HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-07June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
000028
A regular meeting of' the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle CoUnty,
Virginia, was held on June 7, 1995, at 9:00 A.M., Room 7, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 A.M., by the
Chairman, Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC.
Mrs. Elizabeth Petofi came forward to make several requests concerning
the County's Priddy Creek property. She asked that the parcel be surveyed
while there are still people who can show where some of the boundary markers
are located. In addition, Greene County has granted approval for a subdivi-
sion of 240 houses in the area, and there is to be another subdivision with a
sewage treatment plant near Priddy Creek. Mrs. Petofi said her original
intent was to get to her land, but when she saw all the problems with Priddy
Creek, she decided to bring those to the Board's attention.
Mr. Joseph Harding appeared to say that he has been trying to organize
a farmer's market in Crozet. The Methodist Church at Jarman's Gap Road and
Route 240 has agreed that their graveled parking lot can be used for such a
purpose, while the paved parking lot can be used for motor traffic. Fifteen
spaces, non flea market atmosphere, are proposed for a market to be open from
7:00 a.m. until noon. He has been told this is not a permitted use in the
Zoning Ordinance and would like to ask for an administrative waiver.
Mr. Davis said the initial opinion of the Zoning Administrator is that
this is not a permitted use, and there is no provision for an administrative
waiver in Virginia. He suggests the Board authorize a zoning text amendment
that specifies what Mr. Harding wants to be permitted. If it is a farmer's
market only, that should be specified because it could open the door to things
such as flea markets. The Board needs to be careful not to open the door too
widely.
Mr. Bowerman asked how fast can this be done since it is already the
growing season. Mr. Davis said probably six weeks, depending on deadlines for
advertising, etc. Mr. Tucker said staff can move this request forward as fast
as possible if that is the Board's desire. Mr. Davis said it would require a
resolution of intent which could be placed on the Board's agenda next week,
and in the meantime paperwork can begin.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.9 on the
consent agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. (Comments
made on each item are included along with that item.) Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Item 5.la. Appropriation: Commonwealth Attorney's Office, $15,670 -
(Form #940052).
It was noted that several issues have occurred in the Commonwealth
Attorney's office during FY 1994-95 that will require additional funding: 1)
State Compensation Board approved salary upgrades for the staff to make the
salaries comparable to public defender offices throughout the State effective
January 1, 1995; 2) The Board of Supervisors and the State Compensation Board
approved a $7000 annual increase for the Assistant effective January 1, 1995;
and 3) Payment of $7200 in overtime from 1993 through 1995 to comply with the
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
NUMBER: 94005~ ~
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-~95
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL SALARY EXPENSE
IN THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1100022010110000
1100022010120000
1100022010210000
1100022010221000
1100022010231000
1100022010232000
1100022010241000
DESCRIPTION
SALARIES
SALARIES-OVERTIME
FICA
VRS
HEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
VRS LIFE INSURANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$13,750o00
6,690.00
(70O.0O)
1,720.00
(4,600.00)
(120.00)
(1,070.00)
$15,670.00
REVENUE
2100051000510100
DESCRIPTION
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$15,670.00
$15,670o00
Item 5.lb. Appropriation: Miscellaneous Expenses - Educations
$5,826.46 - (Form #940062).
It was noted that the School Board approved the following grants for FY
1994-95 at its meeting on May 8, 1995:
1)
2)
3)
Reappropriation of the remaining Fund Balance for the Teacher
Incentive Grant awarded to Western Albemarle High School. The
grant had a Fund Balance of $76.46 at the end of FY 1993-94.
Stony Point Elementary School received a Gardening for Nature
Grant from the Department of Natural Resources, Virginia Museum of
Natural History, in the amount of $150. This project for grades
K-5 is designed to demonstrate the mutual and symbiotic relation-
ships that plants have with animals, natural environmental ele-
ments and people.
A Teacher Incentive Grant for Meriwether Lewis Elementary School
from the Virginia Commission for the Arts in the amount of
$600. This program was established to help strengthen the quality
of arts education in the schools and encourage innovative projects
which integrate the arts into the basic curriculum.
4)
A grant from the Environmental Protection Agency for Hollymead
Elementary School in the amount of $5000. This "Outdoor Class-
room" is to provide a hands-on setting for environmental study
with emphasis on habitat renewal, ecology and organic gardening.
(By the recorded vote set about above, the following resolution of
appropriation was approved.)
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
NUMBER: 940062
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING AND APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 94-95
SCHOOL GRANTS
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1310460302601300 VEA NUBU-GRANT--EDUC/REC SUPPLIES $76.46
1310460211600000 NATURE GRANT--MISC SUPPLIES 150.00
1310460206312500 TEACHER INCENTIVE GRANT--PROF SERVICE 600.00
1310460205600000 ENVIRONMENTAL GRANT--MISC SUPPLIES (5,000.00)
TOTAL $5,826.46
REVENUE
2310451000510100
2310424000240710
2310424000240280
2310424000330113
DESCRIPTION
VEA MINI-GRANT FUND BALANCE
GARDENING FOR NATURE GRANT
TEACHER INCENTIVE GRANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUC GRANT
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$76.46
150.00
600.00
5,000.00
$5~826o46
Item 5.1c. Appropriation: Street Sign Maintenance, $8640 - (Form
~940063).
It was noted that the County Engineering staff maintains the road signs
installed in connection with the E-911 system. The FY 1994-95 budget used the
best estimates for this item at the time that budget was drafted. Now~ it
appears that an additional $8640 will be needed to fund this operation through
June 30, 1995. The actual cost of road sign purchases will exceed the
budgeted amount of $25,515 by $4600. Also, salaries will exceed projections
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3 ) ~O000~O
due to the transfer of ~n ~x~ ~ou~ployee' whose salary was higher
than anticipated f~a ~i~~il ~ ~i~ion. (Mr. Bowerman said
since these signs were n~ssitated bY ~h~'E-911 System, why not use E-911
funds for this purpose. Mr. Tucker said that is the source of the revenue.)
(By the recorded vote set about above, the following resolution of
appropriation was approved.)
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
NUMBER: 940063
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1100041021110000
1100041021210000
1100041021221000
1100041021332300
REVENUE
2100019000190211
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR STREET SIGN
MAINTENANCE
DESCRIPTION
SALARIES-REGULAR
FICA
VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM
REPLACE & INSTALL STREET SIGNS
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$3,610.00
100.00
330.00
4,600.00
$8,640.00
(2)
(1)
Item 5.3. Resolution to accept streets in Briarwood Subdivision 3 & 7
into the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request of the County
Engineering Department, the following resolution was adopted by the vote set
out above.
RE SOLUT I ON
WHEREAS, the streets in Briarwood Subdivision 3 & 7 de-
scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated June 7, 1995,
fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats record-
ed in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of TransPortation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Briarwood Subdivision 3 & 7 as de-
scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated June 7, 1995,
to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229,
Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Require-
ments; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease-
ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportat ion.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
Oriole Court from the edge of pavement of State Route
1575, 198 lineal feet to the end of the cul-de-sac
with a forty (40) foot right-of-way as shown on plat
recorded 6-30-93 in the office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court in Deed Book 1321, pages 562-565, length
0.04 mile.
Finch Court from the edge of pavement of State Route
1576, 388 lineal feet to the edge of the cul-de-sac
with a forty (40) foot right-of-way as shown on plat
recorded 7-25-90 in the office of the Clerk of the
Item 5.2. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance,
Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for
the month of April, 1995. APPROVED as presented by the recorded vote set out
above.
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
INSPECTIONS-E911 $8,640.00
TOTAL $8,640.00
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
0000 3
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the road in River Heights Subdivision as described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated June 7, 1995, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease-
ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1)
Hilton Heights Road from the edge of pavement of U.S.
29, 446 lineal feet to the center of Wal-Mart/Sam's
entrances, with a 100 foot right of way as shown on
plat recorded 5-19-83 in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court in Deed Book 763, pages 602-603.
Additional right of way and easements are shown in
Deed Book 1133, pages 678-679, Deed Book 1174~ pages
343-344, and Deed Book 1470, pages 499-500.
Total mileage - 0.08 mile.
Item 5.10. Letter dated May 22, 1995, from Mrs. A. G. Tucker, Resident
Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Mrs. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, forward-
ing the monthly update on highway improvement projects currently under
construction, received for information as follows:
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
ALBENARLE COUNTY
dONE 1, 1995
ROUTE ESTIMATED
NO. LOCATION STATUS COMP. DATE
29 From Hydraulic Rd (Rt 743) Construction 75% CompLete Dec 95
To N of Rfo Rd (Rt 631)
240 Rt 240 Bridge RepLacement Constructfon 10% CompLete Dec 95
Near Iht Rt 250
1-64 Bridge Repair - Various Locations Construction 65% Complete Sep 95
Item 5.11. Copy of Final Estimated Secondary Construction and Unpaved
Roads Allocation for FY 1995-96 for all jurisdictions in the State Secondary
System of Highways, received for information.
Item 5.12. Copy of Tentative construction fund allocations for fiscal
year 1995-96 for the Interstate, Primary, and Urban Highway Systems, as well
as Public Transit, Ports, and Airports, including an update of the Six-Year
Improvement Program through 2000-01, was received as information along with
letter dated May 25, 1995, from Mr. David R. Gehr, Commissioner, Department of
Transportation. Mr. Gehr noted that with the passage of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, several program
categories are necessary. In the document there will be separate programs for
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program intended
to relieve congestion and improve air quality in the Northern Virginia, Fred-
ericksburg, Richmond and Hampton Roads areas; and Enhancement Program for
projects that are over and above normal highway improvements; and a Safety
Program for reducing transportation hazards.
Mrs. Humphris noted that Phase II of the Meadow Creek Parkway project
has been pushed back a year with diminished funding. She asked staff to
determine how the Board will be kept informed when changes are made to County
projects in the plan.
Mrs. Humphris said she wants time scheduled on the day agenda in July to
bring information about the State-Wide Highway Plan to the Board. She spoke
to Ms. Hannah Twaddell, of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission,
and asked Ms. Twaddle how the Board is suppose to know when the County's road
programs change, the rationale for the change, and the implications for such
change. She said Ms. Twaddell does not have the time to review every road
project each time a report is sent out. Mr. Tucker said staff might have to
ask Ms. Angela Tucker to do this because unless someone goes through the plan
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Me~ng) .
