1986-09-10September 10, 1986 '(Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 10, 1986, at 9-00 A.M., Meeting Room ~7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:47 A.M.), and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Frederick W. Payne,
Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Develop-
ment.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:04 A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who announced that Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom both had obligations
which would keep them occupied for the earlier part of the morning.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Way offered motion to accept the items of the
Consent Agenda as information. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discus-
sion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.
Item No. 4.1. Memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. dated September 2, 1986, entitled
"Revocation of Land Offer from David J. and Joseph M. Wood - Route 29 North", received as
follows:
"In March 1985, David J. and Joseph M. Wood offered to donate 42,059 square
feet of land on U. S. 29 North for use as a detention basin. Mr. Maynard
Elrod, then County Engineer, had been working with the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation to determine if the improvements proposed on
U. S. 29 North would benefit from having land available for a detention
basin in lieu of having additional box culverts under U. S. 29 near Dominion
Drive.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has not been able to give
us a definite answer on the benefits of a detention basin to this segment of
U. S. 29 North. Because of this and the changing tax laws, the Wood's have
decided to revoke their earlier offer.
Staff had been reluctant in making a recommendation to you regarding accep-
tance of this land until we received a recommendation from the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation. Preliminary analysis from the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and our own staff,
however, indicates this would not be an effective basin for reducing the
number of culverts under U. S. 29 North at this location."
Mr. Fisher wanted to know what the implications of this are. Mr. Agnor replied that
this is just for information to the Board in case some matter of conversation with the
property owners arose, and the Board members were unaware that they had made this offer. At
first the property owners had asked that the offer be kept confidential, and then later on
they indicated that it was withdrawn, so now the staff sees no reason to keep it confiden-
tial. Mr. Agnor went on to comment on the idea of the storm drainage design on Route 29. He
said it is now believed that the land would not be used for the purpose of a holding or
drainage basin, but instead improvements on Route 29 will take the water directly through
underneath the highway with new pipe systems. However, the design is not totally complete
for the storm drainage improvements.
Item No. 4.2. Memorandum for Mr. MiChael Armm, County Engineer, dated August 19, 1986,
entitled "Earlysville Forest Central Sewage Disposal System", was received as information.
"I have reviewed the letter from Applied Technology and Engineering of
Charlottesville, Virginia, describing the proposed central sewage disposal
system for the commercial facilities to be located at Earlysville Forest.
The proposed system must be verified through field testing prior to the
final design of this system. The worksheet provided with the letter shows
indications that this site has marginal conditions for the installation of
an on-site central sewage system. The final system design will have to be
approved by the local health department."
Item No. 4.3. Monthly Building Report (July, 1986) was received from the Department of
Planning and Community Development.
Item No. 4.4. Notices from the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority that
Internal Revenue Service Form 8038 was filed on August 29, 1986, for the following issues:
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2) __
Sigma Nu Renovation Limited Partnership Project; Sigma Phi Renovation Limited Partnership
Project; and Kappa Sigma Renovation Limited Partnership Project.
Item No. 4.5. Letter from Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation dated
September 2, 1986, accepting Route 1116 (Riverbend Drive) into the Secondary System of
Highways, received as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated June 11, 1986, the following addition
to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective
September 2, 1986.
ADDITION
LENGTH
Pantops Subdivision
Route 1116 (Riverbend Drive) - From
Route 250 to 0.15 mile South Route 250.
0.15 Mile"
Item No. 4.6. Memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., dated September 4, 1986, entitled:
"Status Report - Lickinghole Creek Drainage Basin Project", was received as follows:
"For your information, the preliminary design plans and cost estimates for
the project have been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
and returned for redesign of the overflow, or emergency, spillway. The
preliminary redesign has been agreed upon between EPA, and the County and
Rivanna Authority engineering staffs. The estimated cost of the project was
significantly increased by the redesign (from $600,000 to $1.5 million) and
the cost effectiveness, as well as alternatives, are being examined by EPA.
EPA had originally agreed to participate in the project at 50 per cent of
the cost, but that calculated to be $300,000 which was placed in their
funding program. The revised costs are causing budgetary problems. A
decision from EPA as to their participation is expected by mid-October,
after which the City and County will have to address the revised costs.
Staff will advise you of the results of the EPA review."
Mr. Fisher stated that the status of the Lickinghole Creek Drainage Basin is beginning
to sound ominous. Mr. Agnor answered that Mr. Lindstrom had asked for a current status
report on this matter and that was the reason the report was produced, although it is still
in a state of studyl Hopefully, by mid-October, the staff will have some conclusions to
bring back to the Board. He reported that the basin is certainly different from the original
conceptual design.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: March 13, October 16, November 6 (A~ternoon),
and December 18, 1985. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes from November 6 (afternoon). Mrs.
Cooke offered motion to approve the minutes as read. Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was
no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Route 652 - Fieldbrook Subdivision. Request that
Route 1438 be redesignated as Route 652 along newly reconstructed section.
Letter addressed to Miss Lettie E. Neher from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer,
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; dated August 12, 1968, was received as
follows:
"The recent addition of roads in the Fieldbrook Subdivision to the state
secondary system has resulted in a direct connection between Rio Road and
Carrsbrook Drive by way of Old Brook Road and Westmoreland Road. This
direct connection currently carries two route numbers. These are Route 652
and Route 1438. The Department recommends that Route 1438 be converted to
Route 652 to correct this misleading situation. A sketch is attached to
this letter (on file) indicating the situation and our recommended solution.
Before the Department renumbers a secondary route our policy calls for the
concurrence of the local board of supervisors. I request that this matter
be brought to the Board's attention and action scheduled at a regular day
meeting in the near future."
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he had written to the Board, through its Clerk, on August 12
requesting that the Board consider renumbering of Route 1438 in the Westmoreland Subdivision
to Route 652 so that what functions as a single roadway will have a single number. He
believes his memorandum and sketch have been forwarded to the Board. The Highway Transporta-
tion Board has the authority and responsibility to renumber routes, but they like to have the
local Board's opinion. He asked that the Board support, by resolution, his request.
Mr. Fisher indicated that he did not have a staff report on this matter. Mr. Agnor
replied that no staff report had been prepared because it was considered an administrative
problem.
Mrs. Cooke stated that she does not have a problem with the renumbering of Route 1438.
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
____~ge 3)_
Mr. Roosevelt responded that he thinks most people work with road names instead of route
numbers. He does not know what will happen with the difference in names, because he believes
the road also has two names. He said that Route 652 is Old Brook Road, but it is
Westmoreland Drive in Westmoreland Subdivision. He is unsure what it is called when it gets
into Fieldbrook.
Mr. Agnor commented that it is not uncommon for road names to change at intersections.
Mr. Roosevelt said there is some evidence that Old Brook Road used to turn in an east-
ward direction before it got to what is now Fieldbrook, so it was not originally in the same
alignment that far out.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Highway Department on
renumbering this road. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion.
Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Ordinance to Vacate a Certain Plat of Phases Two
and Three of the Village Square (Deferred from June 11, 1986).
Mr. Agnor mentioned the problem that had been brought to the Board in May concerning a
sidewalk in the first phase of Village Square. He briefly described the circumstances
leading up to this meeting and reported that the contractor and developer had come up with
two alternatives to cure the problem without rebuilding the sidewalks. These alternatives
were submitted to the Highway Department in July, and it was learned last week that those
alternatives will not be acceptable so that section of the sidewalk will have to be rebuilt.
In order to allow the contractor and developer sufficient time to accomplish that, the staff
recomends that this ordinance be deferred for three more weeks. If the problem has been
solved by then, Mr. Agnor will ask that the item be removed from the Board'~s agenda, but if
satisfactory progress is not being made, he will ask that the abandonment occur through the
adoption of the ordinance. The County will, then, finish that project with the bond money
that's been posted.
Mr. Bowie stated that he did not think this matter should ever have gotten this far, and
he concurs with the Highway Department that something was wrong with the way the sidewalks
were built. He thinks the people in that area have a right to properly built sidewalks. He
wants to make sure that within three weeks, if no decision has been reached, the County will
take care of the matter. He will support it at that time.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to defer this item to October 1, 1986. Mrs. Cooke seconded the
motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 6d.
22/231.
Highway Matters:
Virginia Byway Designation - Routes 20 North and
Mr. Agnor said that, at the request of the Piedmont Environmental Council, the Virginia
Department of Conservation and Historic Resources recently determined that Routes 20 North
and 22/231 meet the criteria for inclusion in the Virginia Byways System. He mentioned that
the County's Comprehensive Plan indicates that Routes 231 and 22 should be included in the
State Byway System, but Route 20 North is not shown in the plan. It is the opinion of the
staff that it is an appropriate addition to the Byway System. He said that the State Code
that sets up this procedure provides also that, if it is requested, the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation will hold a Public Hearing on the matter prior to it actually
being designated by the State. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors notify the
Department of Conservation and Historic Resources of its interest in having these routes
added to the Virginia Byways System, and request the State Highway and Transportation Board
to hold a public hearing regarding the designation of these routes as provided for in Section
33.1-62 of the State Code.
Mr. Way asked if there are any significant limitations in the County's Zoning Ordinance
concerning byways.
Mr. Home replied that there are no significant limitations for byways, but for County
scenic highway designation there would be significant changes. He explained that the byway
designation is separate from the County's scenic overlay designation.
Mr. Tucker said that Route 250 West is also a byway in the state's classification, but
it takes specific action by the County to have a scenic overlay. So, it would take action by
the Board of Supervisors or the Commission to start the public hearing process, if the zoning
requirements are to apply to these roads. This alone will not tie the County's zoning to
these particular roads.
Mr. Bowie commented that he has had far more input on this issue than on any other
issue. He said that it is unanimous that the people who live along these roads want this
designation. He also believes, although this is a separate matter, that they want the zoning
protection to go along with the agricultural districts. He suggested going to the Hearing by
the State Highway Board, and if the road is so designated, he will probably request that it
be considered for the County's scenic overlay. He asked if a Public Hearing would be held in
this area.
242
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 4)
Mr. Roosevelt responded that he had brought a copy of the Highway Department's policy on
scenic highways and byways. He said that their policy makes no mention of a Public Hearing
being held by the Department. He said that it does say that the Department and the
Commission on Outdoor Recreation will make studies to determine whether the road meets the
physical and administrative criteria. He mentioned that Route 250 was designated a byway by
the Department, and to his knowledge, no hearing was held on that.
Mr. Agnor clarified that the Code says that if a Public Hearing is requested by the
local governing body, it will be held. He answered Mr. Bowie's question by saying that the
Code also states that the Public Hearing will be held in the county in which the byway is
located.
Mr. Roosevelt commented that the Highway Department's procedure indicates that it will
study potential scenic highways either on its own, or at the request of the local governing
body. He suggested that the step the Board needs to take today is to request that this route
be studied as a potential scenic highway. If the Highway Department responds that it can be
a scenic highway, then the County could hold a Public Hearing. He said that eventually the
Board of Supervisors will have to pass a resolution indicating its support for the byway. He
said that if the study requires the Highway Department to hold a Public Hearing, it~will be
held.
Mr. Agnor remarked that the correspondence from the State Department of Conservation and
Historic Resources indicates that that Department has made a study. He asked if Mr.
Roosevelt is thinking about a study made separately by the Highway Department?
Mr. Roosevelt responded that the Department and Commission on Outdoor Recreation will
make an on-site inspection of the route to determine if it meets the physical criteria. He
said there is a list of physical criteria in the policy. Then the Commission will look at
the local Zoning and Comprehensive Plan program, and he gathers that has already been done.
Mr. Agnor responded, "yes."
Mr. Roosevelt said that, to his knowledge, none of the people in his Department have
made the on-site inspection, and he has not.
Mr. Agnor suggested that, in light of this discussion, the staff's recommendation be
modified. He said that the Board needs to determine if it wants to proceed with the process
of getting the highway designated as a byway. If so, then the Board should have its own
hearing first, and then make the request to the state. He said that he and Mr. Roosevelt
would study the State Code to see why the policy of the State Highway Department does not
comply with it.
Mr. Fisher suggested a hearing date of October 1, 1986, for this matter. He said it
appears that the road does meet the criteria. Mr. Bowie offered motion to hold a public
hearing October 1, 1986, to receive public comments on including Routes 20 North and 22/231
in the Virginia Byway System. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There was no further discus-
sion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley andMr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 6e. Other Highway Matters.
Mrs. Cooke stated that she had been on the Metropolitan Planning Organization Board
since it was first formed. Due to obligations and increased workload .at her business, she
requested that she be replaced on the MP0 Board at this time.
Mr. Fisher said he is sorry that Mrs. Cooke finds it necessary to resign from the MPO
Board, but the Board will discuss it after all six Board members arrive. He also thanked
Mrs. Cooke for her service.
