerman asked about reverting to a town, and then annexing and having that land stay within the town. In other words, having some moratorium that would not allow a city which had reverted to then annex for some period of time. Mr. Van Yahres said that is not something he had thought about, but he would is willing to take a look at that idea. Mr. Martin said the Board feels strongly about making it clear that if a city wants to revert to town status, that is what the city intends. If a city just wants to revert in order to annex property, then just call it what it is. If reversion is an attempt to force the issue of cooperation between counties and cities, then maybe that's good. If reversion is just a vehicle to allow the annexation of property, then it is bad legislation. The Legislators need to'help the county make sure that reversion cannot be used for that purpose. Mr. Van Yahres said he has spoken with city officials, they understand the apprehension of counties and it is not their intent. He spoke with them about the bill and they have no problem with it, but the exact language is yet to be worked out. Mrs. Thomas said talking in terms of "a few years" before allowing a town to revert back to a city does not deal with the issue satisfactorily. It would take a few years before even a vigorous town would get to a tax base that would support them. To put a time clause does not do it; it simply says that it cannot happen for a while. Once they annex, that land would become permanently city land removing it totally from the county's tax base. Charlottesville and Albemarle have been working under an agreement that there will not be an annexation for many years. In the County's land use decisions, it allowed tax revenue areas to be very close to the city, which makes Albemarle very prone to losing valuable tax property in an annexation. It was done for the good of the area. It has been good, simple land use decisions and it was done under the assumption that there was not going to be annexation because that is what Charlottesville promised. If Albemarle now opens itself up to an annexation, and the town can become a city again, Albemarle will have dealt itself a mortal blow in the name of having done good land use planning December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) 000246 over the years. Mr. Van Yahres said any legislation that he proposes to file, will be discussed with Albemarle County and Charlottesville first. Mr. Marshall said that is not enough for him. He wants a commitment. He stated that in order to preserve the rural areas, the County has concen- trated its growth in the urban ring. In doing so, if the city were allowed to go to a township and then revert back to a city and take all of Albemarle's tax base, the economic base of Albemarle County would be virtually destroyed. If there is to be legislation introduced, it needs to say that if a city reverts to town status, it cannot ever go back to being a city, it must remain a town. That is the only way it can be done and protect the county. Mrs. Humphris emphasized Mr. Marshall's remarks. She said that in the long-term, it is a critical issue for Albemarle. The reversion legislation was supposed to help cities that were in trouble by allowing them to have some help on a fair basis from counties which had become more urbanized and stronger. What point would there be in allowing a city to become a town, then annex and revert back to city status, if that delivers a mortal wound and leaves a dying county. That is the reality and exactly what would happen. Who can blame the Board for being so fearful about not just reversion, but the annexation that would come if this legislation proposed by Albemarle is not passed? This Board has to trust the Legislators not to chose up sides between Charlottesville and Albemarle, but simply to be fair. Mr. Van Yahres said he hopes there is no choosing of sides also. It is his desire that Charlottesville and Albemarle get together before anything like this is even considered in the future. He does not think town reversion is the answer. He thinks there are better options and he hopes the City and the County have enough sense to do it. He believes compromises can be reached if there are good negotiations between the City and the County. He believes the two bodies have to get together and do it without having a reversion. Mr. Way concurred with Mr. Van Yahres and then commended the Board for the work it has done in trying to get more services in conjunction with the City. Mr. Way said he was a member of the Board of Supervisors in the 1960s and met with City Council to work out a merger agreement. The agreement that was reached was not satisfactory and when put before the voters of both the City and the County to make that determination, was soundly defeated. In other localities in Virginia, the same thing took place and it was successful in some cases. In every case, the voters had an opportunity to express their opinion on it. A few years later in Albemarle County, the City and the City tot together and drew up the Revenue Sharing Agreement, and even that was put before the voters of the City and of the County. It is interesting that in the current statutes, if a town wants to become a city, the question is put before the voters. In looking at history, the people who will be effected by the agreements have been allowed to have the final say. Members of the governing bodies, knowing that the public is going to vote, are encouraged to come up with an agreement that is in the best interest of the entire area. For those reasons, he is very much in favor of the legislation that calls for a referendum. He has asked Legislative Services to draw up such legislation. When it comes to him in draft form, he