(Page 7)
and compares it to~t~
Mrs. Humphris said
changes occur.
hard to keep track of changes.
Y needs to know when these
Mrs. Thomas also noted that the University Connector Road is not pushed
back, but is shown in the plan as a connector to the Alternative 10 Bypass
instead of the Route 250 Bypass. However, it is still listed as a connector
to the 250 Bypass. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) took action in
some areas, but not in the one area where it would be justified to push
something back. The Board's comments are invited on the plan. Mr. Tucker
said the Board has two meetings between now and June 22. Staff will make
comparisons and will bring back changes to the Board with recommendations.
This plan shows the changes, but not the reasons.
Item 5.13. Letter dated May 11, 1995, from Mr. Robert E. Martinez,
Secretary of Transportation, to Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, regarding the
Meadow Creek Parkway, received for information, as follows:
"Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Meadow Creek
Parkway.
As you are aware, a presentation was made to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board (CTB) at its April 18 workshop. The Board
currently is studying your request to place the Meadow Creek
Parkway into the primary system.
The information you have presented regarding the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors' position will be shared with the CTB as the
decision on your request is evaluated."
Item 5.14. Letter dated May 11, 1995, from Mr. James S. Givens, State
Secondary Roads Engineer, Department of Transportation, providing notice that
VDOT will offer citizens and counties the opportunity of updating Six Year
Construction plans on an annual basis beginning in October, 1995, received for
information.
Item 5.15. Letter dated May 17, 1995, from Mr. J. H. Shifflett~ Jr.~
Maintenance Operations Manager, Department of Transportation, to Mrs. Ella W.
Carey, Clerk, stating that Route 626 between Route 6 and Route 20 near
Scottsville will be closed to through traffic for about two weeks beginning
Monday, May 22, 1995, to allow VDOT to perform necessary maintenance work on
the bridge that crosses Totier Creek, received for information.
Item 5.16. Accessory Apartment Permit Activity Report prepared by the
Zoning Department summarizing all permits that were issued since its inception
on August 10, 1994, received for information.
Mrs. Humphris asked for an explanation of the initials used in the
report; neither she nor other persons know what they mean. She also asked
where the Health Department's approval for a septic system fits into Criteria
I.
Item 5.17. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for May 2, May 9 and May
16, 1995, received as information.
Item 5.18. Letter dated May 2, 1995, from Ms. Julie L. Vosmik, Direc-
tor, Division of Survey and Register, Department of Historic Resources, to Mr.
Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, providing notice that the Board of Historic
Resources has placed Malvern, Albemarle County, on the Virginia Landmarks
Register and forwarded the nomination report to the National Park Service for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, received for informa-
tion.
Item 5.19. Copy of letter dated May 8, 1995, from the Department of
Education to Dr. Kevin C. Castner, Superintendent, School Division, providing
notice that an application for support under Chapter 1 of Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, for school Year 1994-95 has
been approved in the amount of $30,000 (State Project No. 002-95-2), received
for information.
Item 5.20. Letter dated May 23, 1995, from Mr. Rob R. Blackmore, Deputy
Director, Department of Housing and Community Development, to Mr. Walter F.
Perkins, Chairman, providing notice that the County's Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) proposal in the 1995 competition was not funded, received
for information.
Item 5.21. Memorandum dated May 26, 1995, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., re: Chris Greene Lake - Safe Yield Evaluation, received for information.
oooo $
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
The report indica~tha~ C~i~ ~r~ Lake would only require a draw-
down of five feet in order to proVide the maximum capacity of the water
treatment plant at the North Fork Rivanna River. By providing this additional
in-stream flow for this treatment plant, the'need for the Buck Mountain
Reservoir could be delayed approximately seven years. The Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority (RWSA) has asked that a new time line be developed for its
review which takes into account this delay as well as a projection as to how
often the draw-down may be necessary. Staff has been told verbally by the
State Health Department that neither swimming nor recreational uses of the
Lake would have to be curtained. This is due to the fact that the intake of
water will remain downstream on the North Fork Rivanna River rather than at
the dam of the lake. RWSA staff is requesting this opinion in writing.
Impact to the beach area at Chris Greene Lake may require extending the sandy
beach area to accommodate lake users when a draw-down occurs.
Mrs. Humphris noted the figure used by Black & Veatch, in its report for
RWSA, as the existing safe yield is 800,000 gallons per day and not the 1.0
million shown in the letter. Mr. TuCker said he will verify the number.
Item 5.22. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) Bond
Program Report and Monthly Report for the month of April, 1995, received for
information.
Item 5.23. Notice of application filed by Commonwealth Gas Services,
Inc., with the State Corporation Commission for a general increase in natural
gas rates, received for information.
Item 5.24. Copy of the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo's) Board
of Directors minutes for April 29, 1995, received as information.
Item 5.25. Copy of letter dated May 18, 1995, from Ms. Amelia Ge
McCulley, Zoning Administrator, to Mr. Ronald W. Harvey & Company, re:
Official Determination of N~ber of Parcels - Section 10.3.1, Tax Map 117,
Parcel SA, received as information.
Item 5.26. Copy of letter dated May 18, 1995, from Ms. Amelia G.
McCulley, Zoning Administrator, to Mr. Ronald W. Harvey & Company, re:
Official Determination of Number of Parcels - section 10.3.1, Tax Map 108,
Parcels 3, 4, 11 and 12, received as information.
Item 5.27. Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expendi-
tures for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1994, prepared pursuant to Section
15.1-166 of the Code of Virginia, by the AUditor of Public Accounts, received
for information.
Item 5.28. Report on Audit for the year ended June 30, 1994, for Mrs.
Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk, Circuit Court, of the County of Albemarle, received
as information.
Item 5.29. Acme Design Technology Company's Report of Operating Results
for March, 1995 and April, 1995, received as information.
Item 5.30. April, 1995 Financial Management Report, received as
information°
Mrs. Thomas asked why expenses appear to be $3.0 million above revenues.
Mr. Tucker said it is a cash flow issue and it will all balance out before the
end of the fiscal year. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is an update on the
carry-over balance. Mr. Tucker said not at this time.
Item 5.31. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority for April 24 and May 1, 1995, received as informa-
tion.
Item 5.32. Update on status and operation of Albemarle County's Voice
Mail Suggestion Phone Line, received as.information.
It was noted that the County established this phone line in April, 1995,
to coincide with National County Government Week. The line has been adver-
tised through several County publications including the FYI newsletter and
through the general media. To date, 28 calls have been received of which 13
callers were interested in receiving a response to their comment/suggestion.
As anticipated when the line went into operation, the frequency of use is
directly related to how aggressively it is advertised.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
000036
Item 5.33. A rep6~ii~~ i~~M~acans to Monticello and
Beyond: Prehistoric and HistOric COntexts for Albemarle County, Virginia,
May, 1995" as prepared by Garrow & Associates, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina,
and submitted to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond,
Virginia, received as information.
Staff noted that in 1993, the Department of Planning and Community
Development made a proposal to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources
to enter into a cost-share agreement to have this report (Phase I) completed
for the County. Phase II is to have new surveys completed and the context
report completed for twelve villages. That work is currently in progress.
This report will provide essential background information for the new Historic
Preservation Committee in its work.
Item 5.34. Revised schedule for review of the Comprehensive Plan,
received as information.
The work on the Land Use Plan with the Planning Commission has not
progressed as originally anticipated. It is expected that the Commission will
complete its review of the Land Use portion of the Plan in October, 1995. It
is still anticipated that the revised Land Use Plan will be forwarded to the
Board in time for review and approval in December, 1995.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: March 15(A), April 12, April
19, May 3 and May 10, 1995.
Mrs. Humphris had read May 3, 1995, pages 1 - 12, and handed the Clerk
some typographical errors to be corrected.
Mr. Bowerman had read March 15, 1995 (afternoon) and found them to be in
order except for a typographical error.
Mr. Perkins had read April 12, 1995, and found them to be in order.
Mrs. Thomas had read May 3, 1995, pages 13 to the end, and found them to
be in order, with typographical errors.
Motio~ was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
approve the minutes which had been read. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Proposed
truck traffic restriction on Route 231/22.
Mr. Tucker said that at the last Board meeting, Routes 22 and 231 were
discussed regarding through truck traffic in the corridor. The Virginia
Department of Transportation (Vdot) deferred to Mrs. Angela Tucker, Resident
Engineer, an opportunity to review through truck traffic and to develop
criteria that would be necessary for the Board, if they chose, to move forward
with any type of restrictions, or limitations, on truck traffic along the
corridor. Mr. Tucker noted that Mr. Martin was ill and could not attend
today's meeting. He said Mr. Martin indicated that he would be supportive in
moving forward with reviewing limitations.
Mrs. Tucker presented an outline to the Board explaining the procedure
for restricting through truck traffic. The outline was developed to simplify
formal procedures for through truck restriction on secondary routes, which is
the only formal procedure that VDoT has in place. She has been informed,
through the Richmond office, that this procedure is followed when reviewing
primary routes as well. Although VDoT has never approved any primary routes
for restriction to through traffic, there have been several reviewed through
this general procedure. She has been advised to accept any action or resolu-
tion that the Board approves.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the prohibition of trucks on Route 66, in the
Washington area, is considered part of the primary system. Mrs. Tucker
responded that it is in the primary system. She said there was a section of
Route 17, in Fauquier County, that had a through truck restriction due to an
accident history along the corridor until it was upgraded to a four lane
divided facility, then the restriction was lifted. In cases where there is a
severe accident history, there is a need to pull these trucks off the routes~
The only study conducted between May and June, 1995, was to gather the
percentage of trucks on Route 22 and 231. Between this time frame, the
percentage had dropped slightly but not significantly enough. In 1994, the
percent of truck traffic of total daily vehicle volume was 4.95° However, the
most recent count indicates a drop to 3.63 percent as truck traffic°
Mrs. Humphris said the numbers need to be changed. There is a differ-
ence in saying four percent or 3.63 percent and not reflecting the actual
number of trucks that it means. She said, for example, 4.95 percent amounted
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
000037
to
350
calculated.