Mr. Bowie, referring to Item Seven'on the Agenda, asked Mr. Roosevelt if he would be at
the Milton Drive Homeowners' meeting on Saturday. Mr. Roosevelt responded that the State
Highway Department has not been invited at this point, but he thought that this would be the
time that the neighbors could point out what some of the needs are. He said he would be
there, however, and would be prepared for discussion.
Agenda Item No. 7. Resolution: Concerning taking certain roads into the State Secon-
dary System with the financial contribution of the property owners involved (deferred from
Sep. 3, 1986).
Mr. Fisher explained that the Board had asked, at its last meeting, that a resolution be
drafted to make the language of the resolution clearer for adoption today.
Mr. Fred Payne said he had prepared the resolution pursuant to the Board's directions of
last week. He tried to flesh out the ambiguous matters. He said he had talked with Mr.
Lindstrom about it, since it was initially his motion, and he has reviewed and approved this
draft.
Mr. Bowie called attention to Paragraph Two and asked why it was set at six percent of
estimated costs. Mr. Payne said that Mr. Lindstrom added that because the County Engineer's
estimate was approximately $70,000 or $71,000 for the entire project. The appropriation that
the Board discussed was $75,000, so the difference was approximately six percent. The reason
for this figure is to allow the citizens to have some control over the ceiling that might
come out of a contract bid.
243
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
___(P agD_....5 )
Mr. Bowie then asked if the last paragraph of the resolution was necessary, and Mr.
Payne said it was necessary to comply with the State Constitution regarding appropriations of
the Board within a fiscal year. He stated that Board members will probably recall that he
and Mr. St. John have talked to them about a constitutional provision relating to binding
future boards past the fiscal year.
Mr. Agnor stated that it goes by assumption that if the cost exceeds the additional six
percent the owners have an opportunity to withdraw. He asked if this option needs to be
clarified.
Mr. Payne stated that this was the reason that Mr. Lindstrom wanted to put the six
percent figure in Paragraph Two. He thinks that takes care of it, because the way it is
worded, the citizens are only bound up to the estimated cost plus six percent. If it was
more than that, the Board would have to choose to pay the difference. That is taken up in
the second listing of numbers with Paragraphs One and Two. He said if it was more than six
percent and it could be negotiated with the property owners, that would be fine, but neither
party would be bound.
Mr. Fisher called the Board's attention to Line Two, and stated that he does not want it
to read that the Board intends to pay this. He thinks it should read "appropriate funds for
one-half of the actual cost of construction."
Mr. Bowie offered motion to adopt the following resolution as presented and amended.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County
that the Board intends to appropriate funds to pay one-half of the actual
cost of construction, including design engineering and appurtenant struc-
tures, of each of the following roads to the extent that such construction
shall be necessary to ensure that such roads shall be eligible for inclusion
in the Virginia Secondary Highway System:
2.
3.
4.
North Berkshire Road
Peyton Drive
Milton Drive
Dunromin Road.
The foregoing statement of intent shall be conditioned upon performance
of the following conditions, all of which shall be applicable to each of the
said roads respectively, and all of which must be satisfied on or before
April 1, 1987:
(1) One or more of the owners of lots abutting such road shall pay
over to the County one-half of the estimated cost of such construction as
determined by the County Engineer.
(2) Such owners shall, in addition, agree to pay one-half of the
actual contract cost of such construction to the extent that such actual
cost shall exceed the estimated cost, up to an additional six percent of
such estimated cost.
(3) Ail of the necessary right of way shall be dedicated to public
use, in fee simple, for road purposes, together with all necessary easements
and appurtenances, without cost to the County.
In addition, the foregoing statement of intent shall be subject to the
following:
(1) The total to be expended by the County for all of the said roads
shall not eXceed $37,500.
(2) Ail contracts in execution of this resolution shall be subject to
approval by the Board.
(3) No such contract shall extend past June 30, 1987, without the
express approval of the Board after July 1, 1987.
There was no further discussion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion was carried with the
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.
Back to Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Eastern Bypass Committee Report (Cost
Estimates for Elevated Roadway for Route 29 North Improvements).
Following is a memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated July 16,
1987, entitled "Elevated Roadway on U. S. 29 North:"
"Attached for your information and review are excerpts from the Route 29
North Corridor Analysis prepared by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation in March, 1985. Alternative 7 from this Corridor Analysis
Study envisioned an elevated roadway from the U. S. 250 Bypass to Rio Road.
We have included a typical cross section of this alternative and the textual
comments concerning this alternative, as well as cost comparisons for all
eight alternatives analyzed in the study.
I think you will find that this analysis does not provide an accurate
comparison, however, since recent improvements proposed for U. S. 29 North
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 6)
today are substantially different from those mentioned in this 1985 analy-
sis. First, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is now
proposing an eight-lane facility from Hydraulic Road to Rio Road with the
Eastern Bypass Committee recommending, if needed, the addition of an ele-
vated roadway from the U. S 250 Bypass to Rio Road. The attached 1985 Study
envisions only a four-lane facility from the U. S. 250 Bypass to Rio Road
with the elevated roadway to handle through traffic. Therefore, service
levels on 29 North will be different than those shown in the 1985 Study if
current improvement recommendations are implemented. Second, the attached
cost estimates do not include any right-of-way acquisition costs for any of
the eight alternatives. It is difficult to obtain a fair comparison of
total costs when this factor is not available.
Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please do
not hesitate to contact Bob Tucker or me."
Mr. Tucker explained that earlier this summer a report was presented to the Board, and
at that time, several members of the Board were concerned about the prospect of an elevated
roadway over Route 29, and requested the staff to provide some information concerning that
alternative. He said the staff drew from a study that was done in 1985 in which eight
alternatives on Route 29 were examined by the Highway Department staff.
Mr. Fisher said the Eastern Bypass Study Committee had worked with the City for a
considerable period of time and made a strong recommendation to the Board that it adopt the
recommendation for an elevated roadway to handle through traffic if and when that is needed.
The Committee recommended that the other improvements on Route 29 North be done in order to
perhaps defer the time when the elevated roadway would be needed and improve traffic in the
meantime. He stated that he has been impressed with of what has happened on Route 29 North
over the last two years with just the changes in signalization. It appears that the actual
traffic flow is better now than it was two years ago, but he does not think that fact has
been well noted by the news media. If other improvements can be made which will hold the
line, or improve things over the next few years, it seems to him that the Committee may be
right in saying that no bypass is needed.
Mr. Bowie commented that after two months of study, it was the unanimous opinion of the
committee that once the signalization is done, together with the widening of Route 29 and the
other planned improvements, a bypass will not be needed. He said that nobody in Richmond
could provide statistical or numerical justifications for a bypass. He does not believe
there is enough traffic to justify the proposal for four lanes divided north.and south of
Charlottesville. A lot more traffic must come through before it cannot be handled by what is
already there. He'said that as far as where to put the elevated highway is concerned, he
thinks it should be situated within the existing right-of-way.
Mrs. Cooke said she would like to know what the Highway Department definitely has on
paper to do and what they plan to fund. She asked Mr. Horne to shed some light on the
meeting that took place with the Albemarle Square Shopping people. She said that they seem
to think that they are about to be cut off from Route 29.
Mr. Horne answered by saying that approximately two months ago he met with that Mer-
chants' Association to go over the preliminary plans provided by the Highway Department to
explain precisely what was being proposed. The proposal did include the closing of the major
Route 29 North entrance into Albemarle Square. They discussed why this would be necessary.
If an interchange is built, there cannot be an entrance at that point. He said they are
waiting for a final decision by the Highway Department as to what will be proposed at the
public hearing at the end of October. In the field review, the Highway Department people
were aware of the damage that could occur if the entrance to 29 North is closed off totally.
There have been a lot of alternatives discussed and a lot of disciplines, represented at the
field review. He understands that a lot of recommendations will be made to the Highway
Department. A decision will be made and reflected in the plans that are to be received in
early October. That is when the County will be officially notified of the proposal.
Mr. Agnor stated that these are the plans that the Board had hoped to review last
Wednesday afternoon, but they still have not arrived.
Mr. Roosevelt said a public hearing has already been scheduled for October 30 at
Albemarle High School. Normal procedure is for the plans to be available three weeks prior
to the public hearing. He is anticipating that these plans will be revised and in his office
the first week of October. He will get a copy to the County Planning Staff if the County
does not get a copy directly. He mentioned that there will be two days of pre-hearings which
will allow opportunities for anyone to look at the plans and have questions answered by
highway engineers. These are scheduled for October 27 and 29. These pre-hearings will also
be held in the lobby of Albemarle High School.
(Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:49 a.m.)
Mr. Fisher commented that the Board had deferred action on the Eastern Bypass Committee
report until today. He asked if Board members had questions or comments in light of the new
information that had been presented.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had read the cover letter that the staff had presented, and he
thought it pointed out some important cautionary factors, particularly with respect to the
fact that the cost of right-of-way was not considered in the calculations of any of these
projects.
Mr. Bowie stated that the study of an elevated roadway mentioned that it included parts
of the Rio Road interchange which has been separately funded. He does not feel qualified to
discuss how the road can be put in the right-of-way, but this was the unanimous recommenda-
tion of the Committee. Mr. Bowie moved that the Charlottesville/Albemarle Bypass Committee
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
245
statement dated June 12, 1986, as unanimously approved by the Committee and presented at this
Board meeting be supported.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. He added that the Committee's position was that a
bypass was not needed if the other projects that the Board has supported are built, plus the
improvements that are being proposed for Route 29. It was the Committee's opinion that there
would not be a need for this project from a local standpoint, because the through traffic is
such a small percentage of the total amount. As the locality continues to grow that percent-
age will be even smaller. However, the Committee felt strongly, because it had been clearly
implied by Mr. Cowart, that there are to be improvements on Route 29, and Route 29 will
become a major thoroughfare for interstate traffic. If this happened, the only route that
the Committee would support would be one that used the existing Route 29 area, and the
elevated roadway clearly will take care of the through traffic problem. As for the Highway
Department comments, there are two kinds of traffic problems that they are talking about.
One is north, south traffic which will be taken care of by the elevated roadway. The second
is east, west traffic which will not be significantly improved by this elevated roadway
except that traffic will be removed as a conflict. Since this report was completed, the
Highway Department has come up with a new way of handling traffic at an interchange. The
Committee at that time felt that a clover leaf interchange was the only way to handle the
problem, however, the Highway Department is now backing a concept that has been used in
Northern Virginia which is called a "folded interchange." The way the traffic operates is
that you would not have to stop and wait for traffic to pass before a left hand turn could be
made, but you can maneuver to the inside of that traffic on a left hand turn movement so that
both lanes of traffic coming towards each other can make continuous left hand movements.
This is specifically how the Committee was told by the State Planning people that this
diamond interchange will work. That is the reason that the committee supported this elevated
roadway. A significant factor to the Committee was that the cost of right-of-way and engi-
neering for either the Piedmont corridor or an eastern bypass would be so substantial that
the $68,000,000 that the Highway Department projected for an elevated roadway would not be
substantially different. For those people who are concerned about aesthetics, Route 29
already has a commercial character. He feels that having a new major, limited-access highway
anywhere else in the County would be a substantial detriment to any area that is not charac-
terized by a major highway, not to mention the environmental problems which would be created
either east or west. The Committee felt that if the City and County were to have any influ-
ence with the Highway Department they had to be in a cooperative position. This is what the
Committee members could support and thought was realistic.
Mr. Fisher asked if the City Council has taken action on this report, and Mr. Tucker
answered, "no."
Mr. Way said he could support a large portion of the report, but he could not at this
time support an elevated highway.
Mrs. Cooke said that these are her sentiments exactly, and she thinks that the proposal
that the Highway Department made originally for adding lanes to Route 29 North and all the
other suggestions that were made to try to correct the problems were the most reasonable
ones. She feels that an elevated section of that road is overkill, and she cannot support
the recommendation.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Committee is not recommending the construction of the elevated
road, but is simply saying that if the Highway Department determines that it is going to
build a bypass to handle through traffic, this is the only alternative that would be accepted
without strenuous opposition. If faced with a project that the County does not want, there
has to be a feasible alternative that will deal with the through traffic. The Committee felt
that the elevated roadway should be considered as a possible response to a mandate by the
Highway Department that there must be a road for through traffic.
Mr. Bowie stated that the Committee members are not trying to be engineers, only trying
to come up with a solution to a problem.
Mr. Lindstrom also stated that the Committee was afraid that if the issue was not
addressed at this time, when it does come up again, may be too late to influence the design
or location of the improvement. He said it had been made clear by the people at the Highway
Department that unless there is some major factor that they have not had to confront, a
western bypass will be built at some point. He thinks that unified local opposition and an
alternate proposal are major factors that the Highway Department will have to consider.