will share it with the Board members. Mr. Perkins said he understands that the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle have more cooperative agreements than any two localities in the State, and the Board is willing to look at others. Regardless of whether the City reverts or not, there are things that Charlottesville will do for their people that the County does not need to do in the County and vice versa. There are different problems in different areas. The urban ring is definitely different from the White Hall District. The Board is interested in working with the City and reaching cooperative agreements on anything it can, but there are certain things where there is no benefit to it for the obvious reasons. He thinks there needs to be a "level playing field" on the reversion issue. Mr. Way said Mr. Van Yahres indicated earlier that he is interested in some kind of legislation that would prevent the town from immediately becoming a city again. He thinks that makes sense, and he will be glad to co-patron that legislation. Mr. Van Yahres said everything that is being discussed seems to indicate that discussions, negotiations and compromise are necessary. He emphasizes the word "compromise" because he believes that both bodies will have to give December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) 00024'7 something in order to make this work. He said the answer to the whole question needs to be the spirit of compromise. If the town reversion legisla- tion has forced the issue, then it is good, but there has to be concrete results that will not force the city into reverting to a town. He believes the real dilemma is caused by State legislation. The independent city status in Virginia is one of the major problems and the General Assembly has not coped with that problem yet. That problem needs to be addressed as it stands today and not in light of what the future may bring. Mr. Marshall said "you can't negotiate with a gun to your head." Until the County gets some legislation that will put this Board on a level playing field, it makes it very difficult, Mr. Van Yahres said if that is the attitude that is going to take place, he thinks the Board has to negotiate on the basis of the existing law. Mr. Marshall is talking about a law that might take effect on July 1, 1996. He believes this Board should have something done long before that date. Mr. Martin said he would like to change the subject. Ever since he became a member of the Board of Supervisors, there has been a request for legislation regarding equal taxing and borrowing powers for counties. He sees no reason why counties should not have equal powers in these matters as the cities do, especially in counties like Albemarle which have urban rings with the same characteristics as cities. Mr. Van Yahres agreed it is needed, and he has supported it in the past. Mr. Way said his position has not changed on that question. He does not think it is right for the cities either. Mr. Perkins said he feels reversion is a bad law and he believes bad laws need to be changed; the effective date is not the big issue. Mrs. Thomas urged that the Legislators give the Board/County staff a chance to look at any proposed language drafted by Legislative Services. Mr. Way promised that Mr. Davis will get to look at anything drafted for him by Legislative Services on this specific subject. Mr. Van Yahres concurred. Mrs. Thomas mentioned one item that is shown in "Standing Positions." It has to do with the County's opposition to legislation that seeks to weaken local powers to regulate land use. It is one of the few things that local government still has the ability to do and, yet, it is constantly threatened. It is very important in maintaining this area where you like to live. Mr. Bowerman mentioned "transfer of development rights (TDR's)." It is a tool of growth management that counties need in order to create viable urban areas and viable rural areas. It compensates all landowners justly for whatever division rights they have, and allows for better planning, growth control and management. It runs into resistance every time it comes up in the Legislature. He is not sure which particular lobbies are against it. It does allow returns tO each individual landowner and it gives local governments an opportunity to increase the density in urban areas, and to decrease it in areas where they do not feel it is appropriate. He hopes it is something that cities and rural areas, and the people who represent them, can jump on and give that authority to local governments. The County has requested this legislation again this year. Mr. Van Yahres reiterated TDR's have been around for a long time. While he was a member of the committee on Counties, Cities and Towns, he voted for the legislation. Mr. Way said he is a member of that committee at the present, and there was no request for this legislation last year. Mr. Bowerman asked what group is so opposed to it. Mr. Van Yahres said he does not remember where the opposition came from. Mr. Bowerman said there is a lack of interest from the urban areas. Mr. Way said there has been less of a push for the TDR's and a greater push for impact fees. Mr. Perkins asked if there is any legislation the County needs to know about that the Legislators plan to introduce. Mr. Van Yahres said he is not sure what legislation he will be introducing. He has several pieces of - legislation he is looking at, but he does not think there is anything that will upset this Board. Mr. Way said the legislation he is planning to introduce will not effect county or city government directly, it is in another area. Mr. Bowerman asked if campaign reform would effect local races for city councils and county boards of supervisors. Mr. Way answered that