Mrs. Tucker said a public hearing needs to be held by the Board on this
issue. She said this meeting would suffice as a public hearing if the Board
chose it to be. Also needed from the Board is a notice of this public
hearing, a description of the restriction, a transcript and a copy of an
adopted resolution. After this is completed and forwarded to her, the rest of
the procedure will be handled by VDoT to review general criteria, including an
origin destination study.
Mr. Marshall said when VDoT reviews the number of accidents on Routes
22/231, truck involvement needs to be calculated. Mrs. Tucker responded that
this will be reviewed.
Mrs. Humphris asked about night traffic in the study. Mrs. Tucker
responded that the latest percentage came from a 24 hour count.
Mr. Marshall asked if someone sits in a car and counts trucks. Mrs°
Tucker responded that a loop detector monitors the number of axles passed over
the tubes that are in strategic locations along Routes 22/231. There will be
technicians in the field working on the origin destination study and the
actual assessment of roadway characteristics, which include residences. Most
of this, however, will be captured by computer.
Mrs. Thomas said she is not pleased with this meeting counting as a
public hearing. She asked if another public hearing would be held at a later
date. Mrs. Tucker replied "yes." Another public hearing will be scheduled
that focuses on receiving input from citizens and the trucking industry. The
public hearing will occur as a VDoT action after the studies are finalized.
All comments and actual data are then reviewed and developed into a report and
sent to the traffic engineer in Richmond, who either approves or denies the
report and then forwards it to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) for
final approval.
Mrs. Humphris said Senator Ed Robb, Delegate Peter Way and Delegate
Mitch Van Yahres are supporting this action.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adopt a
resolution supporting the restriction of through truck traffic on Routes
231/22 in accordance with §46.1-171.2 of the Code of Virginia. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Adopted resolution set out below:)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, received a request from a group of
citizens/residents along Routes 231/22 to consider restricting
through tractor-trailer traffic on these routes as a means to
address various traffic concerns:
The rural character of Routes 231/22 consists of blind
curves, hills, narrow pavements with no shoulders and
a steady stream of local commuting traffic,
The area served by Routes 231/22 is an agricultural
community, and slow moving farm vehicles and machinery
use the road frequently;
Routes 231/22 is designated a Virginia Byway, a scenic
road meant to attract tourists and provide a safe,
pleasant driving experience. Earlier this year Scenic
America listed Route 231 at the top of its list of the
Ten Most Scenic Roads in America. This list places
Route 231 in the company of the most spectacular
scenic roads from across the country, an honor which
is not enhanced by the volume and type of tractor-
truck traffic it is now experiencing; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on June 7, 1995~ to
receive comments from citizens on this request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby requests the
Commonwealth Transportation Board to restrict through tractor-
trailer traffic on Routes 231/22 in accordance with Section 45.1-
171.2 of the Code of Virginia; and
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000028
(Page 11)
with U. $. Route 250, to Route 22 is a reasonable alternative
route to tractor-trailers now traveling Routes 231/22.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters.
Mrs. Humphris noted that on May 3, 1995, the Board adopted a resolution
concerning the Meadow Creek Parkway and she understands that the CTB will vote
on it in about two weeks from now. She believes the County needs to muster
all the support it can in the short period of time it will be allowed to
appear on that agenda. The CTB staff report shows no indication of the
support given to this project at the hearing in Culpeper. She feels that the
Chairman should attend the CTB meeting to make this important statement as
well as the County's three representatives from the Chamber of Commerce and
Mayor David Toscano. She also mentioned a figure of $72.0 million which she
thinks is erroneous for the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Tucker said staff is
meeting with the consultant who provided that figure because they also believe
it is wrong.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to ask
staff to investigate all necessary arrangements for a County presentation at
the CTB meeting where a decision will be made to include the Meadow Creek
Parkway for Primary road funding, and to try to gather a complete delegation
to include the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor of the City of
Charlottesville, the three General Assembly representatives, members of the
Chamber of Commerce and any other interested parties, including the University
of Virginia, if they wish to be involved. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Marshall said he wants the County to apply for Industrial Access
Funds or Recreational Access Funds for the entrance at the new high school.
Mr. Tucker said Recreational Access Funds are available, but the County is not
far enough along in the planning process to know what sort of recreational
uses will be used on the property. The roadway must be for recreational use
only. Mr. Marshall asked if the school athletic fields would qualify for
Recreational Access Funds. Mr. Tucker said "no." It has to be a community-
oriented function. If the use is specifically for park use, then it may be
allowed. Because of the multiple uses the Board is contemplating and the fact
that this is a roadway that will be a connector road for many uses, very
little encouragement was given. Mr. Marshall then asked about Industrial
Access Funds and if these funds would apply. Mr. Tucker said no, an industry
must be directly served by this road.
Mrs. Thomas thanked Mrs. Angela Tucker for the road improvements that
have been made in Ivy. She mentioned that one family is unhappy because their
driveway is located behind a stop sign. Mrs. Tucker said this situation will
be monitored.
Mrs. Thomas asked if there was any creative signage the Highway Depart-
ment could use to get truck traffic to use Tilman Road. Mrs. Tucker said the
situation will be closely monitored as to the accident history along this
road. There have been reports of trucks missing the alternate truck route
signs and taking Route 637 instead. This is being assessed as to how to
improve the situation. . .....
Mrs. Tucker noted that the next section of the Route 29 road project is
ready to begin by the end of June for utility relocation. This is the section
that begins at the entrance of Albemarle Square to north of the Rivanna River.
The completion date for this project is scheduled for May 2, 1997~ although
the contractor hopes to have it completed by the winter of 1996. The current
Route 29 project is on schedule, but the contractor has been asked to hold the
final one-and-one-half inch asphalt surface treatment until the spring of
1996, so it will have a better surface between the finished parts. Through
traffic will not be affected.
Mrs. Tucker said VDoT is concerned about funding for the portion of the
Meadow Creek Parkway which is in the Secondary Road Plan. Minimal funding
will begin in Fiscal Year 1997-98, but with a price tag of $72.0 million, it
will delay the Six Year Plan for several years. She said with an annual
allocation of $3.5 million, it will take almost 20 years to built the Meadow
Creek Parkway.
Mr. Bowerman asked if traffic will be transferred back to the southbound
lane on Route 29 as sections are done. Mrs. Tucker replied "yes." This is
scheduled for the first week in July. The area affected will be the area from
Berkmar Drive to Westfield Road. Mr. Bowerman asked if the next transition
will include the entire section of Westfield Road to Hydraulic Road. Mrs.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
00.0039
Tucker said "yes." overlapping of phases to
give the contractor more room to do massive grading. The intersection at
Hydraulic Road will be the final phase and will not require a major detour.
Agenda Item No. 8. Wayside Stand Zoning Text Amendment - Request to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit sale of merchandise directly related and
accessory to agricultural or horticultural produce.
Mr. Cilimberg said a wayside stand is currently permitted by right in
the Rural Areas district with supplementary regulations to address its size
(600 square feet), its setback (35 feet), requirements of a preliminary site
plan approved by the Director of Planning, and a commercial entrance. A
wayside stand is currently defined as "Any structure or land used for the sale
of agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise produced by the owner
or his family on their farm." A Zoning Text Amendment would be required
before "sale of items not produced on the farm" would be permitted.
The highest priority in the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve agricul-
tural and forestal activities in the Rural Areas. In 1993, an Agricultural
and Forestal Industrial Support Committee was appointed by the Board of
Supervisors to report on ways to support and promote agriculture and forestry.
One of the committee's recommendations was to "Develop marketing strategies
for all agricultural/forestal products", and it included several pertinent
strategies such as "pick-your-own operations", direct marketing, farms retail-
ing to the public, and farms for tourists to visit. At this time, Board
action would be to adopt a resolution of intent to amend "wayside stand" in
the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Perkins said he spoke to Scott Peyton, the person making this
request. Mr. Peyton suggested that the third line of the proposed resolution
read merchandise not produced on the premises "but directly related and
accessory to agricultural or horticultural which is grown by the owner of his
family on their farm." Mrs. Humphris asked that this be further explained°
Mr. Perkins said it would be things like mulch, potting soil, pots and related
products. It would be something related to producing, but it does not have to
be produced on the farm, such as canning jars.
Mrs. Humphris said, at first glance, she thought that this was a good
idea. The promotion of agriculture, the people making a living by agriculture
and keeping the farm is a necessity. However, this project will allow in
rural areas commercial stores which will not be any different than commercial
garden centers such as the K-Mart Garden Center, the Garden Spot or any other
garden center. It would be departing from the current practice of allowing
small wayside stands to sell things produced or made on the individual's
property to being a commercial enterprise. It will be next to impossible for
the Zoning Administrator to interpret what is defined as "necessarily not
produced on the premises, but related to accessory to agricultural or horti-
cultural produce which is grown or made on the farm". Changing the nature of
rural areas, and most particularly in a forestal district, is the exact
opposite of what the Board should be contemplating. She opposes this Zoning
Text Amendment.
Mr. Bowerman said there has to be middle ground between the two extremes
presented. Under the current system, there is very little profit-making
capabilities. He said encouragement should be given for this type of use in
the rural areas. If people are prevented from making trips back and forth
from the rural area to the urban area it benefits the community, especially
the promotion of agriculture in the rural areas. How the Zoning Administrator
interprets this application is the real issue.
Mr. Perkins requested that staff find the middle ground and develop
guidelines. Mrs. Humphris said space is going to be an issue. The 600 square
feet may have to be revised when dealing with large items such as 40 pound
bags of mulch, fertilizer, pesticides, sprays, flower pots and other items
that will be stored. Mr. Bowerman said the size and use can be limited which
will determine the scale as to the types of items that can be offered. He
requests that staff consider Mrs. Humphris concerns and develop a realistic
text the Board can support regarding the increased use in the rural areas.
Mrs. Humphris is concerned about how this will affect the future based on past
experience. ~
Mrs. Thomas is in favor of investigating this request further with input
from the Zoning Administrator. Staff should review this issue as it relates
to farm versus commercial use, calculating the amount of space, and requiring
a special use permit for a particular location with tightly constructed
conditions.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Wayside Stand Zoning Text Amendment can be done
with the Farmer's Market request. Mr. Tucker said they can be done together
and moved through the process quickly.