At this point, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, and Lindstrom.
NAYS: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher stated that the chair will entertain a motion later today for reconsideration
of this motion if the sixth member appears and all other members are present.
Mr. Lindstrom said that one problem is that the City has no incentive to join the County
because their perception is that if a bypass is built it will be built to the west, and that
is not a political problem for them. The City is not convinced of the environmental problems
of construction. He thinks there is a willingness by some members of City Council, if not
all, to support the County's position with respect to opposition to a western bypass if
meaningful data on the consequences of construction was compiled. He does not think that the
report done before was factual or thorough enough to be convincing. He believes it is worth
the time of the staff to try to provide the data to show why this road will be a problem. He
thinks this needs to be done because the City may not perceive the bypass a problem unless
the impact on watershed is considered.
Mr. Fisher said that this Board has struggled with watershed protection issues and has
read many reports over the years about the kinds of problems that road construction causes.
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
He said they fall into three categories. One is the temporary part caused by the construc-
tion phase. The second is the on-going heavy metals and hydrocarbon deposits and runoff.
The third part is emergency conditions. Most people usually consider the temporary part of
the construction phase and assume there is nothing from then on. It seems as though some
sort of indication of what will happen needs to be put together along with what the environ-
mental impact assessment would be of suck a road. He asked the staff to outline how such a
study should be conducted and bring the outline back to the Board for approval for a study
for the County's own use as well as for the use of other people.
The statement read as follows:
"In April, 1986, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County and the
Council of the City of Charlottesville appointed an eight-member committee
composed of two members of the Board of Supervisors, two members of City
Council, one member of the Albemarle County Planning Commission, one member
of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, a Deputy County Execu-
tive, and the Deputy City Manager. The charge to the committee was to
develop a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and the City Council
for the location of a route for a by-pass on the east side of the City of
Charlottesville agreeable to the City and County which would provide a
wLable alternative to traffic traveling through the Charlottesville/
Albemarle area on U. S. Route 29. This study was undertaken in response to
statements by members of the transportation planning staff of the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation and a member of the Governor's
Commission on Transportation for the 21st Century. These statements were to
the effect that the Charlottesville/Albemarle area should plan for a sub-
stantial increase in the amount of through traffic in the U. S. Route 29
corridor.
Beginning with the committee's initial meeting in late April, various
by-pass alignments were considered. A total of nine different routes was
reviewed. In addition, several alternate alignments were considered for at
least one of the proposed routes. During the past two and one-half months
the committee has undertaken the following actions:
1. Met eight times to develop its recommendations to the City Council
and Board of Supervisors;
2. Undertaken airplane flights over the possible routes;
3. Reviewed alignments proposed by both the City and County staff;
Reviewed alignments which have been studied in the past by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization;
Met in Richmond with the Secretary of Transportation, Vivian Watts,
and Highway Commissioner, Ray Pethtel;
Met in Richmond with Transportation Planner, Richard Lockwood,
and his staff, and;
Met with the local Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation.
As a result of its efforts, the committee concludes that there is no pres-
ent, nor perceived future, justification for the construction of a by-pass
around the City of Charlottesville, either east or west, based upon present
or projected through traffic. Furthermore, the committee does not consider
a by-pass to be feasible due to the limitations of topography, the threat to
parklands, environmental hazards, including hazards to public drinking water
impoundments and sensitive flood plain areas. One of the most promising
alignments was ruled out when the committee was informed by representatives
that it would be virtually impossible to utilize federal highway funds to
construct any road which impacted public parkland or sensitive environmental
areas such as flood plains.
The committee believes that both current and projected future traffic
volumes in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area can be adequately accommodated
through the construction of the following projects:
Construction as currently proposed of additional north-south lanes
to U. S. Route 29 north of the City of Charlottesville;
Construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway between McIntire Road and
Rio Road as a limited access highway;
Replacement of Free Bridge over the Rivanna River and the four-
laning of U. S. Route 250 East from Locust Avenue in the City of
Charlottesville to its intersection with Interstate 64 in the
County of Albemarle;
Construction of grade-separated interchanges on U. S. Route 29
north of the City of Charlottesville at both Rio Road and Hydraulic
Road;
Construction of Rio Road to four lanes from the proposed intersec-
tion with Meadow Creek Parkway west to U. S. 29 north of the City
of Charlottesville;
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Construction of an interchange at the intersection of Route 742
(Avon Street) and Interstate 64 in the County of Albemarle;
Construction of a limited collector road from the intersection of
the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway and Rio Road to U. S. 29 north of
Route 649 (Airport Road) in the County of Albemarle, and;
Construction of an interchange on the U. S. 250 By-Pass to serve
the north grounds of the University of Virginia.
The committee recommends the continued vigorous and joint support and advo-
cacy of the foregoing projects by the City and County in order to achieve
their earliest construction.
The committee believes that the construction of these projects will accommo-
date both local and statewide transportation demand for the foreseeable
future. Nevertheless, it appears to the committee that the Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways and Transportation is under considerable political pressure
to undertake construction of a bypass around the Charlottesville area at
some time in the future. The purpose of such a road would be to accommodate
alleged anticipated increases in U. S. Route 29 non-local through traffic
resulting from increased economic development in the Lynchburg and Danville
areas of the State, and the completion of other major improvements in the U.
S. Route 29 corridor which will, it is argued, attract more traffic from
existing crowded north-south routes through the State.
Because the committee does not believe that there exists a prudent and
feasible alignment, either east or west of Charlottesville for the construc-
tion of such a bypass, the Committee recommends that any consideration of
further transportation improvements beyond those listed above designed to
meet non-local through traffic needs be restricted to construction of an
elevated limited access roadway over the existing right-of-way of U.S. 29
north of the City of Charlottesville.
The committee recognizes that an elevated roadway would be both innovative
and costly. However, considering the cost of right-of-way acquisition,
grading for and construction of any of the other alignments reviewed by the
committee (which the committee believes encompass all of the possible
alignments which exist), together with the very real costs of the signifi-
cant environmental and neighborhood damage which would result from construc-
tion of a by-pass along any of the other alignments studied, the elevated
roadway concept is, in the opinion of the committee, the least costly
alternative.
An elevated roadway constructed over existing U. S. Route 29 north of the
City of Charlottesville would be able to utilize existing'right-of-way,
thereby avoiding the rapidly accelerating cost of land acquisition, which
cost would inevitably be a significant and increasing portion of the costs
attendant to the construction of a road along any of the other alignments
considered. The impact of construction and the visual and environmental
impact of an elevated roadway would be confined to an existing transporta-
tion corridor, the character of which is already dominated by an existing
major highway and highway-oriented commercial development. Although disrup-
tion to existing commercial development and to transportation in the U. S.
Route 29 corridor from construction of an elevated roadway would be signifi-
cant, it would be primarily temporary. Damage to existing commercial
development would be compensable. On the other hand, construction of a new
bypass, while resulting in relatively little disruption to the existing 29
corridor, would have a permanent and largely uncompensated impact upon the
territory through which it was constructed. The Committee believes this
impact to be unacceptable.
In summary, the Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors and City
Council oppose the construction of an eastern bypass and continue their
opposition to the construction of a western bypass. The committee further
recommends that the road improvements listed above continue to be supported
by the City and County and advocated to the State as the solution for
existing and anticipated transportation demands in the area. Finally,
should the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation determine that
additional improvements to the local transportation network are required to
accommodate additional non-local through traffic, the Committee recommends
that the City and County advocate the construction of an elevated roadway
over existing U. S. Route 29 north of the City of Charlottesville.
This report and the recommendations contained herein represent the unanimous
opinion of the Committee."
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-86-02. Joseph W. Wright, Jr. Request to rezone certain
acreages in the vicinity of Route 29 North/Airport Road to CO and LI (deferred from
August 20, 1986.)
Mr. Fisher stated that this was deferred for consideration of whether or not the rezon-
ing request would be converted to a request for PD-IP, planned development industrial park,
zoning.
248
September 10,1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Horne said that he has been in contact With the applicant and discussed the general
process for such conversion of the zoning, and what items':might be necessary to include in
the application plan. The staff was informed after that meeting by the representative of the
applicant that~they had deCided not to proceed along those lines, but wiShed to proceed their
current request. The request is a proffered rezoning request for LI and CO, commercial
office.
Mr. Bowie asked if Mr. Horne was referring to the July 2, 1986, proffer, and Mr. Horne
answered, "yes."
Mr. William Roudabush was present to represent Mr. Wright. He commented that he and Mr.
Wright had met after the last Supervisors' meeting with Mr. Horne and discussed the require-
ments for a planned development on this property. After considering what would be necessary,
Mr. Wright has concluded that this tract is best suited for its single use. That is the
option that he would like to pursue if the property is zoned industrial. Therefore, the
option of having a planned development-industrial park would probably hamper his efforts to
find an appropriate use for this property rather than giving the flexibility it might give on
a larger tract. Mr. Roudabush said that the applicant would like for the Board to consider
the application that is before it with the proffers, and he reminded the Board that the
County's Comprehensive Plan does recommend this property for industrial use. He said it is
the only parcel in that same category south of Route 649 which has immediate access to Route
649. The other areas that have been mentioned that might follow suit have no direct access
to Route 649, and therefore, they feel that this should be the first tract of land that is
considered in that area for industrial zoning. Without a user, they are not sure that access
to Route 29 would be used or whether all the access would be to Route 649. The applicant
feels that that flexibility should remain. Mr. Roudabush reminded the Board that the land is
not suited for agricultural or residential use. It is not recommended for that use, and he
feels it would be a mistake not to use the land for its best use as recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan. He mentioned that the staff has recommended this rezoning since the
proffers were added to the application. He asked that the Board consider the application as
appropriate with the proffers as the applicant feels this will give the County the assurances
it needs to guide the development when a site plan is submitted. He thinks that will be the
appropriate time to consider all the other factors that the Board is concerned with. He said
that Mr. Wright is at this meeting and will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Roudabush for considering the question of a planned industrial
development. He said that Mr. Roudabush's referral to a single use is different information,
because the last time they had talked about several uses. He asked if this means that there
is no intention of subdividing this property. Mr. Roudabush replied that at this point there
are no plans to subdivide. Mr. Wright's preference would be to find one user for the entire
site. If that is not possible, later options could include subdivision. He believes that
this brought about Mr. Wright's conclusion that it would be a mistake to proceed with a plan
at this time because location of any sort of access road without knowing who the users are
would be a guess on their part. Mr. Roudabush does not think that the County staff, Mr.
Wright nor he can make a proper judgment at this time. Mr. Roudabush feels that the subdivi-
sion of the property is something that would have to be considered later and would have to
come back in the form of a subdivision request.
Mr. Bowie asked if the commercial office portion of the property is in the area next to
Deerwood subdivision, and if so, is it considered the buffer. Mr. Horne said that is the
intent. That portion was originally submitted as LI, and the intent is to change the request
to C0. Mr. Bowie commented that he has believed from the beginning that this is where light
industry usage should be in this County.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that outside of his concerns about tying the Board's hands as they
review this area during the Comprehensive Plan update, he cannot support the rezoning of this
very substantial tract. He considers 50 acres to be of considerable size and feels that the
Board does not have much assurance that there will be planning to minimize congestion and not
maximize the use of the property if it is rezoned. He could have supported the proposal for
the planned approach, but he thinks this would be setting a significant precedent for a new
territory, and he thinks the problem is being exacerbated and the opportunity will be cut off
for improving the situation on Route 29.
Mr. Fisher opposed the rezoning. He had hoped that the planned development approach
would lead to some indication of its future use and some limitation on its subdivision and
control of accesses. He is concerned about this parcel because of the recommendations from
the Highway Department that there should be no access on Route 29 and because of the fact
that no public utilities are at the property or adjacent to the property at the present time.
This would allow development without public utilities. No specific use has been proposed, so
it becomes a speculative or premature rezoning, in his opinion. There is no lack of
industrially-zoned land in that part of the County, so it is not a question of it being a
truly limited market. From this standpoint, he will have to oppose the petition.
Mr. Wright stated that water is at the property. Mr. Bowie also pointed out that the
proffer provides for running a sewer line to the property. Mr. Fisher answered that the
zoning will allow certain development without it, and he knows from past experience, that it
can be a problem.
Mr. Bowie then offered motion to approve ZMA-86-02 with the proffer in the July 2, 1986,
letter from Mr. Wright. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There was no further discussion.
Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
(Note: At 10:20 A.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:28 A.M.)
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion of the future of the Keene Landfill.
Following is a report prepared by the County Engineer dated September, 1986:
"The Keene Landfill is approaching the end of its useful life and a decision
must be made what to do when the landfill reaches capacity. Staff is
seeking guidance from the Board regarding various options suggested in this
report which then can be analyzed further.