what has been drawn up in the past has always applied only to members of the General December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) 0002 t8 Assembly. He feels the General Assembly needs to "get its house in order" before telling local government officials what to do. Mrs. Thomas said she knows the Legislators are interested in education and wondered if they might have visited the County's Bright Stars program for four-year olds. It is very interesting. Mr. Van Yahres said that is one of the funding initiatives the State is doing now, and that is putting more money into pre-school, early childhood programs. He is in favor of that and hopes that more money can be put into such programs. Along those lines, he recently visited the Beaumont State Farm and that visit reinforced his feeling that there is a need to do something about early childhood so that young people do not end up in places like that. What is being done there is almost criminal in its own way because out of that process, there is no reinforcing of good values being done. He thinks these young people will just be another drain on society and will wind up in a worse situation in the future. This is the first time that he had been to this particular facility, and it was an eye-opener. Something needs to be done about early childhood to stop the possibility of that happening in the future to some of the younger generation. Mr. Martin asked if this was an arranged, or a surprise visit. Mr. Van Yahres said it was an arranged visit, and what he saw was bad enough. They have security there for the first time. They had not had security or a fence until this summer. They had asked about the number of people who had escaped from the facility, and the answer was "none". When someone did walk off of the grounds they came back shortly. It was observed that most of the young people are urban dwellers and once they left the grounds and tot into the woods, they came right back. He felt that to be an interesting observation. Mr. Tucker said staff understands that the matter of the BPOL (Busi- nesses, Professions, Occupations License) tax may be brought up again. Losing that tax is a major concern of counties unless there is some other revenue to take its place. For Albemarle County, it represents $4.2 million in revenue. That is also in the County's legislative package; at least provide something which is revenue neutral to replace it if it is eliminated. Mr. Way said Mr. Tucker had spoken to him about this, but there is a study going on, and Mr. Van Yahres, who is on the committee, should speak. Mr. Van Yahres said the committee came up with a compromise. One of the biggest problems with the BPOL Tax is the fact that it is not a good tax, and he likes to say "its not a tax; its a fee." One of the biggest problems with the BPOL Tax around the State is its lack of uniformity. Model legislation has been proposed which came about as a compromise with the business community, city finance and county finance people. As Mr. Tucker has pointed out, it is necessary revenue and counties only have one way to replace it and that is with property taxes, which is not the right way to go. There will be pressure to eliminate the BPOL Tax. It puts pressure on where to raise that revenue, and the State can't make it up as was proposed last year by the Governor. That is not a viable alternative because it is unfair to the localities that do not have the BPOL Tax. The model ordinance may be the way to go. Personally, he feels that source of tax revenue needs to be maintained. That is the way he voted in the Finance Committee, but the proposal never tot out of committee last year. Mrs. Thomas said she understands that most of the complaints about the BPOL Tax that led to the model ordinance had to do with areas in Northern Virginia where companies or service providers would end up getting taxed a couple of times. There have not been those problems here, so if you are asked why your localities have not adopted the model ordinance, it responds to problems that have not been encountered in this locality. Mr. Van Yahres agreed and said Northern Virginia is where the impetus came from, and the model ordinance addresses several different kinds of problems they have, such as definitions. Mr. Marshall asked if some way to tax income on business rather than on sales had been found. Mr. Van Yahres said if you use the term "license" rather than "tax", it makes more sense. Mr. Marshall explained that with some types of enterprises, when they pay on sales instead of on profit it can cause them to go out of business. A license to do business and paying a tax on the profits of that business instead of a sales amount is fine. At this time, it is unfair to those businesses which are losing money, but must still pay taxes. This, in effect, forces small business out, allowing big businesses to take over. Mr. Van Yahres responded that small business is the major economic drive in this country. He is not saying that the BPOL license is a good tax. You have to look at in the same light as you do a property tax. A business 000249 December 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) pays a property tax, and whether they make money or lose money, a business pays its real property tax on the value of the property. Agenda Item No. 19. At 3:10 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adjourn this meeting to December 12, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. for a joint meeting with City Council in City Hall to discuss reversion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. (NOTE: Agenda Item No. 18. After the motion to adjourn, the Board proceeded to the reception with the School Board and State Legislators. Chairman Approved Oate [~C~ Initials