Mr. Bowerman asked how Mr. Perkins' comment about permitting the sale of
merchandise not produced on the premises, but directly related, should be
handled. Mrs. Thomas said the Board is not ready to establish the wording.
However, the merchandising concept is more than what is being produced on the
property and is certainly what is being discussed. Mr. Bowerman said if this
is included in a resolution of intent, then it will be considered. However~
000040
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
if the Board does not consider this, it may be structured more closely. Mr.
Tucker said the staff will structure this based on what was heard from the
comments today.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt
the following resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance as it relates
to Wayside Stand. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs° Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
RESOLVED,THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practice, the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend
Section 10.1, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning Ordinance,
to permit the sale of merchandise directly related and accessory
to agricultural or horticultural produce which is grown by the
owner or his family or their farm; and
FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission is requested
to hold a public hearing on this resolution of intent, and to
return its recommendations to this Board at the earliest possible
date.
(Note: The Board recessed at 10:22 a.m. and reconvened at 10:35 a.m.)
Note: Mrs. Humphris made a transactional disclosure, as did Mr.
Marshall. Mrs. Humphris said she has a personal interest as a stockholder in
Jefferson National Bank, which is less than three percent. As defined in
Section 2.1631.1 of the Code of Virginia, she is declaring that she is able to
participate in this transaction fairly objectively and in the public interest.
Mr. Marshall said that he is also in the same position as Mrs. Humphris and
declared such.
(Note: The following two items were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 9. CPA-94-04. Jefferson National Bank. Public Hearing
on a request to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of approx
13 acs along 5th Street Ext from medium density residential to office service.
Property on E sd of 5th St Ext between Stagecoach Rd & 5th St Ext, about 1/3
mi S of 1-64. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 22, 1995 and May 29,
1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and made a part of the permanent records of the'Board. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on May 30, 1995, recommended approval of CPA-94-04,
by a vote of 5:0 with one abstention, with wording as contained in the staff's
report.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-94-20. Jefferson National Bank. Public
Hearing on a request to change zoning on property described under CPA-94-04
from R-2 to CO with proffers. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 22,
1995 and May 29, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on May 30, 1995, recommended approval of ZMA-94-20,
by a vote of 4:1 with one abstention, subject to the acceptance of the
applicant's proffers.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the Board can ensure that pedestrian walkways
are developed. Mr. Cilimberg said if the Board wanted walkways done, they
would have to be proffered. Pedestrian facilities are not required as part of
the site plan approval process. The Planning Commission discussed this issue
and decided to move forward with the recommendations for approval without a
proffer. The applicant is willing to work on this issue. Mrs. Humphris said
staff did not support this. Mr. Cilimberg said it was raised as an issue that
needed to be addressed.
Mrs. Thomas said there was a comment made by a Commissioner who said in
the Comprehensive Plan that arterial and collector designated growth areas and
urban areas should have sidewalks. She asked if this was an adopted part of
the present Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said in the Fifth Street
project, a pathway along Fifth Street on the opposite side of this site was
approved. It is not an urban street section with a curb and gutter. However,
this issue was reviewed as a long-term possibility, but not right now, which
would not serve any purpose identified. The issue for staff is the potential
of obtaining an access not along the path, but to the possible development of
other properties on the other side. This becomes more of an issue of where
the best place to cross for pedestrian access, and if bus service were to be
developed, how to travel to the bus stop point.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mrs. Humphris asked where a bus stop might be developed.
said he does not know where a bus stop might go at this time.
been asked to participate in the review regarding this project.
000041
Mr. Cilimberg
CTS has not
Mr. Cilimberg'said there was concern expressed by a Commission member
about potential lighting effects. The Commission felt the lighting issue
could be dealt with through the site plan. Mrs. Humphris asked if there is a
need to proffer the lighting. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission,did not
identify the need.
With no further comments from the Board, Mr. Perkins opened the public
hearings at 10:53 a.m.
Mr. W. A. Pace, Vice-Chairman of Jefferson National Bank, said he had
people in the audience who would be able to answer questions. All the
adjacent property owners signed a petition supporting this project. However,
the adjacent property owners also indicated that they do not want extremely
tall landscaping adjacent to them or their views to be hindered. Mr. Pace
then introduced Mr. James Clark.
Mr. James Clark said he owns the property directly across the road on
Stagecoach Road from the proposed site. He supports the project, and feels it
would be an asset to the area. He asked the Board to approve this request.
Mr. Kenneth Wade said he lives on Stagecoach Road and that this building
would be located directly behind his property. Mr. Pace has met with groups
from the community since the project began. Community input was gathered and
considered as part of the plan. Mr. Pace then traveled from house to house
explaining this project to neighbors and adjacent property owners. A petition
was signed supporting this project. Traffic on Stagecoach Road is minimal,
perhaps 50 cars per day. In the past, over 2200 cars travelled this road.
With an increase of 25 cars per day due to this project, traffic will not be
noticeable. He and other adjacent property owners would welcome Jefferson
National Bank as their neighbor.
Mr. Pace said Jefferson National Bank would provide proper lighting
and/or fixtures on the site. He said because no one knows what will be
developed across the street, it is hard to plan. If a restaurant is built
across the street and his employees go there for lunch or if a bus stop is
built there, then Jefferson National Bank will work with whomever to do the
proper development with a pedestrian access,
Mrs. Humphris said she needs to clarify Mr. Pade's position on the
pedestrian access to Fifth Street. She feels it is essential to have pedes-
trian access. The only way the Board has to achieve this, as it is an
important traffic reduction strategy, is now while the rezoning is being ad-
dressed. She asked what the possibilities were for a pedestrian pathway to
Fifth Street.
Mr. Pace said the problem is that no one knows what will be built across
the road or where the exact part of the cut-through will be located to Fifth
Street.
Mrs. Thomas said this would be a wonderful development on the property
and it is in a good location. She said, for example, if a restaurant is built
across the road, she does not want people to say to the Board why is it I
cannot walk across the street to get my sandwich. Then the Board would have
to say, we were assured that everyone was going to work together on this
project. The purpose of planning ahead is to try and anticipate situations
like this. Mr. Pace did a tremendous amount of commercial planning for this
development, and now the Board has to do the land use planning. She asked if
there is any way to have a condition that says if the land across Fifth Street
develops commercially, a pedestrian pathway will be developed for primary use
for employees. She asked if this condition would be legally viable.
Mr. Davis said this type of condition can be proffered. There is
nothing that would limit the proffer. Mr. Marshall said how can you proffer
something when you do not know what you are proffering. He asked if a
shopping center or restaurant was built across the street, how would traffic
be directed. He then asked if Jefferson National Bank would be required to
build an underpass. The Board is planning for something that currently does
not exist.
Mrs. Thomas said on Route 29 North it is difficult for people to do
anything except get in their cars and drive to wherever they are going. If
the Board is ever going to develop a situation that is better than Route 29
North, this is the prime piece of property for starting in this area. The
pedestrian linkage is important. It may be too far ahead to ask Jefferson
National to put it on the map, but unfortunately, this is the only chance the
Board has. Mr. Marshall said he was not disagreeing with Mrs. Thomas. He
asked what happens when the map is drawn, then the area is developed and later
the Board finds out the pedestrian access was put in the wrong place. Mrs.
Thomas interjected that she is not suggesting a line be drawn on a map as much
as an agreement be developed that when this area develops commercially, there
will be an on-site pedestrian linkage. Mr. Pace said Jefferson National would
need to know what will be developed across the road and whether it will
coincide with the bank's entrance. If there are 220 people working in the
000042
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
building, and they say they want to cross the road, then Jefferson National
Bank would work on this issue. However, Jefferson National does not know what
the costs will be or anything else at this point.
Mr. Pace said he thought a proffer had a time limit. Mrs. Humphris said
she is not talking about anything that needs a time limit. She is concerned
about the ability to plan ahead. These types of issues have been sadly
handled in the past. She believes Jefferson National Bank will do everything
first class. However, she feels more comfortable if she knew, in light of
past experiences on Route 29 North and other areas, and with sincere efforts
in traffic reduction strategies, that in the event of the development of the
property across the road, there would be a pedestrian linkage. The logical
place for the crossing of pedestrians has nothing to do with getting them
across the road, but with getting them out of the property. Mr. Pace said he
could support this, provided his employees would need to cross the road. Mrs.
Humphris said if there are shops, people will want to cross the road.
Mr. Perkins said the Board needs to restrict people from crossing the
street or to force them onto Old Lynchburg Road. There is a need to plan a
sidewalk from Jefferson Nati~nal's main entrance to the main building. Mr.
Pace said he had the land to do it and he does not see any reason why it
cannot be done with it parallel to the road at the present driveway. The
problem will be if something is built there now, it will go down and stop.
Another problem is that it may not correlate with what is across the road at a
later date.
Mrs. Thomas said she agrees that there are problems with placing a
walkway on a map, at this time, because of not knowing what will be across the
street, and the entrance to the commercial area might be in another location.
If it is across the street, a walkway will be needed, otherwise the employees
will probably cut the pathway themselves by walking through the grass. She
asked again if there could be conditional wording that says when the commer-
cial area across the street is developed, that a pedestrian linkage on this
site will be provided. If it develops into offices or residential use across
the street, then the condition would not apply. The Planning staff, original-
ly, conditioned their approval of this project on this issue which was for
adequate provisions of pedestrian access. She does not know why the Commis-
sion did not pay more attention to the Planning staff's recommendation.
Mr. Tucker said the applicant and the County needs to work together on
this issue. He said what he heard Mr. Pace say is that Jefferson National
would be willing to provide pedestrian access when there is a need. If the
Board feels strongly that something needs to be done in this area, it can be
managed at the site plan stage. The applicant is willing to work with staff
in determining where sidewalk provisions will be needed at some point in time.