Options When Keene is Full
1. Expand Site. Expanding the present site will require a new permit from
the State Health Department which will mean considerable added expense for a
liner and a leachate collection system. Initial startup costs would include
about $50,000 for fifty acres of land and over $100,000 for a leachate basin
and other necessities. Annual costs would increase by more than $20,000 for
the environmental controls, making the yearly costs over $30 per ton for
non-inert materials.
Some opposition to the expansion would be expected and the problems involved
with the remoteness of the site would not be solved. The landfill would
still be in the watershed of a public drinking water impoundment.
2. New Site. A new site will require a new permit from the State Health
Department and the added expense for a liner and leachate collection system.
Annual costs should be in the same range as a landfill expansion, over $30
per ton for non-inert materials. The site could be located outside the
watershed of a public drinking water impoundment, but there would undoubt-
edly be a lot of public opposition regardless of the location.
3. Transfer Station. A permit will be required from the State Health
Department, but requirements would be much less stringent than for a land-
fill. Land purchase and site development could require a one time cost of
about $75,000:
Item Units Unit Cost Cost
Land 1 ac $2,000 $2,000
Clear and Grub 1 ac 1,500 1,500
Retaining Wall 250 ft 110 27,500
Compacted Borrow 600 cy 8 4,800
Six-foot Fence 740 If 7 5,200
Six-foot Gate 20 if 44 900
Stone 1200 t 10 12,000
Landscape Lump 9,000 9,000
Outbuilding for Lump 1,000 1,000
Employee
Subtotal 63,900
Miscellaneous and Contingencies 11,100
TOTAL $75,000
Operation of the site and the cost of hauling municipal solid waste to
the Ivy Landfill could cost as much as $80,000 a year:
Haul: (3120 tons/yr)(1 cy/5009)($150/40 cy):
Compactor Rental (as per BFI):
Personnel and Miscellaneous:
Subtotal
$46,800
11,000
22,200
$80,O00
(15.00/ton)
(3.53/ton)
(7.12/ton)
Ivy Landfill Additional County Costs:
Total
(6.00/ton)
31.65/ton
Total operational costs for a transfer station to receive solid waste
and transport to Ivy could be about $1.00 per ton more than a new or
expanded landfill. Personnel costs were assumed at $5.00 per hour,
7:30 A.M. to one-half hour past sunset, seven days a week. Adjustments
could be made in the hours of operation or monitoring to make opera-
tional costs of the convenience station virtually identical to a new or
expanded landfill. This assumes that stumps, brush and inert material
are not accepted at the convenience station. Transportation costs for
such material may be three times that of municipal solid waste because
compaction is not practical.
Location of a suitable site would raise some opposition. The County's
share of the Ivy Landfill expenses would go up to reflect the addition-
al County waste.
4. Use Ivy Landfill Only. This option would reduce the level of
County services offered to citizens in the southern part of the County.
Not offering another means of disposing refuse could require contract
haulers to increase their rates in order to provide the service, or
could force individuals to drive a considerable distance to dispose
their refuse. This may cause additional illegal dumping to occur in
the southern portion of the County."
Mr. Michael Armm, County Engineer, said that the report outlines a few of what the staff
felt were the most feasible options in dealing with the Keene Landfill, although there are
others such as resource recovery on a County-wide basis. The staff feels that a short term
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
solution has to be worked out because the Keene Landfill is nearing completion within the
next eighteen months to two years. Mr. Armm continued to discuss and explain the report to
the Board. He said the staff would like some guidance from the Board as to what steps should
be taken with each of the alternatives and if the Board has a preference as to which alterna-
tive should be studied in-depth.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Armm what approach he thought should be taken and why. Mr. Armm
said that in laying out the report for the Board, the staff wanted to show the Board all of
the options. However, he will start pinpointing the areas that he personally feels are
important. He would like to see some sort of transfer station set up. He thinks the County
could try using just the Ivy Landfill for some time, and if there is a problem, then go to a
transfer type station. He stated that sizing a new landfill in the Keene, Scottsville area
would be difficult with the new State guidelines. He said that in January there will be a
new list of requirements for sanitary landfills imposed by the State. The staff has already
seen a draft copy, and public hearings will be held this fall. With the environmental
concerns that the state is placing on new landfills, the staff feels that it would be diffi-
cult to find a new site in that portion of the County. If an adjacent tract could be bought
and added to the Keene Landfill, the requirements would have to be met as though it were a
new landfill. Another option would be to use just the Ivy Landfill with direct corridors
from Keene to Ivy. This would include extra costs to the people in that region because of
the longer haul distance. Mr. Armm said that the transfer station idea is an extension of
using Ivy as the only landfill because ali of the material would end up there anyway. The
County would have to find some means of transferring the material from the Keene, Scottsville
area over to the Ivy Landfill. He stated that the transfer station could probably be done
similarly to the way the Keene landfill is run now, in that a private contractor would
operate it for the County. The transfer station may require a site of approximately one or
two acres, and would probably be somewhere in the vicinity of Keene but closer to Route 20
and not set back off the road. It would have a ramp to containers where haulers and citizens
could drop material into the containers. Those containers would be hauled by the contractor
to the Ivy Landfill for dumping. Besides the cost, Mr. Armm explained that there would be
some problems connected with the transfer station because some materials could not be accept-.
ed. All types of refuse cannot be mixed together. When the materials arrive in Ivy, they
have to be separated into different piles. Mr. Armm explained that the problem with a
transfer station is that it cannot be set up in a small area to separate the materials. The
transfer station would probably be set up to take only household trash and garbage, since
this is of the greatest concern. County citizens would probably have to be directed to the
Ivy Landfill for dumping other materials. The staff feels that there will be a dumping
problem in the southern portion of the County if there is not another option available. The
staff is fearful that people will go back to the old landfill site and leave things in front
of the locked ga~e, or they may even dump materials along the state highways. There is a
certain amount of that now even with an active landfill in Keene. Of all of the options that
are listed in the report, the two that the staff would prefer for the Board to look most
closely at are just using Ivy, itself, or setting up a transfer station. He thinks the Board
should look at them concurrently.
Mr.' Lindstrom stated that he feels these options are postponing the problem and encour-
aging people to dump materials where they should not be dumped.
Mr. Armm replied that sending the people directly to Ivy may induce that, but he
believes that better use will be made of the transfer station than the Keene dump site
because it will be in a better location. He believes that the reason there is a problem now
is that some people do not want to make the trip back into the Keene site. He brought out
the point that even now there is a problem with people unloading their trash into the
dumpsters at the gate during the day while the landfill is open, because they do not want to
take a half mile ride from the front gate into the trench. The only way that Mr. Armm feels
that most problems with dumping can be discouraged is to go to a whole new landfill in the
southern region. However, he thinks that to meet the state requirements, that would have to
be quite some time in the future.
Mr. Lindstrom said that his concern is that if the Board approves one of these two
options without simultaneously looking for something else, everyone will assume that the
problem has been taken of. He also is concerned about having everyone in the County use only
one site. Because of construction, etc., going on in different parts of the County, Mr.
Lindstrom is worried that materials will be spread all over the roadways. He is really
concerned about creating a situation where the staff and Board are not pressing forward with
diligence to get a new site.
Mr. Fisher disagreed with Mr. Lindstrom by saying that he believes the economics of
operating a landfill today to the new standards is probably so expensive, that trying to
operate two is going to be more expensive than trying to operate one large one. He feels
that one central location should be looked at. He said that the transfer station is an idea
that was discussed by the Board some years ago. He said the Board at that time decided that
the northeast corner of the County is as bad off as the Scottsville area, and the people in
that area probably needed better access to a landfill. He commented that many people in the
northeast sector wanted a transfer station, but no one wanted it near their home. He said it
makes sense to him to start with the Keene site and try to establish a good transfer station
to let people see how it works. Maybe people in other parts of the County could be convinced
to have one, and that would be more effective in the long run than trying to operate multiple
landfills.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the life of the Ivy Landfill as it is presently being used. Mr.
Armm stated that the Ivy Landfill has been estimated as having an existing life of approxi-
mately 20 years. By bringing the Keene material to the Ivy site, its life would be short-
ened. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if any estimates of the life of the Ivy Landfill had been
done if the Keene material was added there. Mr. Armm answered that the staff would have to
look closely at the tonnage over the last few years for both the Ivy and Keene landfills to
see what sort of percentage increase there would be.
Mr. Bowie brought out the fact that a couple of years ago there was a committee
appointed to look at many things concerning waste disposal, including the Keene landfill.
At
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
that time, it was predicted that a transfer station would not significantly shorten the life
of the Ivy Landfill. Mr. Armm agreed that the tonnage at Keene is relatively low compared to
Ivy but transferring materials to Ivy would put a burden on that site.
Mr. Way concurred with Mr. Armm that it is impractical to increase the size of the Keene
Landfill. If a separate landfill was built, a different site would have to be acquired
because the road to the landfill is approximately two miles long and very narrow and danger-
ous. He likes the idea of a transfer station and hopes that the idea is actively pursued.
He also concurs that there needs to be some sort of way for the people in that area to
dispose of their trash rather than going all the way to Ivy.
Mrs. Cooke commented that she owns a business in a major shopping center in the City,
and it is becoming increasingly difficult for the merchants to cope with the County residents
who come in and use the dumpsters in the shopping centers. It has become a major problem for
merchants competing for the use of the dumpsters that are paid for by the merchants. She
thinks that the County will have to understand that as it grows, citizens will have to be
furnished with more services. She said dumping areas need to be a lot easier and more
accessible for people to use County facilities as opposed to using City facilities and
dumping this problem on the merchants.
Mr. Armm stated that he does not believe that people realize the problems that the
County has even with Keene and Ivy both in operation. Certain portions of the County are
getting more and more roadside dumping plus there is the added problem of people taking their
materials to someone else's trash container.
Mrs. Cooke remarked that she cannot get her refuse from her business out to the trash
cans after they are dumped before they are full again. She said that bedsprings, old mat-
tresses, etc. are put in her business trash containers, and if they will not fit in the
container, they are left outside of it. She said there are people coming in from the County
and causing this problem because the City has its own trash pickup. She said this is some-
thing that needs to be looked at by the Board and staff very seriously to make it more
convenient for the County citizens to dispose of their refuse.
Mr. Fisher said that the plans for the transfer stations that were done several years
ago could be reconsidered because it was pointed out at that time which locations of the
County did not have good access to landfills. If a new transfer station is going to be
considered at Scottsville, it probably should be worked into an overall plan as to how to add
others. If it works, he believes citizens would support the idea of moving forward for some
additional ones. Mr. Armm replied that the staff is hoping that this could be a pilot
program that would show citizens that it can work in other locations.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if such a transfer station could be used for something other than
household garbage. Mr. Armm answered that he believes that the County could operate recy-
cling centers similar to the one located adjacent to the County office building. These
recycling centers do not require large areas. He is fearful, though, that if the County
becomes involved in recycling larger items that the County may have a piece of land that is
unreasonable for just a small transfer station.
Mr. Lindstrom asked why the use of the Keene Landfill is so much lower than the Ivy
site. Mr. Armm said there is not much high density residential development in the southern
area of the County, and there are only one or two commercial users. The Uniroyal Plant only
sends large spools of nylon that are discarded.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what Mr. Armm thought the lead time would be under the new regula-
tions to locate a major new landfill. Mr. Armm said it would probably take eighteen months
to two years. He mentioned that within the draft that his staff has received from the state
is a regulation that says that all landfills must be located on a surface treated road. To
find an environmentally feasible site in the southern portion of the County with a paved road
leading to it would be difficult.
Mr. Bowie pointed out that the Committee that did the study several years ago, which he
has alluded to once before in this meeting, received very excellent briefings from the
Engineering Department before Mr. Armm or Mr. Horne were employed by the County. These were
actual construction plans for a small transfer site at the Keene Landfill. The Committee
recommended, and it was in the report that the Committee filed, that the transfer site be
looked at further. That was the way the Committee, which was composed of staff, citizens and
himself, thought the County should go. He commented about how the people at Cismont did not
want a transfer station seven or eight years ago. He said that if there is one spot in the
whole County that would get opposition to a transfer station, that is the one that would go
to Public Hearing. There are other sites available that may work if this concept is expand-
ed. He mentioned also, relative to recycling, that the Clean Community Commission, at the
time of the Committee report, had only one site but has opened several new recycling sites in
the past two years. He feels that these should start fitting in with the County's plans. He
said that the Committee also had a plan to do something at Ivy that would separate materials
at private sector expense and profit. The advantage to the County would be the lowering of
the cost of the landfill and the extension of the life by probably twenty or thirty years.
He asked the staff to take the background of work that is already on file in the Planning
Department and come back with a plan that will not have to be redone in ten years.
Mr. Jim Murray was present, and he commented that he had a site of two or three acres
adjoining the post office at Keene on Route 20. He would be happy to discuss use of this
property with the County staff.
Mr. Lindstrom asked that since the Keene Landfill is in the watershed area and there is
no collection system pr other protection against sedimentation, if this site was closed off
and sealed up, would anything be done relative to this problem. Mr. Armm answered that under
the present permit fr~m the State of Virginia the County would not be required to put in a
trenching system but would be required to cap off the Keene Landfill and put an adequate
252
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
cover over the entire site and seed and vegetate it.
voluntary basis.
Anything else would be strictly on a
Mr. Lindstrom asked if voluntary work was done at the Keene Landfill, how extensive it
would be. Mr. Armm said that the staff is looking into what must be done because of the fact
that the site is in a watershed area. The staff will come back to the Board with figures
probably as a capital improvement project.
Mrs. Cooke reinforced what she had said previously that she hopes the staff will look at
some sort of County-wide plan that would include collection points that would make it conve-
nient for citizens of the County to dispose of their refuse since there are some citizens who
do not like to pay a fee to have their trash collected. She suggested there might be a
County-wide assessment. She said the Board has a duty to its citizens to try to address this
problem and provide easy access for disposal. She also feels that the Board has a responsi-
bility to the City to take care of its own problem. She asked for a comment from the staff
as to how this problem can be attacked.
Mr. Armm said he believes the staff should look at the Solid Waste Collection System
Committee report that was done in the late 1970's. He said that Mr. Lindstrom had brought
out the problems of only having one landfill in the County, but he feels that if there is
only one well-maintained landfill and there are enough collection points, that is all the
public will be concerned about.
Mr. Lindstrom said his only concern is that the transfer stations can handle only
household materials, and there is a tremendous amount of construction materials being gener-
ated as waste.
Mr. Fisher asked the staff to consider putting this idea out to bid for private contrac-
tors and also suggested that several transfer stations be considered. There is a substantial
business for private haulers already in the County. He thinks that the Board and staff
should consider from the outset putting together a plan specifying how the sites should be
operated, cleaned and whether or not they have to be manned.
Mr. Bowie said from information given to the Committee, transfer stations seem to work
best when they are contracted.
Mr. Horne stated that during the review of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commis-
sion has been approached about enhancing the sections on public facilities and services. He
and his staff are very supportive of this whole process and will be happy to help any way
they can.
Mr. Fisher asked what the next step will be and Mr. Agnor answered that the staff will
come back to the Board very quickly with an overall County plan. He said they would resur-
rect the plan that had been dropped for Cismont and update it in light of the new regula-
tions.
Mr. Bowie stated that he still wants to see a combined plan that includes not only
transfer stations, but recycling, an extension of Ivy, and other ways of improving the
situation.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion of Central Water and Sewer Review Process.
The following memorandum addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Execu-
tive, from Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development, dated June
18, 1986, was received:
"Chapter 10 of the Albemarle County Code provides for a review by the County
Engineer and Board of Supervisors of proposed central water and sewerage
systems to be located in the County. That review appears, however, to be
purely technical in nature and it is unclear from Chapter 10 as to whether
the Board has the authority to approve or deny installation of such systems
except on grounds of their technical adequacy. The purpose of this memoran-
dum is to request your assistance in bringing this issue to the attention of
the Board of Supervisors in order for the Board to provide the staff with
direction as to how they wish to treat this type of proposal.
There are a number of options available to the Board of Supervisors in the
review of these systems and I will attempt to lay out some of these options
below:
Leave the County Code as it currently stands and provide only technical
review of the adequacy of these proposed systems by the County Engineer
and Board.
Provide for review of only those systems with fifty or more
connections which would make them eligible for public utility status.
This review would be accomplished under 15.1-456 by the Commission
and/or Board of Supervisors. Attached (on file) is a letter from the
County Attorney detailing the authority of the Commission and Board in
these reviews.
Require the issuance of a special permit for the installation of
central sewer and water supply systems. These systems are defined as
being central systems when three or more connections are made. The
Board could require the special permit for all central systems, but the
staff would recommend review of only those above some intermediate
number of connections such as ten. Below ten connections we feel
that the public issues involved are minimal.
253
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
~ 15~
Staff of this Department recommends the final option above, the special
permit being required for central systems with ten connections or more. A
review of all systems with fifty connections or more under 15.1-456 would be
included in this option as per Mr. St. John's recommendation.
A notice by Keswick Land Trust of their intent to install a system with
approximately forty-three connections was placed on a recent Board of
Supervisors consent agenda. Given that this request appears to be below the
public utility threshold and there is no further review required under the
County Code, it would appear that the review of this would take place solely
under the existing provisions of Chapter 10 of the Code with no actual Board
of Supervisors approval."
Mr. Horne mentioned that the County has recently had a request from the Keswick Country
Club for the installation of a sewage treatment system. He felt the Board's position needs
to be clarified and then the Albemarle County Code needs to be amended to try to standardize
how these requests are handled. He has given the Board three options for consideration with
the staff's recommendation of the final option. He said that Chapter 10 of the Code seems to
provide only a technical review. He went over all of the options with the Board.
Mr. Fisher asked if the individual systems of nine or ten homes could be put together
into one system? Mr. Horne said he did not believe that situation. If it were a fifty lot
subdivision with a series of wells and only nine or ten connections to each well, in his
opinion that could be called a unified system.
Mr. Fisher mentioned that practically all of the central water systems in existence in
the County prior to 1975 have been taken over by the Albemarle County Service Authority
because of the many problems. He does not think this type of system should be encouraged.
Mr. Lindstrom does not want to create a system where there will be an accumulation of
small central systems allowing densities that are contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. One of
the criteria for high density is that there be some sort of centralized septic or water
system. If Comprehensive Plan concerns could be addressed under Chapter 10, would this take
care of part of it? Mr. Fred Payne answered that the statute relating to sewers specifical-
ly distinguishs between the authority of counties where a Comprehensive Plan is in effect and
those where one is not in effect. Where an overall plan is in effect, the Board is entitled
to take into consideration the dictates of the plan in deciding whether or not to approve the
sewage disposal system. He thinks a water system is different. Review under Code Section
15.1-456 is limited to public service corporations or public facilities. It does not mean
that the Board is not entitled to consider the effect of the plan on the issue of whether
central systems can be approved and specifically the central sewer system. If the Board
wants to discourage the use of central systems, one way that might effectuate that would be
to amend the Zoning Ordinance to give the density benefit only where public water and sewer
can be used. He stated that the Board has two questions when deciding on the central water
and sewer problem. One is the effect on the land use density. He thinks that is a manage-
able one, and the other one is on the stability of the system, itself. Historically, these
systems have fairly short lives. He said that even large systems outside of the County have
had close to marginal operations. At the mid-level, which is what Mr. Horne is talking
about, these problems are accentuated. He has seen this happen in land use decisions where
substantially sized subdivisions with less than 50 connections got a density benefit from
using central water or sewer. He also believes that the problem of stability of the system
is accentuated because if a system serves 35 or 40 houses and it goes bad, it is a big
problem. With respect to properties with over 50 units, that is a double impact because it
is required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for compliance with the Plan, and it
also has a preclusive effect on the public utilities. He pointed out that when a public
service corporation goes in, the Albemarle County Service Authority is out. If the Board
wants to discourage using this kind of system, the obvious way to do this would be to abolish
the density distinction except to public water and sewer. He thinks this is reasonable and
can be defended. The second way to address the problem would be to expand the Board's role
in the review of these systems outside the scope of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Horne has
suggested using a Special Use Permit system, but Mr. Payne thinks that Chapter 10 of the Code
could be amended to give the Board more discretion to set standards. Another way to address
the problem is to require zoning and Special Use Permits. As to any system that is required
to be reviewed under the plan, he thinks the practice has been that the Special Use Permit
process doubles as the Comprehensive Plan review process.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Bill Brent of the Albemarle County Service Authority had any
comments to make at this time. Mr. Brent said that he is not familiar with the specific
information from Mr. Horne. He noticed the item listed on the agenda and came just to
listen. He hopes the matter will be resolved today. He said the Albemarle County Service
Authority has discussed this problem in general terms for many years. He stated that several
months ago Mr. St. John made a statement to the Board as to how he thought the Board of
Supervisors should be posturing itself as to handling requests for large, central utility
systems. He thought the Board had asked for Mr. St. John's thoughts in writing, but Mr.
Brent has not seen those. The Service Authority's position is that it can be whatever the
Board wants it to be. He does not know whether it is better when a well fails to have only
one or two houses out of water, such as in Whipporwill Hollow, or if a well fails and there
is a central piping system, there are a lot of houses out of water as is the case in
Earlysville Forest. He stated that there has been no recent discussion of this matter by the
Service Authority Board of Directors.
Mr. Bowie said his real concern is that the Board not allow privately-owned central
utilities with indefinite or permanent individual life around this County. If the Board's
approval of a system means that the Board will automatically approve something to the State
Corporation Commission, he will oppose approving the central system.
Mr. Horne said that he had anticipated that there would be some specific amendments made
to the ordinance, and that when the Comprehensive Plan is updated there would be some very
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
specific statements in the Plan on the type of situation that is either being encouraged or
discouraged in terms of being a privately owned public utility. He commented that in neither
ordinance has a good job been done in stating what the Board wants to see happen. His main
purpose is to get from the Board what it wants to see happen. Then his staff can flesh out
all the details of changes in ordinances and the Plan.
Mr. Lindstrom said if there is an application for a central sewer system, the comments
that Mr. Payne made should be taken into consideration and the approval or denial should be
based in part on whether it is consistent with the Plan. This needs to be fleshed out or a
policy stating that needs to be created. If this could be done with respect to a central
water system, that should also be considered. He has a problem with a special permit
approach. His main concern is with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that
certain zoning categories require not only that the property be shown on the zoning map but
also that it have these, utilities. He thinks it should be clear that utilities that are
required are public utilities and not central systems. He hopes these three things can be
brought together into one policy.
Mr. Horne stated that he thinks the options that he has presented allows the Board to
make a decision independent of the technical requirements. He is trying to give the Board
this ability without requiring it to be done in each individual case.
Mr. Payne said an amendment to Chapter 10 of the County Code would be required, because
Chapter 10 was adopted with a specific objective in mind of making this a technical review
rather than a policy review. If the intent is to make it a policy review, he thinks it will
be a step backward.
Agenda Item No. 11. Request to amend Water Service Areas of the Albemarle County
Service Authority to include Parcel 76, Tax Map 45, John H. Key Estate. The following
memorandum from Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development, dated
September 3, 1986, was received:
"This Department has briefly reviewed a request by James B. Murray, Jr. for
extension of water service to Parcel 76 on Tax Map 45. While this Depart-
ment has yet to confer with the Watershed Management Official, the staff
would question the validity of the environmental arguments made by Mr.
Murray in his letter dated August 25, 1986. Any septic system installation
on these properties must meet the 200 foot setback from the reservoir and
the 100 foot setback from the adjacent stream. Unless there can be demon-
strated that there are clear environmental advantages to water service
extension and/or demonstrated water supply problems in the past on these
parcels, it is the staff opinion that approval of this request could set a
precedent for future requests along this boundary of the growth area in the
watershed. General extension of water and/or sewer service in this area
would not be appropriate in the staff's opinion."
Also received was a letter from Mr. James B. Murray addressed to Mr. Gerald Fisher,
Chairman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, dated August 25, 1986, as follows:
"Please consider this letter as a formal application to the Board of Super-
visors to extend the County's water service district to serve Tax Map 45,
Parcel 76, the John H. Key Estate property.
This tract consists of 8.1 acres (7.91 acres if highway right-of-way is
dedicated) on State Route 659 just east and across from the SPCA animal
shelter. The existing RWSA water main crosses the front part of the pro-
perty. There is an existing fire hydrant located on the north side of Route
659 on the edge of the property.
As contract purchaser I have applied to the Planning Commission for approval
of a private road for joint access to two lots (with a maximum of 3 dwell-
ings) on the 8.1 acres. This application will be considered by the Planning
Commission at its regular meeting on October 14, 1986. A copy of the
proposed final plat is enclosed. I would greatly appreciate it if any
Planning Commission consideration of this request be scheduled for the same
meeting.
If the Planning Commission approves the private road, this property, which
is zoned RA, would eventually be used as the site for two residences (one of
which may have an existing cottage as an appurtenant guest house). No
further subdivision of the property would ever be possible, not only under
the present ordinances but because the northern half of each lot is ex-
tremely steep and there is only one building site on each lot. While it
would be possible to drill separate wells for each lot (one already exists
on lot B), it would be sounder environmental practice to tap the existing
water line already located on the property. These lots front on the south
fork Rivanna Reservoir and by eliminating the need for wells we can substan-
tially expand the available space for septic drain fields, keeping them on
the more level land further from the water supply.