Part of the problem is not knowing what the uses will be across the street,
but some type of provision can be accomplished at the site plan stage.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a condition in the site plan that says at the time
the pedestrian access to Fifth Street is necessary, the applicant agrees to
construct a sidewalk. Mr. Cilimberg said this can be made a part of the
applicant's agreement, but it cannot be required if the applicant does not
want to do it. Mr. Bowerman said rather than have a proffer that goes with
the zoning, he liked the idea of linking it to the site plan. If the appli-
cant agrees to the condition, it will be a statement made by the applicant
that it is recognized that sometime in the future the condition may be
required to be fulfilled. Mr. Pace said he did not have a problem with this,
provided it is stipulated that it will be needed by Jefferson National Bank.
He said if office space or a residential use is built across the street, this
condition will not be necessary.
With no one else coming forth to speak, the public hearings were closed
at 11:20 p.m.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
approve CPA-94-04 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Martin.
(Wording of the actual amendment is as set out below.)
Amend the Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan in Neighborhood 5
indicate an Office Service land use designation for the subject area.
Revise the Neighborhood 5 Profile as follows:
to
Under ROADS strike the words "The proposed realignment will" and put the
words "Fifth Street Extended" in their place.
Under RECOMMENDATIONS make the following changes:
· Change Bullet No. 1 to read: Establish high density residential
east of Sunset Avenue.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
000043
Add Bullet No. 2 to read: Establish an office service area of
approximately 13 acres between Fifth Street Extended and Stage-
coach Road. Development here should be sensitive to the adjacent
residential area along Stagecoach Road. Appropriate site layout,
building design and landscaping should be used to minimize the
impact of the development. Primary access should be oriented to
Fifth Street.
Add Bullet No. 3 to read: Provide linkages between neighborhoods
(including nonresidential areas) through the use of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, linear parks/open space, roads and transit
alternatives. The emphasis is on linkages between development
areas, not just within each development.
Change new numbered Bullet No. 6 to read: Development plans along
Route 29 South, Interstate 64, and Fifth Street/Route 631 are to
be sensitive to their status as Entrance Corridor routes.
The remaining words remain the same. In Table 51, change the
figure for "Residential-Medium', from 28 to 15, and the figure for
"Office Service" from 4 to 17.
(Note: Mr. Tucker recommended that staff work with the language
suggested by Mr. Bowerman during site plan review, to wit: At the time the
pedestrian access to Fifth Street is necessary, the applicant agrees to
construct a sidewalk. Mr. Pace said he would have no problem with that
language if it is eventually found that the sidewalk is necessary for Jeffer-
son National Bank's operation.)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall to approve ZMA-94-20 with the
two proffers as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(The two proffers are as follows.)
1)
2)
The subject property will be developed in accord with the prelimi-
nary site plan dated March 27, 1995 (with revisions through May 8,
1995). Minor changes may be required as a result of final engi-
neering and technical review by the County.
The applicant will design and construct at its expense (possibly
shared with other property owners, the Albemarle County Service
Authority [ACSA], and other utility suppliers) all improvements
and upgrades of utilities which are occasioned by the development
of the property.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on a DEED OF EASEMENT by and between
the County of Albemarle and the Albemarle County Service Authority for a
perpetual right-of-way and easement across County property described as
Albemarle County Tax Map 45, Parcel 94. This is necessary in order to
accommodate the new waterline improvements which were made for Greenfields
Trailer Park when Berkmar Road was extended. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 22, 1995 and May 29, 1995.)
Mr. Tucker said as part of the Berkmar Drive Extended project, water and
sewer improvements were made to accommodate the Greenfields Trailer Park
relocation outside of the new road right-of-way. In order for the waterline
improvements to be accepted by the Albemarle County Service Authority, three
new deeds of easement must be signed and recorded. Albemarle County must
dedicate an easement for a waterline which crosses the property adjacent to
the corner of the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School property. The other two deeds
are to be signed by private property owners.
The public hearing was opened at 11:23 p.m. With no one coming forth,
the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt
the following resolution authorizing the Chairman to sign the Deed of Easement
on behalf of the County. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby authorize its Chairman to
sign the Deed of Easement between the County of Albemarle, Virgin-
ia, and the Albemarle County Service Authority, in order for the
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000044
(Page 17)
Service Authority to accept certain improvements that were built
to serve the reconfigured Greenfields Trailer Park done as part of
the Berkmar Drive Extended project.
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS EASEMENT made this 7th day of June, 1995, by and
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor, and the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY, Grantee;
W I T N E S S E T H:
For and in consideration of Ten Dollars, ($10.00), cash in
hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT and
CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the Grantee, its
successors and assigns, a perpetual right-of-way and easement
across the property of the Grantor described as Albemarle County
Tax Map 45, Parcel 94, for use by the Grantee to construct,
install, maintain, repair, replace and extend a water line,
consisting of pipes and appurtenances thereto, within an easement
show, and designated as "Permanent Water Line Easement" on at-
tached plat made by Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc. dated April 27,
1994, as revised, September 7, 1994, entitled "Plat Dedicating
Water Line Easements Across T.M.P. 45-173, 94 and 153 to the
Albemarle County Service Authority, Charlottesville District,
Albemarle County, Virginia."
The Grantor, its successors and assigns, agree that new
shrubs, trees, fences, buildings, overhangs or other improvements
or obstructions shall not be placed within the easement conveyed
herein.
As part of this easement, Grantee shall have the right to
enter upon the above described property within the easement
provided for the purpose of installing, constructing, maintaining,
repairing, replacing and extending the water line and appurtenanc-
es thereto, within such easement, and the right of ingress and
egress thereto as reasonably necessary to construct, install,
maintain, repair, replace and extend the water line. If the
Grantee is unable reasonably to exercise the right of ingress and
egress over the right-of-way, the Grantee shall have the right of
ingress and egress over the property of the Grantee adjacent to
the right-of-way. Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth
within the easement, Grantee agrees to back fill such excavation
in a proper and workmanlike manner so as to restore surface condi-
tions as nearly as practicable to the same conditions as prior to
the excavation, including the restoration of such paved surfaces
as may be damaged or disturbed as a part of such excavation.
The facilities constructed within the easement shall be the
property of the Grantee, which shall have the right to inspect,
rebuild, remove, repair, improve and make such changes, alter-
ations, additions and connections to or extensions of its facili-
ties within the boundaries of said easement as are consistent with
the purposes expressed herein.
The easement provided for herein shall include the right of
the Grantee, its successors and assigns, to cut any trees, brush
and shrubbery, remove obstructions, and take other similar action
reasonably necessary to provide economical and Safe ~water instal-
lation, operation and maintenance. The Grantee shall have no
responsibility to the Grantor, its successors or assigns, to
replace or reimburse the cost of said trees, brush or shrubbery,
or obstructions, if cut, removed or otherwise damaged.
By its acceptance and recordation of this deed of easement,
the Grantee acknowledges that it, its successors and assigns,
shall be bound by the agreement contained herein.
Agenda Item No. 12. Appeal - SDP-94-067. Virginia Oil Minor Site Plan
Amendment. Proposal to locate car wash served by new entrance on SE corner of
Rolkin Court and Route 250 E.
At the request of the applicant, motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris,
seconded by Mr. Marshall, to defer this appeal until June 21, 1995. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) O0004S
(Page 18)
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing to consider a proposal to adopt a
Resolution to allow resident fees for use of County parks by non-resident
County employees. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 22, 1995 and May
29, 1995.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the need for this change. He said there is a
resolution, for the Board's consideration, that would allow non-resident
County employees to enter Parks and Recreation programs and parks at the same
rate as a County resident.
Mrs. Thomas asked how many County employees were not County residents,
but lived in surrounding counties. Mr. Tucker said he did not have an exact
breakdown because it would include school employees as well. He does not
think it would be significant. This would have.a minor impact On revenues.
Mr. Marshall said with so many County employees living outside the County,
they would probably be using parks and programs in their own locality. Mrs.
Thomas said she received a complaint one time from a constituent who did not
like the free passes that were provided to high school sporting events. Some
residents get upset at these types of perks, but it seems to her with the high
housing costs in Albemarle County, there are many employees who can hardly
afford to live in this County. This will be a small benefit to help offset
iiving costs for County employees. Mr. Tucker said the County does not offer
any perks that he is aware of, except for teachers who teach at a particular
school who are allowed to attend sporting events at no charge.
Mr. Marshall thinks this is something that should be done for County
employees and he supports this issue.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing at 11:27 a.m. With no one coming
forth, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
the following resolution approving the request to allow for admission of
County employees to the County Parks at the resident rate regardless of their
domicile. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Section 14-11 of the Code of the County of Albe-
marle, Virginia, provides that the Board of Supervisors shall
establish fees, rates and charges for entry to and use of parks,
recreational areas and swimming facilities under the County's
jurisdiction; and
WHERF~%S, on June 7, 1995, the Board held a duly advertised
public hearing to receive public comment on a revision to said
fees, rates and charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT R~SOLV~D that the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby establishes the
fees, rates, and charges for entry to and use of parks~ recre-
ational areas and swimming facilities, as follows:
CHRIS GREENE LAKE, MINT SPRINGS V~?.?.my, WALNUT CREEK
DAILY AND SEASON RATES
(In effect from Memorial Day Weekend through LabOr Day)
DAILY RATES
Adults
Child
SEASON PASS RATES
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
RESIDENTS AND COUNTY
EMPLOYEES*
NON-AtmEMARLE
COUNTY RESIDENTS
$2.00 $3°00
$1.00 $2.00
Adults $35.00 $50.00
Child $20.00 $30.00
Family $70.00/5 limit $105.00/5 limit
$15.00 each over 5 $20.00 each over 5
Ages 13 and over
Ages 4 to 12
Adult rates charged to:
Child rates charged to:
Family is defined as:
Parents and children residing in the same
household.
NOTE: Season pass rates are reduced by one-half after July 15th.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
0000.46
SENIOR CITIZEN PASSES: Free for Albemarle County residents only
(ages 62 and older). May be obtained only from the Parks &
Recreation Department. Proof of age required. Individual person
must come in office themselves.
County employees shall be defined as those employees identified
on an employee roster prepared by the Human Resources Depart-
ment for the use of the Parks & Recreation Department~
Agenda Item No. 14. Set public hearing to amend the Albemarle County
Service Authority service area boundaries to extend sewer for Cafe No Problem.