Should you or the Board have any further questions please feel free to call
me."
Mr. Horne reviewed the material that he had given the Board on the extension of the
Albemarle County Service Authority's boundaries for water to Tax Map 45, Parcel 76. He
indicated that the staff is skeptical at this point of the environmental arguments pursued by
Mr. Murray. The staff feels that there could be a precedent set in this particular location.
255
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
The staff would want to be certain that there would be significant environmental benefits or
some other mitigating circumstance that the staff has not yet seen before this would be
converted. His department has talked with the Watershed Management Official, and the Water-
shed Management Official would need some data from the applicant before Mr. Horne and his
staff can assess whether they can agree with the environmental argument. Mr. Horne stated
that before approval can be given to the subdivision plat, specific information is needed
from the applicant concerning the topography on the parcel, and where the installation of the
septic field would be on each lot. The Watershed Management Official will then advise Mr.
Horne's department as to whether he sees the environmental benefits as significant enough to
override the County's policy.
Mr. Murray said that the person who should be addressing the Board is Mr. Cosby, who is
the attorney for the Key Estate. Mr. Murray's letter to Mr. Fisher addresses his concerns as
a potential purchaser of the property. He would like to have the opportunity to present to
the Board the information that the Watershed Management Official would like to have. He
commented that the land is extremely steep and while it is physically possible to put two
septic fields for each house plus the existing house which would be six septic fields and two
wells on this property, he thinks it would be pressing the site to do it, and environmentally
it would be dangerous. That is his concern as a purchaser, but the more pressing concern is
for the Key family. He said the property has been owned by a black family who has had it for
many generations even before the reservoir was built. It has descended through a number of
heirs, and there are several family members who would like to have it sold. It is the
subject of a partition suit which is pending in a County court. The only offer the family
has is contingent upon being able to hook the property to public water. The surveyor told
Mr. Murray that no right-of-way has ever been granted for the water line to go across the
property nor was a highway right-of-way obtained for a state road. It is the only parcel on
that road that does not have a Highway Department right-of-way. The reason for this is that
there was nobody in the family to deal with. Mr. Cosby and his clients would also like to
get it straightened out.
Mr. Fisher said that there may be mitigating circumstances, but the issue before the
Board is whether it wants to set a Public Hearing to consider extending public water to these
lots.
Mr. Murray said his point is the hardship for the owner, because the only contract for
the property is contingent on the water. Mr. Murray stated that the staff had asked if there
were other mitigating circumstances other than the environmental concern. He is telling the
Board the concerns of the owners of the property. The owners have a water line going through
their land which they never gave a right-of-way for. The County took it because there was
nobody to talk to about it. The owners would now like something from the County in return.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if all of the owners are supporting this matter. Mr. Murray said
many of the owners are unknown, but the few heirs that can be found support it. Mr. Fisher
asked what kind of title will be transferred, and Mr. Murray replied that the court will
transfer the title.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board often gets requests to extend public utilities, but it is
done based upon a demonstrated hardship because there is a water problem. He said the staff
report presents this in a different light. It is not so much a demonstrated water problem,
but a matter of developing the property to a greater extent than it is now developed. He
thinks the staff is concerned that this is a change in policy. Mr. Lindstrom does not think
the request is supported by the arguments that have been made. He prefers not to set a
Public Hearing on something that he is doubtful that he can support.
Mr. Fisher asked if there was any other discussion or motion to set a Public Hearing.
Hearing none, Mr. Fisher said the matter is disposed of by lack of action.
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: Ordinance to amend County Code Section 2-4 con-
cerning Composition of the Planning Commission. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on Au-
gust 26 and September 2, 1986.)
Mr. Fred Payne said that the origin of this amendment is the contract that was recently
signed between the City, the County, and the University of Virginia for a liaison in the
planning area. He stated that the principal purpose of this ordinance amendment is to allow
input from the University at Planning Commission meetings. The significant wording is in
numbered Paragraphs B and C where there is a reference to the advice of the President of the
University in the appointment of one member of the Commission. This member would be a
liaison member, and would serve without compensation or voting rights. He mentioned that the
Board of Supervisors had made a decision some time ago to eliminate the Board liaison posi-
tion on the Commission, but it was never taken out of the County Code. This amendment would
effectuate that and take out the provision in the Code for the Board's liaison member. In
numbered Paragraph E, Mr. Payne said some obsolete language which he feels is no longer
necessary, had been eliminated. This language dealt with an effective date of an amendment
pertaining to staggered terms of members of the Commission. He asked the Board members to
note that with respect to the University's input on this, this is consciously worded to make
the University's role an advisory one. He thinks any more intensive involvement by the Uni-
versity would probably be unlawful as an improper delegation of the Board's authority to
appoint the members of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Fisher stated that this agreement with the University and the City came about to
promote better cooperation with the planning. He said that the County already has represen-
tatives to meet with the University's master planners. He opened the Public Hearing at this
time and asked if anyone was there to speak on this proposed amendment to the County Code.
Since no one was present indicating a desire to speak, Mr. Fisher closed the Public Hearing
and put the matter before the Board.
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following ordinance. Mr. Way seconded the
motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 2-4 OF THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE CONCERNING THE COMPOSITION,
APPOINTMENT, TERMS AND COMPENSATION OF
THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County
that the County Code be, and it is hereby, amended and reenacted in Section
2-4, as follows:
Sec. 2-4 Composition; appointment, terms and compensation of members;
quorum.
(a) Composition. The planning commission of the county shall be
composed of eight members appointed by the board of supervisors. All
members of the commission shall be residents of the county, qualified by
knowledge and experience to make decisions on questions of community growth
and development, and at least one-half of the members shall be freeholders.
(b) Appointment and terms. One member of the commission shall be
appointed by the board of supervisors with the advice of the president of
the University of Virginia'for a term of one year to serve in an advisory
capacity without voting rights. Of the seven voting members, one shall be
nominated from each of the six magisterial districts by the board member
representing that district, and one shall be nominated to serve at large.
Three of the members appointed from specified magisterial districts shall be
appointed in each even-numbered year following county elections, by nomina-
tion of the newly elected board members and for terms coextensive with
theirs. One member-at-large shall be appointed each even-numbered year
following county elections for a two-year term. Vacancies occurring due to
resignation or other causes shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired
term only.
(c) Compensation. Ail members of the planning commission, except the
nonvoting member appointed with the advice of the president of the Universi-
ty of Virginia, shall receive two thousand four hundred dollars per annum to
be paid in monthly installments. The chairman of the commission shall
receive an additional one thousand two hundred dollars per annum to be paid
in monthly installments.
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
[Pa_ e~j~__l 9~
(d) Quorum. A majority of the voting members shall constitute a
quorum and no action of the commission shall be valid unless authorized by a
majority vote of those present and voting.
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: To consider extending the Albemarle County Service
Authority service area for water only to include Tax Map 60, Parcel 4D2 on Old Garth Road.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 26 and September 2, 1986.
The following memorandum dated September 3, 1986, was received from Mr. John T. P.
Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development:
"This Department has reviewed the request by Mr. and Mrs. Bill Dewey for
extension of the jurisdictional area of the Service Authority for water only
to Tax Map 60, Parcel 4D2. It would appear that the Deweys have experienced
genuine water supply problems in the past and have made good faith efforts
to resolve these problems through improvements to the existing well system.
The property immediately to the north of this, which is in a very similar
situation geographically, was provided water service by an existing pipe
across that property prior to the jurisdictional boundary maps being
adopted. It was, therefore, provided water only service when the maps were
adopted. The developments immediately to the east and west are also pro-
vided water only service.
While this Department has no objection to the extension of water service to
this property due to demonstrated water supply problems, staff would recom-
mend service be provided to existing structures only. As the Board will
notice on the attached map, there are a number of relatively small proper-
ties along this roadway which would be in very similar circumstances. Staff
would hope that service extensions to other properties along this road would
be made only after a similar demonstration of water supply problems and
would be extended to existing structures only. This recommendation is based
on the fact that these properties are immediately adjacent to Ivy Creek, and
therefore any extensions of service in this area could potentially set
precedents for other similar requests."
Mr. Horne reminded the Board that it had reviewed this request when the public hearing
was set. He reviewed the matter with the Board. He said that the staff has no objection to
the extension of water service to this property because of demonstrated water supply prob-
lems. However, the staff recommends that service be provided to existing structures only.
Mr. Fisher asked the size of the lot and Mr. Horne answered that is is two acres in size
and is very long and narrow. Since the Board members did not have questions for Mr. Horne,
Mr. Fisher opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone there who wished to speak.
Mr. Dewey, the owner of the property, asked if he could build a garage on the property
and put water in it, even though the idea is to limit the extension of the water to existing
structures. Mr. Horne said that he interprets "existing structures" to mean existing resi-
dential structures. He does not think that would be a problem. He asked if there is any-
thing specific in the Service Authority's bylaws that deals with existing structures. Mr.
Brent said the jurisdictional area map is specific in that existing structures are identified
in the reference to the maps as to what those existing structures are. It is not limited to
residential structures. Mr. Horne said he believes that provisions could be made for Mr.
Dewey's garage.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Dewey to repeat for the Board the problems he is having with water.
Mr. Dewey said he had bought the property in August of 1985. He rented the property a month
after he bought it and within a few weeks of the tenants moving in, they had problems getting
water. He replaced the well pump at that time and the problems subsided. Now, the same
problem has appeared during the same time of the year. The pump that is there now is approx-
imately a year old, and there doesn't seem to be any problem with it. He is not sure now,
that when the pump was replaced before, that the pump was the problem. Mr. Fisher asked Mr.
Dewey if the problem is that he is not getting enough water. Mr. Dewey said there is only
enough water to do one load of laundry and not quite enough to take two showers.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to extend the Albemarle County Service Authority
service area for water only to include Tax Map 60, Parcel 4D2, on Old Garth Road for existing
structure only and a potential garage to be built at a later date. Mr. Way seconded the
motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 14. Tour of Court Square Buildings. Mr. Fisher stated that the Board
is scheduled to take a tour of the Court Square Buildings at this time. Mr. Agnor said it
was intended to be a fill-in item. Since there is not much time before the Executive Session
begins, he suggested that the tour be re-scheduled to the end of the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Sale or Acquisition of Property. At 11:54
a.m., Mr. Bowie offered motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss the sale or
acquisition of property and personnel matters. Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
further discussion.
vote:
Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:58 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 16. Contract: Albemarle County/Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission (TJPDC) - Housing Program. The following memorandum dated September 5, 1986, was
received from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive:
"During the FY 86-87 budget review, the Board of Supervisors approved a
part-time position (60 per cent) to improve the housing coordination effort
in Albemarle County. This position was funded in the Department of Planning
and Community Development's budget. Since that time staff has discussed the
possibility of contracting with the TJPDC to provide this service to
Albemarle. The TJPDC concurs with this approach and offers a contract for
this housing coordination service.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve this contract and
authorize the County Executive to enter into this agreement on behalf of the
County."
Mr. Fisher said this is an unusual way of funding a position.
wanted to make any comments about the concept.
He asked Mr. Agnor if he
Mr. Agnor said the data base and statistical information used usually covers an area of
some size larger than one single jurisdiction. The housing matters of concern to Albemarle
are of some similar concern to other jurisdictions. The function of the coordination of
programs, particularly the funding sources, quite frequently is approached on a regional
basis or funded in that manner. It is the staff's opinion that the 60 percent of the cost of
the position could be utilized by the regional planning agency to do this type of coordina-
tion and have some benefit to more than Albemarle County.
Mr. Fisher asked if it is expected that this position could become a full-time position
while actually serving other localities. Mr. Agnor answered that it is his understanding
that if other localities are interested in benefiting from such a program then the Planning
District Commission has an opportunity to create a full-time position, and Albemarle County
would contribute a given amount for this first year.
Mr. Bowie stated that the Planning District Commission may very well end up with a
full-time employee, but the other percentage of time would be paid for by some other juris-
diction. The advantage of this is that while it benefits other jurisdictions, it also
provides Albemarle County with the specific service it needs at a price the Board has bud-
geted to pay without obligations beyond one year. It is a clean-cut way to get the job done,
and he supports the concept.
Mr. Lindstrom said the County representatives emphasized at the Planning District Board
meetings that it is not particularly interested in a position that will have someone simply
go out and gather a lot of statistics and data. He understands that the emphasis will be on
facilitating the use of some of the programs the County now has. Mr. Lindstrom then offered
motion to authorize the County Executive to sign the Contract. Mr. Bowie seconded the
motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Way asked which County staff person will be coordinating this program. He also
asked if the information that the person in the new position will be collecting will be given
to someone in the County. Mr. Agnor replied that the Planning and Community Development
Department will be responsible for this position. Mr. Way stated that he agrees with the
whole idea of having this done, but he feels strongly that this work should be considered
carefully after a year to see if it has accomplished what was intended by its being located
in another place. If it has not, then it should be moved to the County Building.
(Note: The contract reads as follows:)
This contract between Albemarle County and the Thomas Jefferson Plan-
ning District Commission (TJPDC) is entered into to employ the resources of
the TJPDC to perform certain services related to the Albemarle County
housing program in exchange for certain financial considerations.
The TJPDC agrees to provide the following:
1) Sixty percent (60%) of a professional staff person's time;
2) General office support (desk, phone, travel, education,
etc.);
3) Fringe benefits equal to those enjoyed under present TJPDC
policy;
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
~Ra~e 21)_
4)
Develop and make available a data base on needs for housing
assistance for low income persons;
5) Identify and pursue additional funding sources;
6)
Coordinate existing Albemarle County programs in the public
and private sectors;
7)
Develop a promotion and public education program to increase
awareness of existing opportunities.
The County agrees to provide financial support for the program at the
level of $17,065 to cover the costs of the staff, and support. This amount
will be paid in advance on a quarterly basis beginning on the date the
contract takes effect.
This contract takes effect on
for a period of one year."
Agenda Item No. 17. Resolution Supporting State Funding for Community Action Agency,
Request for. Memorandum dated August 8, 1986, was received from Mr. Kenneth Ackerman,
Executive Director, as follows:
"I would appreciate having the enclosed proposed resolution brought to the
attention of the Board of Supervisors for endorsement. Federal funds for
Community Action were cut 13 percent ~n 1981 and another four percent this
past year. We are hoping to gain funding from the General Assembly to help
avoid further losses.
We greatly appreciate Albemarle County's suppOrt through local funding and
recognize that other sources must be involved to help sustain our programs.
The amount needed from state funds is very nominal considering the returns
and savings throughout the Commonwealth as a result of our activities."
Mrs. Pynke Gohaner-Lyles said she was Not requesting funding but would like an endorse-
ment from the Board to support the Agency's~ork in Albemarle County.
Mr. Fisher there are many other agencies which are supported with County funds who may
ask the Board to take similar action. He feels the Board is in a position of having to be
equitable with all programs. The Board usually does not ask the Legislature to allocate new
funds for one specific program.
Mrs. Gohaner-Lyles said the problem is unusual, but MACAA is community action in gener-
al. She said there are 28 such agencies in the State and 900 in the country. Each agency is
going before local governments saying that the agency needs local support. She stated that
MACAA is different because it deals with so many different things such as education, employ-
ment· housing, etc. She mentioned that for
Omni Hotel talking about the plight families
Governor cares about Virginia families. Hez
unusual way by wanting to house, feed, clotb
again that the Agency needs the Board's supp
that MACAA is a worthy organization that sez
Mr. Fisher asked the size of the Agency
is $1,500,000 for the programs for the whole
the last two days she was in a meeting at the
in Virginia. She said that it is clear that the
agency deals with families, and it does it in an
e and educate the people who need it. She said
ort, and it has been proven time and time again
ves the poor people in Albemarle County.
's budget. Mrs. Gohaner-Lyles answered that it
planning district. Mr. Bowie stated that it is
down from $2,200,000 three years ago. Mr. ~isher asked what has been cut from programs.
Mrs. Gohaner-Lyles said that the Agency has shifted and stretched, but has not eliminated any
programs.
Mrs. Cooke asked what the Agency Job
follow-up there is to measure the success rs
system. The Agency follows up on the people
been good but not good enough. She said ths
and will be doing job training this year.
people to teach them how to dress· talk and
that is new, but it is hoped that it will hE
are other workers in community programs that
people enhance what the counselors are doin¢
now more effective. She said that some peo~
that the majority of them stay because the
them on the job.
aining Program has accomplished and what kind of
te. Mrs. Gohaner-Lyles said there is a tracking
it places. She stated that the success rate has
t her Agency had gotten the funds that OIC had,
he Agency now has an employee to work with the
walk to impress the employer. That is something
lp these people stay in their jobs longer. There
work along with job counselors. She said thoSe
· which has helped, because the counselors are
le leave their jobs for different reasons, but
~gency equips them with what they need to keep
Mr. Way stated that the resolution is requesting the Legislature to set aside a suitable
appropriation from state funds for the work of Community Action. He does not have a problem
with this· and he thinks it is appropriate for the Board to ask the Legislature to fund
Community Action agencies who provide so ma~y services in the area. He commented that if the
agencies do not get state support, all of t~e burden will be on the County.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt ~he following resolution. Mr. Bowie seconded the
motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fishe~, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
'2,6O
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 22)
WHEREAS, Monticello Area Community Action has been designated by the
County of Albemarle as the official community action agency for this juris-
diction and is a partner with said jurisdiction in helping low income
persons and communities sustain themselves and improve their standard of
living;
WHEREAS, Monticello Area Community Action Agency has continued to serve
the low income of this area with many critical educational and community
development programs and has benefited the total community from its re-
sources and cost savings;
WHEREAS, community action programs across this Commonwealth have been
drastically reduced with recent cutbacks in federal funds even before
Gramm-Rudman and this locality has already contributed to Monticello Area
Community Action Agency in an effort to sustain the work of this important
agency;
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia has not until now provided any
funds to supplant revenue lost to the core funding of community action which
makes possible the outreach, planning, management and service capability
necessary to the continued success of these agencies;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED:
That the County of Albemarle will continue to appoint a representative
to the Board of Directors of Monticello Area Community Action Agency, will
continue to work in every way with that agency to offer a "hand up" to its
low income residents, and will continue to provide local financial support
as we are able and that the County of Albemarle requests that the Common-
wealth of Virginia in its 1987 budget set aside a suitable appropriation of
state funds for the work of community action agencies, the majority of those
funds going to existing community action agencies.
Agenda Item No. 18. Fiscal Year 1985/86 Financial Report and Request for Approval of
Overexpenditures. The following memorandum dated September 5, 1986, was received from Mr.
Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance:
"As previously reported to you, the County of Albemarle completed Fiscal
Year 1985/86 in an excellent financial position. Total revenues from all
sources for all activities totaled $60,178,480, inclusive of accrued reve-
nues through August 15, 1986, in the amount of $1,581,330. Total expendi-
tures for all funds totaled $57,783,918. These amounts, which exclude
interfund transfers, show revenues in excess of expenditures by $2,394,562.
The reappropriation of funds to Fiscal Year 1986/87 totaled $1,020,522.71,
reducing the excess revenues to $1,374,039.29. The following attachments
(on file) provide additional details and comparisons by fund.
Although revenues exceeded expenditures, some operations, as you were
previously advised, did exceed budgeted appropriations. In comparison to
their individual budgets and total County operations, these overexpenditures
are relatively small and can primarily be balanced by the transfer of funds
from other operations and do not require the appropriation of additional
funds. In the fall of 1985, the School Division requested a large number of
revisions to their 1985/86 budget mainly in the form of transfers which
would have avoided most of their overexpenditures. However, action was
deferred on this request. Those operations with overexpenditures are as
follows:
Cost Center
General Fund:
Personnel $
General District Court
Clerk of Circuit Court
Victim Witness
Sheriff
Animal Control
Refunds
Subtotal
Budgeted Actual Balance Per cent
147,880.32
11,870.00
277,405.00
23,535.00
285,656.00
53,701.00
2,536,470.00
$3,336,517.32
$ 147,990.93
12,629.25
280,501.28
24,580.41
287,087.99
53,886.94
2~553,452.23
$3,360,129.03
$ (110.61) 0.07
(759.25) 6.40
(3,096.28) 1.12
(1,045.41) 4.44
(1,431.99) 0.51
(185.94) 0.35
(16,982.23) 0.67
$(23,611.71) 0.71
42 Other Cost Centers 35,345,239.87 34,527,432.98
Total $38,681,757.19 $37,887,562.01
817,806.89 2.32
$794,195.18 2.06
Overexpenditures are 0.07 percent of total budgeted appropriation.
School Fund:
General Compensation
Personnel
Instruction Administ.
LD/ER/EMR
Speech/Preschool
Enrichment
Crozet School
Murray School
Rose Hill School
Scottsville School
Stony Point School
WAHS
$20.,657,555.72 $20,774,104.04
259,476.35
1,478,459.73
128,595.00
19,000.00
30,622.00
36,985.00
27,083.20
40,436.80
46,769.30
35,773.60
260,978.00
276,320.46
1,511,764.78
147,802.83
19,611.18
30,966.63
37,298.43
28,550.66
40,878.69
48,514.52
36,229.79
293,608.81
$(116,548.32) 0.56
(16,844.11) 6.49
(33,305.05) 2.25
(19,207.83) 14.94
(611.18) 3.22
(344.63) 1.13
(313.43) 0.85
(1,467.46) 5.42
(441.89) 1.09
(1,745.22) 3.73
(456.19) 1.28
(32,630.81) 12.50
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
~Ra~e 23)
Walton School
Subtotal
37 Other Cost Centers
Total
133~205.55
$23,154,940.25
136r156.78
$23,381,807.60
(2,951.23) 2.22
$(226,867.35) 0.98
8,283~643.35
$31,438,583.60
7,781~815.86
$31,163,623.46
501~827.49 6.06
$274,960.14 0.87
Overexpenditures are 0.73 percent of total budgeted appropriation.
Other Funds:
Duplicating
Joint Security
Subtotal
$ 36,172.00
1,368~900.50
$ 1,405,072.50
$ 38,459.85
1,413~362.32
$ 1,451,822.17
$ (2,287.85) 6.32
(44,461.82) 3.25
(46,749.67) 3.33
31 Other Funds 11,484,150.17 8,932,655~31 2,551,494.86 22.22
Total $12,889,222.67 $10,384,477.48 $2,504,745.19 19.43
Overexpenditures are 0.37 percent of total budgeted appropriation.
These overexpenditures can be alleviated by:
General Fund: The transfer of unexpended appropriations from Information
Services resulting from the delayed hiring of approved personnel.
School Fund: The transfer of unexpended appropriations from various cost
centers.
Other Funds: The recognition and appropriation of revenue which exceed
budget projections.
I respectfully request your approval of the transfers and appropriations as
detailed on the attached appropriation forms."
Mr. Fisher asked if the budget was appropriated on cost centers, and Mr. Breeden an-
swered "yes". Mr. Fisher asked if this would be the last budget appropriated on cost cen-
ters, and Mr. Breeden said, "yes." Mr. Breeden stated that most of the overexpenditures were
in the school system or are salary related. He said these would have been alleviated if the
Board had acted on the transfers requested by the School Board earlier in the year.
Mr. Lindstrom said there are a couple of significant dollar amount differences. He
mentioned the balance in the Refuse Disposal category. Mr. Breeden said that there was a
reappropriation last month of basically the same amount for a project at the Ivy Landfill
that was planned this past fiscal year and was not completed and will be done this fiscal
year.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked about the category of Public Assistance - Payments. Mr.
Breeden said that basically public assistance is a self-sustaining type of activity. Revenue
is received from the state for those programs, but the revenues received did not meet the
budget projections. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the appropriated amount reflects the amount
actually received, and Mr. Breeden answered, "no."
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Breeden to briefly explain the increase in the real property tax
collections. He asked if this was for new construction. Mr. Breeden replied that most of
the increase in revenues from the local property taxes was in personal property taxes. He
said the copy of the memo that he gave the Board last month breaks down the categories, and
that the real estate tax exceeded the projections with much of that due to new construction.
Mr. Agnor said that in the personal property tax category, on a percentage basis, there was a
higher percentage increase in collections. Mr. Breeden said the real estate collection
exceeded the projections by 9.7 percent. The personal property collections exceeded the
projections by 10.8 percent.
At this point, Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve the overexpenditures as requested and
set out below. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was
called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how much revenues have exceeded expenditures over the last five
years. Mr. Agnor said the staff could put this together, and he asked if Mr. Lindstrom
wanted this information in terms of grand totals. Mr. Lindstrom answered, "Yes." Mr. Bowie
asked that it be broken down by year. Mr. Lindstrom said he does have a concern, if over a
period of time, the County has been consistently running significant surpluses.
(Note: Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 2:35 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 19. Consideration of Local Commission on Bicentennial of Constitution.
Mr. Fisher said he asked for this item to be put on the agenda because of the correspon-
dence that he has been getting. He recommended that the Board agree in concept to forming a
joint commission with the City for the celebration of the Bicentennial of the United States
Constitution. He understands from the Mayor of Charlottesville that staff members from both
the County and City are investigating the possibility of doing this and how to put together
the committee. This will not take as long to prepare for as the 1976 Bicentennial Cele-
bration, but some people feel that this is more important to the history of the country.