Mr. Cilimberg said this site is located at the intersection of Routes
240 and 250 at the Mechum River and was formerly the Galerie Restaurant and/or
the Ridge Restaurant. The Board originally included this area in the service
area for sewer on October 7, 1992. This approval limited the line serving the
site to a two-inch sewer line. Subsequent to that action, the Board modified
its action on December 2, 1992, to allow an increase in the size of the line,
but limited the use of the sewer line to serve the existing structure,
existing use and existing capacity only. The applicant has presented propos-
als which in the opinion of staff are not directly consistent with the
December 2, 1992, action°
Staff commented on each aspect of the Board's approval, as follows:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: The applicant contends that the Board's
action "did not prohibit the existing structure from being expand-
ed, enlarged, or modified in compliance with all zoning and
building regulations applicable." Staff opinion is that the
Board's action limits any enlargement to the building with the
exception of facade treatment. The applicant is requesting an
expansion of the footprint of the building and an addition in the
form of a second floor. These requests have resulted in the need
for variances in the setback (Zoning Department staff has recom-
mended denial of the variances).
This property was zoned C-i~ Commercial, in recognition of the
existing use, but the existing use is nonconforming due to set-
back. This site is not located in a designated growth area.
Limiting the use to the existing structure will minimize the
inconsistency of this use with the Comprehensive Plan. Expansion
of the building, particularly expansion requiring variances,
represents increased commercial activity in the Rural Areas zoning
district which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff
opinion is that the use should be limited to the existing struc-
ture with the exception of facade treatment and those expansions
which do not require variances or modifications of the Ordinance.
EXISTING USE: The existing use of the site has been interpreted
to mean a restaurant. The applicant has proposed the construction
of a second floor which would be used as an apartment by an
employee. The Zoning Ordinance permits limited residential use of
commercial property. Staff believes that limited residential use
such as proposed is incidental to the primary restaurant use and
should be acceptable as long as it is within the existing struc-
ture except as may be modified as described above°
EXISTING CAPACITY: Staff has reviewed the minutes of the Board's
action and is of the opinion that this limitation was intended to
prevent expansion of the seating capacity of the restaurant.
However, the seating capacity was not clearly identified. At the
time the Board took action, the site did have a "pump and haul"
permit allowing a 65-seat restaurant serving a single meal a day.
(The applicant has stated that information obtained by him from
the Health Department allowed 85 seats.) Staff has not been able
to determine any relationship between the "pump and haul" approv-
als and the previous use of the site.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has constructed the sewer line in
accord with the previous approvals. Use of this site for a 100-seat restau-
rant does not present a capacity problem according to the Albemarle County
Service Authority. The Health Department anticipates 50 gallons per seat/per
day in a restaurant. Staff opinion is that the existing condition does not
provide adequate clarification as to the existing capacity. As the Building
Code would allow up to 115 seats in the existing structure, setting the
capacity at 100 seats would appear to be appropriate.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the applicant is not present at this time~ but
Mr. Cooper did know that this item was scheduled for discussion by the Board°
He said the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) granted a variance to the applicant
yesterday, and he asked the County Attorney to explain.
Mr. Davis said the BZA granted a variance to the setback requirements
for the two road frontages to eight and nine feet, but a condition of the
variance was that the building be a one-story building. That complicates Mr.
Cooper's proposal, and he does not know whether Mr. Cooper wants to go forward
with his proposal.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000047
(Page 20)
Mrs. Thomas sa~d Mr. Cooper's proposal is based on the building being a
two-story building because he wants an apartment above the restaurant. She is
surprised that the BZA's decision was not the opposite of what it approved.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Board had not already extended the service
area boundaries to that site. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes", but, from a reading
of the Board's minutes, "existing capacity" was not established for the record
at that time. The Board's action was to limit the service areas to serve the
existing structure, existing use and existing capacity. In its present
review, staff says "existing structure" is the building that was in place at
the time of the previous approval, the "existing use" was the restaurant, but
the term "existing capacity" was not clear. By the variance action yesterday,
Mr. Cooper is being given an allowance for a bigger building, so he does not
have the service area designation to do what the variance will allow in terms
of the restaurant area. He does have the designation for just a restaurant,
but if he wants an apartment, that can be clarified based on the staff's
report. That is not an issue for staff. Staff also tried to clarify the term
"existing capacity" as being 100 or the equivalent of 100 seats, and whatever
Mr. Cooper wants to use from that capacity for the apartment is fine. The
real issue is that Mr. Cooper does not have all of the designation he needs to
exercise his use under the variance granted yesterday. Mr. Tucker said it
allows Mr. Cooper some expansion ability that will have to be addressed if he
takes advantage of the expansion that the variance allows him. Mr. Cilimberg
said that is true.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks it would be helpful to this Board if the
members actually heard the pertinent part of the minutes of the October 7,
1992, meeting and she proceeded to read (see Minute Book 42, pages 236-238).
She said the motion at that time was "to amend the Albemarle County Service
Authority service area boundaries for sewer service to Tax Map 57, Parcel 3lA,
for a two-inch sewer line to existing structure, existing use and existing
capacity only, contingent on the applicant getting the required easements and
doing the necessary work to make the connection by March 12, 1993." That
motion passed by a vote of 5:0 with one abstention.
Mrs. Humphris said on December 2, 1992, the minutes show that the owners
were present requesting a change in the allowance from a two-inch sewer line
to a three-inch sewer line due to the higher friction head and pumping
requirements. The applicant's justification was that there would be a savings
in energy and avoidance of use of three-phase power.
Mrs. Humphris read from the December 2, 1992, minutes that "Mrs.
Humphris said the staff recommendation did not acknowledge the Engineering
Department's statement that placing a limit (or moratorium) on the rate of
discharge, based on the State's criteria, would provide more effective and
practical control on the use of the proposed force main. This was based on
the State's criteria to serve the existing structure, the existing usei and
the existing capacity, only." Mrs. Humphris said she does not know how the
Board can make what it has done any clearer.
Mr. Cilimberg said that is what staff advised the applicant when he
applied. Staff feels that'it was very clear. Staff could not say what the
capacity was in terms of Seats because that is not referenced anywhere. That
is why Mr. Cooper has made this new application. His request is for a bigger
structure than what he is allowed to do now.
Mrs. Thomas said from reading the record, apparently nobody knows what
that number would be. Mr. Cilimberg said that was the important driving
force. He acknowledged that Mr. Cooper had just arrived at the meeting (11:28
A.M.).
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Cooper to make his presentation to the Board. Mro
Richard Cooper, the applicant, asked what had been said so he would know where
to start. Mr. Perkins said the Board had reviewed its minutes for October 9
and December 2, 1992. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the Board was very clear
on those two occasions as to what they would or would not allow on the site.
Mr. Perkins said he understands Mr. Cooper is present today because he
wishes to add a second story to the building. Mr. Cooper said he is familiar
with those minutes, and that is correct. He has a site plan which has been
prepared by a local landscape architect. The topographical survey was done by
Roudabush and Gale, and he offered to give those two items to the Board
members.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Cooper is the owner of the property as well
as the business. Mr. Cooper said he was a waiter in the restaurant that was
owned by Mr. Keith Van Yahres and his family. Mrs. Humphris asked how long
Mr. Cooper had owned the property. Mr. Cooper said since November, 1993. He
was the contract purchaser in October, 1992. That contract was contingent
upon getting all the easements necessary to put the sewer line in, and to have
those easements signed and recorded. When that was done, he became the owner.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Cooper if he was aware of the restrictions
placed on this property by this Board at the time that he became the owner.
Mr. Cooper said "yes", but as to the "restrictions"e he viewed some of those
as being very strict, and others as not being so strict. After reading the
minutesw he felt he would be within those guidelines.
000048
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cooper to explain which restrictions he thought
were very strict and which he thought had some flexibility. Mr. Cooper said
he did not think the "existing structure" condition was strict. Mr. George
St. John, then County Attorney, during that meeting said "you don't want to
preclude the new owner from doing modifications so long as he doesn't increase
the capacity." Capacity is the issue which Mr. Cooper feels is the most
strict, the density and traffic that would occur from the building that he is
proposing. Having waited in the restaurant, he was aware of the number of
people attending. He knows there was a temporary pump and haul permit issued
which allowed the restaurant to serve 85 people, but he also knows there were
two dining rooms that sat about 40 people, and on the outside of the building,
another 30 could be seated. There were times when the restaurant was full.
Mr. Bowerman said that made 110 to 115 in attendance. Mr. Cooper said
that is right. In terms of what was permitted, he knew about the permit for
85 people, and that is what the local health department had allowed. Mr.
Cooper said Mr. Jay Schlothauer in the BOCA Code Office (Building Inspec-
tions), said in determining existing capacity they only had one sheet which
stated that there was one bathroom for 75 men and one bathroom for 75 women,
and that was the building's occupancy (existing capacity).
Mr. Cooper said he had just read, this last week, the minutes referenced
and in those minutes it was stated that the State had criteria for determining
existing capacity. At that time, Mr. Forbes Reback (Mr. Cooper's attorney)
asked the meaning of "State criteria". There was not a direct reply to his
question. Mr. Cooper said there are many State criteria used to determine
existing capacity, and that is how the sewer line was designed. One hundred
seems to be a reasonable limit, but it does seem to be a serious compromise in
terms of what he might be permitted to do. He said Mr. Cilimberg indicated
that the Health Department was trying to tie it to the discharge that existed
prior to 1992. Basically, the last approved, documented, septic field was
before 1969. This whole situation came about because the 1969 hurricane took
away the septic field, and there has been no sewage disposal solution there
for 20 years.
Mr. Cooper said he looked at the traffic situation on site, and decided
he would have to do parking lot improvements, so he would try for a restaurant
of about 4000 square feet based on parking limitations. He asked if this
discussion today is only to decide about holding a public hearing, or can the
Board resolve the proposal procedurally.
Mr. Perkins said the Board will only decide about a public hearing
today. He said the Board had discussed earlier the action taken by the BZA
yesterday. Mr. Cooper said he thinks sewer service for this area has already
been established. Mr. Cilimberg said sewer service was established under the
conditions previously noted, and staff feels those conditions do not exist
under the new application Mr. Cooper has filed.
Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Cilimberg if he is saying those conditions are at
variance with his new request. Mr. Cilimberg said he and the applicant have
had long discussions concerning this point. Mr. Cooper said he knows he has
proposed a new use for an apartment, but he thought the most stringent
condition was the capacity issue. He wants to have a manager live in the
apartment to take care of the business.
Mrs. Thomas said she understands the BZA said the applicant cannot have
a two-story building. Mr. Cooper said the BZA said they could not determine
that he could have a two-story building. They said the Board of Supervisors
could hear his request for a two-story building, and the BZA gave a variance
that allows a one-story building. Mr. Davis said he would like to clarify
what the BZA did. They granted a variance giving Mr. Cooper an additional
nine foot encroachment into the 30-foot setback on each side of the building
facing the road frontage on the condition that he cannot have a second story.
Without a variance, Mr. Cooper cannot build a second story anywhere that
encroaches within 30 feet of the right-of-way. If Mr. Cooper does not take
advantage of the variance, and does not build any addition of the structure
within 30 feet of the right-of-way, and the existing building encroaches in
the right-of-way on both sides, there could be no addition above that part of
the building which encroaches. Mr. Davis said, in that case, Mr. Cooper would
not be subject to the BZA conditions because he would not be utilizing the
variance, but he does not know if that is feasible for Mr. Cooper's building.
Mr. Cooper said it is feasible and the architect has already designed
something so that no variance is needed for a two-story structure. Looking at
the crux of what it does, it allows a total of 60 to 80 square feet. The
architect had designed just two structures to further encroach, but the net
square footage of those is just 80 feet. If he discards the variance, his
business is still an existing, nonconforming use. Mr. Davis said as long as
Mr. Cooper understands that he cannot build up, and keeps the building within
the setback. Mr. Cooper said he could and he knew all along that he would
have an option, and that he did not need to use the variance, but if he got
the variance it would save him an effort in creating the second story struc-
ture beyond the setback. That is why he is here today. He wants to be
permitted to do what he can without getting a variance. He does not believe
he needs a variance to have the site carry a second story apartment above the
restaurant.
000'049
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mrs. Thomas asked if this meant that there could not be a raising of the
roof of the present structure unless it was 30 feet beyond the setback. Mr.
Davis said the second story cannot be within 30 feet of either road. Mr.
Cooper agreed.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the present structure is within 30 feet. Mr. Davis
said it is within 30 feet of the roads on both sides of the building. Mr.
Perkins said that is on the Route 250 side and the Route 680 side. Mr. Davis
said that is correct. Mrs. Thomas said Mr. Cooper is then restricted from
raising the roof of the structure. Mr. Cooper said he can build a Second
story without a variance, but cannot raise the roof of the structure without a
variance.
Mr. Perkins asked Mrs. Humphris to read from the end of the 1992
minutes. She read "it must serve the existing structure, the existing use and
the existing capacity." Mr. Davis said that is the point Mr. Cilimberg made.
There can be no expansion of the structure at all, otherwise it would conflict
with the Board's conditional approval of the service area change. Mr.
Bowerman said the variance request is not then an issue. Mrs. Humphris said
that is correct.
Mr. Cooper said in regards to "existing structure", the 1992 minutes did
not say a future owner could not modify the existing structure within the
limits of the Zoning Ordinance regulations. The sewer line was to serve the
existing structure, and Mr. St. John is on record as saying the Board does not
want to preclude the new owner from making modifications.
Mr. Perkins said there is misunderstanding. There is a lot of discus-
sion in the minutes, but the only part that matters is what the Board votes
on. Mr. Cooper said there is the matter of interpretation. Mr. Perkins said
that is why he asked Mrs. Humphris to read the last statement. That was the
motion that was voted on. Mrs. Humphris said the members who voted on that
motion know the discussion, they know what was meant and what the Board voted
on. It is what the Board members believe it meant, existing structure,
existing foot print, existing size, as it was.
Mr. Cooper asked if it is the Board's feeling that he can do no modifi-
cation to the building. Mrs. Humphris said he can change the windows~ change
the doors, change the color of the roof, the interior, but not the building
itself. Mr. Cilimberg said that is what he had advised Mro Cooper was staff's
opinion of what he could do. Mrs. Humphris said in the context of the
discussion, there is no question but that is what Mr. St. John meant° He did
not want the Board to say the owners could not hammer a nail or paint a wall
or window, but it must be done within the existing footprint of the building.
Mr. Cilimberg said a~cording to the application Mr. Cooper filed, it is clear
that he is asking that now be changed. He wants the ability to make some
actual changes to the footprint of the building, and even have a second story
as it would be allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. That is new business and Mr.
Cooper has been so advised. Mrs. Humphris said that would be a more intense
use in the rural area.
Mr. Marshall asked if it was Mr. Cooper's understanding that he could
alter the exterior of that building~ move the walls. Mr. Cooper said "yes".
Mr. MarShall said the Board made it very clear in 1992 that could not be done.
Mr. Cooper said he does not believe it was clear because the County Attorney
at that time said the Board did not want to preclude the new owner from making
modifications so long as the capacity was not increased on the site. Mrs.
Humphris said modifications to that structure meant what the Board has just
discussed. She said there is no doubt as to that meaning. She said this is
the unanimous thinking of the Board members at that time, and Mr. Cooper is
not getting any support at all for his interpretation.
Mr. Cooper said the Board members may not know that he went through the
process of getting a building permit. He got the permit after submitting
additional plans showing what he intended doing. The building permit said
"new, alteration, interior renovation/walls." He said he has been through
this before. Mr. Davis said the BZA spent two hours yesterday hearing Mr.
Cooper's version, and the Zoning Administrator's version, and the decision of
the Zoning Administrator was upheld. Clearly, the basis of that finding was
that the application for a building permit for "modifications" was approved in
error by the Building Department because it was not reviewed by the Zoning
Administrator for an expansion. Because the request was labeled for modifica-
tions only, the Building Department interpreted it to mean interior renova-
tions. If the request had been reviewed for expansion, it would never have
been approved, and that is why the permit was later pulled. Mr° Cooper said
he understands this.
Mr. Marshall said he is sympathetic to Mr. Cooper's request, but he
thinks the Board's previous action is very clear. Mr. Cooper said he is not
asking that the intensity of this site in way of sewer capacity be increased.
He just wants to have an apartment above to serve the restaurant business. He
thought the condition concerning the "existing structure" would not preclude
him from going above the building so long as the capacity, the intensity of
that corner site, was not increased. He thought that was the overriding
intent of this Board. Mr. Cooper repeated again the remark attributed to the
former County Attorney, and he said that is the reason he is where he is now.
He had focused on that remark.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000050
(Page 23)
Mr. Marshall said the Board was concerned about a restaurant in this
location, the water/sewer problem that exists, and the Board wanted to be sure
the building did not get any bigger. Mr. Marshall said he is concerned that
if the Board allows Mr. Cooper to do what he wants, he may sell the building
to a new owner who will come back to this Board with another request. He
asked where this would stop.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to clarify something. He said it is not
modification to the existing structure o_~r increase the capacity, it was both
of them. Mr. Cooper agreed. Mr. Bowerman said that in order to do that, a
change in the Board's original approval of the Service Authority's service
area boundaries is needed. That is the issue. Mr. Cooper agreed. He asked
what the changes are.
Mr. Bowerman said he feels Mr. Cooper is properly before the Board. The
Planning Department and the Zoning Administrator have correctly interpreted
the Board's intentions, so that is not an issue. The issue is whether this
Board will grant a change, and that is the only issue before the Board. Just
because Mr. Cooper is here today, it is a change. Mr. Bowerman said Mr.
Cooper keeps coming back to the same point that it is not a changed but it is
a change. Mr. Cooper said he does not disagree; it is a change. He is only
present to say that he feels there was ambiguity in thoSe conditions. Mr.
Bowerman said he feels there was no ambiguity in the conditions.
Mr. Cooper said he had a sewer line installed, did other work, and
applied for a building permit, and he acknowledges that the request is for a
change. He wants an apartment, and it is permitted by right in a commercial
district. Although this property does not show in the Comprehensive Plan as
being recommended for C-1 zoning, it is zoned C-1. The Board is saying that
the existing use precludes him from doing what he wishes, and he is saying
that this change does not increase the capacity of that site and it would
enhance his business for security as well as commercial reasons. That is the
reason he is here today. Mr. Bowerman said it does makes sense that Mr.
Cooper is present.
Mr. Perkins said he understands that the service area change is needed
because of the apartment. Mr. Cilimberg said it is that and because of a
change in the footprint of the restaurant. Mr. Cooper has the variance now
which allows that change. If he builds the apartment within the allowable
setbacks, then he can exercise the variance. Mr. Perkins said the two-story
part of that structure has to be 30 feet from Route 630. Mr. Davis said the
variance is conditioned on there being no second floor, so Mr. Cooper cannot
use any part of the variance if he builds a second floor. Mrs. Thomas said it
is el%her/or. He can either put these corners on the building and be closer
to the roads, or he can go 30 feet back. Mr. Davis said he must stay outside
of the 30 foot setback with the second story.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the existing building had been taken and one of
the dining rooms closed off by one-third or one-half, and an apartment put in,
Mr. Cooper would not need to be here today. Mr. Davis said it depended on the
conditions imposed on the existing use.
Mr. Bowerman said domestic uses require water, so he believes the Board
could look at this as being no change. If the size of the restaurant is
reduced in order to allow a residential unit, he believes it would be close to
the same thing and consistent with what this Board previously approved. The
fact that is not happening is the reason Mr. Cooper is here and the reason the
Board needs to decide if it will hold a public hearing on the request. Mr.
Cooper then requested that the Board hold a public hearing.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks Mr. Cooper should meet with his archi-
tects/builders and County staff to see if it is poSsible t° have a second
story on the building. Mr. Cooper said he thought the Board could decide
whether or not the Conditions previOUsly imposed allow a second story.