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Agnor said his office was contacted about three weeks ago by the Washington Office.
He learned later that the Board had also been contacted, so Mr. Agnor pulled his staff
temporarily off of the assignment. He did talk to the City Manager very briefly. Mr. Agnor
recommended that the Board ask for the designation as a Bicentennial community and that the
Commission be appointed jointly with Charlottesville. The staff would then offer support to
the Commission. Mr. Agnor brought out the fact that the state operation is stationed here at
the University of Virginia, Institute of Government.
(Note: Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting at 2:38 p.m.)
Mr. Agnor stated that he understands that there is some thought locally that the rededi-
cation of the Albemarle County Courthouse later this month could be considered as an event
tied to the beginning of the celebration of the Constitution.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if a resolution is needed to request recognition and a separate
action to establish a Commission. Mr. Agnor said the Board needs to approve in concept the
idea of the County joining this activity. The staff will put together a timetable and
sequence of events, including the formation of the Commission and recommendations for ap-
pointments.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve the concept and to request a staff report.
Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the
motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 20. Deferred Compensation Plan, Discussion of Revision to.
ing memorandum dated September 5, 1986, was received from the County Executive:
The follow-
"In 1982 the Board approved a Deferred Compensation Plan which would provide
employees a choice of voluntarily deferring the receipt of a part of their
income until retirement, or until specified emergency situations arose.
Under Federal tax laws, the deferred income can be invested in several
investment options, and the interest earned, as well as the deferred income,
is sheltered from income taxes until withdrawn from the investment vehicle,
at which time it becomes taxable. The Plan has no cost to the County, and
the administrative fees involved are paid by the users.
The approval process involved the adoption of an ordinance by the Board
.authorizing the Plan, approval of the Plan by a State Deferred Compensation
Commission created under State statutes, and approval of the Plan by the
Internal Revenue Service. That was achieved in late 1983.
The engagement of a consultant was also authorized by the Board in 1982 to
lead the staff through the regulatory approval procedures, and to develop
the investment vehicles. The investment markets began to disintegrate by
the time the regulatory procedures were completed, and several problems
arose. 1) The Plan was intended to serve elected officials and employees of
General Government, the School System, and the Service Authority. Regula-
tory requirements ruled that the Service Authority was a separate distinct
agency, and would need its own Plan. 2) The School Board voted not to
participate because they did not see the Plan as a particular advantage for
school employees who are eligible for annuities, which have some similar
characteristics to deferred compensation programs. The net base of employee
participants was diminished by that decision to a potential of smaller
amounts of investment funds being available, and therefore not being attrac-
tive to potential bidders interested in providing investment plans. The
fees available to the consultant, which were controlled by the amount of
investment funds being handled, were also affected by that decision.
Staff examined several alternatives to the problems, one of which was to
join a plan administered by the National Association of Counties for member
counties. At the time NACO was having financial difficulties, although that
had no direct effect on their Deferred Compensation contract with an admin-
istrative agency entitled Public Employees Benefits Services Corporation,
who administers the NACO plan. More importantly, NACO had not received
approval of their Plan at that time by the Virginia Deferred Compensation
Commission. Due to the shadow of financial difficulties and the need for
approval by the Virginia Commission, as well as my illness and the resulting
shift of work loads and project priorities, staff chose to place the
Deferred Compensation Plan on a low priority, and it was shelved for awhile.
The administrators of the NACO plan have been in continual contact, offering
their Plan. As you know, the NACO financial problems have been addressed
and NACO continues as an active organization. Approval by the State of the
NACO plan has been granted, and staff now wishes to proceed with implementa-
tion of the plan for General Government employees and elected officials.
Additionally, staff has waited to determine the effect, if any, of the
Federal Tax Reform Act on deferred compensation plans, and there are no
changes, and therefore no effects.
To proceed, it is recommended that we join the NACO plan. A recent statis-
tic on that plan indicates nationally 1400 participating counties, 200,000
participants, $1.2 billion invested, and 11 investment options available to
participants. The number of Albemarle participants, or the amount of funds
paid into the Plan from Albemarle employees, is not a factor. The shift
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
from the earlier approved plan to the NACO plan will require some procedures
which the staff does not plan to initiate without your endorsement in
principle of the change.
If you endorse the change, a revised ordinance will be drafted, presented to
you for review, and then sent to the State Deferred Compensation Commission,
and the Internal Revenue Service. This revised ordinance would rescind the
earlier ordinance and reestablish the County Plan, creating its relation-
ships with the NACO plan. If approved by the State and Federal agency, it
will be advertised for adoption by the Board. Additionally, the County's
agreement with the consultant to develop our Plan will be terminated.
Joining the already established NACO plan eliminates the need for the
services of a consultant.
Your endorsement of the change in principle is requested."
Mr. Bowie asked if this plan has been studied relative to the proposed revisions in the
tax laws. Mr. Agnor said the tax laws enhance the plan by allowing it to be more portable
across state lines. He said it is one of the few tax sheltered plans that has not been
touched.
Mr. Fisher stated that Mr. Agnor's memo gives the impression that NACO actually operates
the plan through its organization. He said that PEBSCO is a private organization that is
endorsed by NACO. It is recommended to NACO member counties, and PEBSCO pays a commission to
NACO for those recommendations. Mr. Agnor said he was not aware of that. Mr. Fisher com-
mented that he has been trying to get an audit of PEBSCO's profits but so far he has not been
successful. He has no reason to assume that anything is wrong with it. Many counties have
joined the plan, but he did not want the Board to get the impression that NACO controlled or
operated this plan. Mr. Agnor said he didn't mean to leave that impression, but it is
advertised as the NACO plan, and the PEBSCO people offer administrative services. He said he
indicated that his staff was concerned about the contractual relationship because his staff
is unsure of the relationship and also because of NACO's financial difficulties.
Mr. Fisher replied that he thinks it is perceived by the people at NACO as being good to
have a standard corporation because so many government employees do move around, and they are
allowed to stay in the same compensation plan from one locality to another. He said, how-
ever, there are probably other plans just as good. Mr. Agnor said the NACO plan has a much
broader variety of investment opportunities than even the state's deferred compensation plan.
The staff looked at both, but beyond that there were no more offers because of the small
number of people involved.
Mr. Fisher asked if this is strictly voluntary for employees, and Mr. Agnor said that is
correct. He said this was built into the payroll computer system, so there is nothing that
has to be done, except for holding employee meetings. He said there are no fees that the
County has to pay and there would be no cost as far as handling the flow of money. The
payroll system would withhold it from the individuals' paychecks and pass it to PEBSCO for
investment.
Mr. Bowie said if the Board wants to go with a plan such as this, he doesn't mind
proceeding, but he would like to know who else offers this sort of thing, particularly since
there has not been an audit with PEBSCO. Mr. Agnor said he did not know the details of an
audit, but he knows that the company has given his staff a lot of financial information. He
understands that any participant can ask for an audit.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks this plan is fine, but he thinks that NACO has a responsibili-
ty to know what is happening. He, as a member of NACO's Board of Directors, doesn't have a
very good feel for this. Mr. Agnor said that 1400 counties have already signed up and it is
only a few years old. Mr. Fisher commented that there are only 2100 NACO counties. He
thinks that the Board should go forward with the recommendations. He would like to make it
available to employees, because they will probably have more options for their funds to be
invested this way than any other.
Mr. Agnor stated that the former plan was able to offer only three options; this plan
will offer eleven options.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to accept the recommendation of the County Executive.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the
motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 21. County/City Park, Report from Joint Committee on Naming of.
Mr. Fisher reported that he and Mrs. Cooke have been sitting in on a number of meetings
on the question of the joint park development. The committee considered approximately 20
names submitted by the City and County recreational staffs, and through a process of elimina-
tion took out many of them. The Committee thought that a simple name that the community
could identify with Would be best. There should be a sign at the entrance saying that this
is a joint project between the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Two names came
to the top, and the Prevailing reason for favoring Riverside was that it was the historic
name of that farm. Rivanna was the other name considered since the Rivanna River runs a long
way through the County. He said he has received today a letter addressed to the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors from the Clerk of the Council. He read the letter which stated that the
Council unanimously recommended that the new City/County park be named Riverside Park, with
the second choice being Rivanna River Park.
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Bowie said he understood that should Riverside be selected as the name, the City
Council would change the name of its Riverview Cemetery to eliminate confusion. Mr. Fisher
said the Council had agreed to do that.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had gotten a call, and the person made one good point. That is
that a lot of communities have a "Riverside" park but few communities have a Rivanna River.
He thinks it unlikely that the ~City and County will have another park on the Rivanna River.
Mrs. Cooke clarified what Mr. Bowie and Mr. Fisher had stated concerning renaming
Riverview Park to eliminate confusion, if Riverside is picked for the new City/County Park.
Mr. Bowie stated that he had heard one comment that the name should include the word
Rivanna. He said that Riverbend had come up because of the shopping center and Pantops. He
said the name Riverside never came up, and he does not think it has any meaning.
Mrs. Cooke said she had received quite a few comments in support of having Rivanna in
the name. She thinks the Board may have to give more thought to this before it officially
accepts anything. Mr. Fisher said that some people had suggested that it be called Rivanna
Park.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to suggest to the City that the park be named just
"Rivanna Park". Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion was carried
with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Agnor asked if October 15 at 3:30 P.M. would be a good time to schedule a meeting
with the School Board. Mr. Fisher said this time is fine.
Mr. Bowie said that at the last meeting of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission it was suggested that the size of the Commission be changed. The general vote was
not to change the size. However, during discussion, it was brought out that there is very
little reason for Albemarle County to have four members. He said that half of this Board is
on that Commission. The motion was that at the next meeting, which will be on October 2,
1986, the various appointees of the various Counties will come back and state their position
on the composition from those counties. This Board needs to make a recommendation. Mr.
Bowie suggested that there are too many Albemarle County members on the Commission. He would
like to make sure this is on the agenda for discussionnext~,~rr~.~i~,FFweek.
Mr. Fisher asked if it is required that a majority of members be ~le~/~ic~]~
Bowie said that is correct but that is commission-wide. Mr. Fisher ask~f th~-~'co~ ~
~ __~__~ ........ · . . ~ha as ar as the
.hooSe two Board members and two citizen members. Mr Lindstrom stated hat f
~Co ............ = abzlzty to protect ztself, the ultzmate protectzon zs tha~~r votes on
~-~c. He thinks the Commission felt that there was some benefit of having every jurisdic-
tion on the same footing in terms of the number of participants, and that would be two from
Albemarle County. He feels that the Board should consider dropping two, whether or not it
would be Board members or citizen members.
Mr. Fisher said he thought representation to the Commission should be based on popula-
tion. Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Bowie disagreed with Mr. Fisher's statement. Mr. Bowie said the
other protection was the complete rewriting of the state law. The Commission cannot do
anything unless requested by a board of supervisors or city council. If the Commission does
decide to do something, the council or board may reject it. When the Commission was started,
none of these provisions were there. He brought out the fact that now it doesn't make any
difference how many people are on the Commission from a district. The Commission cannot do
anything without being authorized.
Mr. Fisher said that during the original membership, the folks from the rural counties
considered Albemarle an urban jurisdiction. The rural counties said they wanted equal voting
rights, and did not want to be swamped by urban communities. Mr. Bowie commented, again,
that this does not make any difference now, because the power is vested back to the boards
and councils.
Mrs. Cooke said she mentioned earlier that she wants to be replaced on the Metropolitan
Planning Organization due to the increased demand on her time by her business. She would
like for this Board to consider replacing her. She believes it is necessary to do this
today. Mr. Lindstrom said that he feels it would be beneficial to have Mr. Way on the MPC,
but he is already on the JAUNT Board. Mr. Way answered that he is primarily involved with
urban roads, but his area still has more gravel roads than anything else. Mrs. Cooke said
that other than time constraints, she thinks it beSt to have different representation after
so long a time. Mr. Fisher suggested that this be put on the agenda for next week.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had read pages five through nineteen of the December 4 minutes,
and there were only a couple of minor corrections. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve
the minutes for December 4, 1985, pages 5 - 19, with minor corrections. Mr. Way seconded the
motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
September 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
~_ge 27~
Miss Neher commented that this is the last meeting for Mrs. Yvonne Vess, Deputy Clerk,
because she has transferred to another department in the building. Mr. Fisher thanked Yvonne
for all she had done, and said the Board would miss her.
Mr. Agnor announced that there were cars parked at the back door to go to Court-SqUare
for the tour. Mr. Bowie commented that he has to depart for Northern Virginia at this time,
but he would like to take the tour some other time.
Agenda Item No. 23.
adjourned at 3:14 P.M.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
:~~C~IRMAN