At this time, Mr. Cooper showed to the Board members a topographical map
which he had brought. He said the BOard never said he could not modify the
existing structure, only that the sewer line was to serve the existing
structure, although he does understand the Board's intent. He is not asking
that the capacity be increased, only that he be allowed to increase the
capacity to where he can have an apartment which normally is a use by-right in
this zoning category.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would like to make a comment. In the recommended
change of language for the service area boundary listed at the end of the
staff's report, that language would allow Mr. Cooper to do what he wants to do
if the Board is agreeable. It would allow for the restaurant plus an associ-
ated apartment for the employee. It would allow for the existing structure,
with the exception of facade treatment and those expansions which do not
require variances or modifications to the ordinance and existing capacity
which is being established, to be the equivalent of a 100 seat restaurant
generating not more than 5000 gallons per day. If the Board is willing to
hold a public hearing, that would meet Mr. Cooper's needs.
Mr. Perkins said he would be willing to do that. Mrs. Humphris asked
for the meaning of the words "would not require variances or modifications to
the ordinance". Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Cooper was talking about putting the
second story over an area that is not currently in a structure. Mr. Cilimberg
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) O000~l
(Page 24)
said that would meet the ordinance without a variance. Mr. Cooper said it
would create a beautiful covered patio on the first floor. Mr. Cilimberg said
staff has not seen that plan. Mr. Marshall asked if this becomes a moot issue
if that is the case. Mr. Davis said a Service area change is still needed.
Mrs. Thomas said the Board is going to have to figure out the relation-
ship of an apartment with the seats in the restaurant. In the paperwork
somewhere, it is suggested that one apartment is equal to two seats in a
restaurant and she does not know if that ratio is correct. Mr. Cooper said
that is an arbitrary number that he picked.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Zoning Administrator has one other matter to
discuss that is related to this matter. Ms. McCulley said it is possible that
Mr. Cooper will need a special use permit to place fill material in the flood
plain. Currently, there is some concrete in the flood plain in violation of
the ordinance. The site plan now shows grading in the flood plain so the
Board would need to approve a special permit to authorize that grading. Mr.
Cooper said there are some huge pieces of concrete sitting on the bank as well
as protruding into the water for bank stabilization. There was an enormous
amount of erosion that occurred on the far western corner of the property at
Lickinghole Creek. He thought it would be a good idea to fill with concrete
and then stabilize the bank. He did this without checking regulations first.
There was a well that had leaked and it started eroding the hillside and that
is how that came about.
Mr. Bowerman asked what assumption is used for domestic water consump-
tion for planning purposes. Ms. McCulley said it is based on the number of
bedrooms and it is assumed that there are two people per bedroom. Mro Cooper
said Mr. Jim Moore, in Lexington, who approved Mr. John Greene's designs, said
an apartment is minuscule when compared to a restaurant. He will get the
figures. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has recommended a total amount of 5000
gallons per day for discharge purposes.
Mr. Bowerman said if there are currently 100 seats in the restaurant,
and there are two people in the apartment, then the capacity of the restaurant
would be 98 with an accessory apartment. Mr. Cilimberg said staff did not
want to tell Mr. Cooper how many seats there could be. Mr. Tucker said if the
Board is amenable to holding a public hearing, all of these issues can be
worked out in the meantime.
Mrs. Humphris said she wants to make sure the paragraph reading: "those
expansions which do not require variances or modifications to these ordinanc-
es'' cannot be misinterpreted since the apartment is already mentioned under
"existing use". She wants to be sure that no one can come back at a later
date and say they have found a way to expand the structure which does not
require a variance or modification of the ordinance. She asked if there is an
iron-clad way to say that cannot happen. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not
understand the question. Staff worded this so if a variance was needed, or if
some modification of the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance was required,
then Mr. Cooper could not expand the building at all. Otherwise, he could
expand and change the facade. Mr. Davis said it does allow for an expansion,
but the other part of the recommendation is to limit the number of seats and
that should deal with the capacity issue of the sewer system. This is a more
lenient condition than what was imposed by the prior Board because it does
allow expansion of the structure as long as it does not require a variance or
a modification.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the language has to be stated in that way so as
to allow the apartment. If not, why does not the Board just omit that
language and say "serve the existing structure, with the exception of facade
treatment." Mr. Davis said the existing conditions have been interpreted, so
in order to build the second story, which is an expansion of the existing
structure, the Board will need to modify the existing cOndition to allow that
expansion to occur. This recommendation would still need to be modified in
some respect to allow an expansion of the structure. It could be limited to
the accessory apartment, or be limited to a site plan, if the Board wanted to
restrict future expansions beyond what Mr. Cooper is proposing. Mrs. Humphris
said that certainly is what the Board should do. That was the whole thrust of
this Board's prior decision.
Mr. Marshall said he is sympathetic with Mr. Cooper's needs, but he
wants to be sure that if Mr. Cooper sells the property there will not be
another person before the Board asking for further expansion. Mr. Cooper said
he felt the term "existing capacity" was an ambiguous term. To him the term
"capacity" means what something can hold. The Board had said the State has
the criteria to determine the existing capacity~ and that is an ambiguity to
him. He thinks all of the ambiguities can go away without much trouble.
Mrs. Humphris said if the Board holds a public hearing on this request,
she would like for the language to be changed so that there is no opening left
for expansion other than the potential second story, accessory apartment. Mr.
Davis said if that is what the Board wants, staff can draft a condition
limiting expansion to that. Mr. Bowerman said as long as it is understood
that another applicant can petition to change that condition. Mrs. Humphris
said she knows that, but she believes the Board's thinking needs to be
reflected in the conditions.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000052
(Page 25)
Mr. Bowerman said there was a nonconforming use on the property, and the
Board attempted to let the use continue with the Van Yahres. One of the
issues before the Board todaY is whether Or not thi~ issue is consistent with
the first one. 'Mr. Marshall said he does not think it is. He voted for the
service area change the first time based on the fact that he thoUght the Van
Yahres were going to stay there and he was trying to help them because they
were involved with an existing structure. Mr. Cooper said one of the reasons
Mr. Van Yahres did not stay is that the pump and haul permit was costing him
$~200 a month.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Davis to restate the language he had suggested a
few minutes ago. She does not want to hold a public hearing on anything other
than an iron-clad condition. Mr. Davis said Mr. Cooper has said his plans are
to simply expand over the existing footprint outside of the 30-foot setback.
Mr. Bowerman said it is more than the existing footprint. Mr. Cooper said if
he had gotten a variance he would simply have gone straight up. Mr. Davis
asked Mr. Cooper if the second story he is proposing now is going to be over
part of the area behind the restaurant where there is not an existing struc-
ture at this time. Mr. Bowerman said that is what Mr. Cooper has said. He
needs a modification of the footprint in order to expand it outside of the
variance. Mr. Marshall said Mr. Cooper will be coming back with the plan,
etc. He suggested just setting the public hearing now.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mrs. Humphris if she is suggesting that the only
thing the Board can look at during the public hearing is that there be no
change in the existing footprint. Mrs. Humphris said that is her suggestion,
however, Mr. Cooper has said there must be a change in the footprint, so now
she does not know what to do. She is not interested in this change, she is
trying to be nice and accommodating, but she does not want to do this. Mr.
Bowerman said he is very clear about what the Board did two years ago. Mrs.
Humphris said she will simplify things by saying she is not willing to hold a
public hearing because the request is not within the intent of what the Board
decided to do in 1992. It is an expansion and it does open the door a little
more to the camel's nose that she mentioned in October, 1992, and it is coming
back to haunt the Board now. It opens up a whole other "can of worms" and
will make it harder for everybody in the future. It would be simpler for it
to stay the way it is, a nice restaurant.
Mr. Cooper said if you examine the building as it is today, it has
basically been totally demolished and he did that in good faith reliance on a
permit that was given to him by the County. He said the Board can be very
specific about what is existing now and examine the "footprint", but he is
proposing to build an apartment that meets with compliance and does not
require any variances. He is not asking to totally exploit the building
capacity on this site given the interpretations of the previous conditions.
Mr. Perkins said Mr. Cooper is asking this Board to change what it did
in October, 1992 in granting the service area designation to that structure.
He thinks Mr. Cooper should go back with a builder or architect and see if
something can be designed to meet the criteria the Board set in October, 1992.
Mr. Cooper said the plans have already been revised four or five times. Mr.
Perkins said that is not the Board's problem. Mr. Cooper said he would like
to have some specific parameters as to what he can do.
Mr. Perkins suggested Mr. Cooper put the walls back up the way they were
and open up the restaurant. He said what this Board voted on in 1992 was
sewer service to the existing structure, and that structure has been modified,
but Mr. Cooper can build it back. Mr. Perkins said what was started on the
site seems overwhelming to him. Mr. Cooper asked where Mr. Martin was when he
needed him. Mr. Perkins said Mr. Martin also voted in October, 1992, and what
the Board voted on is very clear. What was said during that discussion
doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what the Board voted on, and
that was sewer service to the existing structure.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman offered motion that the Board proceed to
public hearing with a change in the Albemarle County service area (jurisdic-
tional area) because that is the issue before the Board today.
Mr. Marshall gave second to the motion. Roll began as follOws:
Mrs. Thomas: Yes.
Mr. Bowerman: No.
Mrs. Humphris: No.
Mrs. Thomas said Mr. Bowerman had "thrown the members a loop." Mr.
Bowerman said he could have made a motion that the Board not hold a public
hearing. He said the Board has not been getting anywhere for the last thirty
minutes. Mrs. Humphris said all Mr. Bowerman is trying to do is conclude this
discussion and put this issue to rest according to how the Board voted in
1992.
Mr. Marshall said this is not the way he read this conversation so he
will have to say "yes".
Mr. Perkins said he does not mind going to public hearing, so he will
vote "yes." He still thinks it has to go back to the original intentions of
this Board.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
000053
Mr. Bowerman said if that is the case, then there is no reason to hold a
public hearing. Mr. Perkins said he thinks Mr. Cooper has got to find that
out.
The total vote was:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Cooper said he is mindful of what the Planning Commission suggested
to solve everything. He said to him it is not a perversion of the Board's
original conditions, and he hoped the Board would be considerate of that the
next time this request is heard.
Mrs. Humphris Said she hopes Mr. Cooper is mindful of this discussion
because she does not think there is any question of the feelings of this
Board. Mr. Cilimberg said what the Board saw in the staff's report today is
what will be discussed at the public hearing. It will be the applicantvs
responsibility to provide any modifications to that.
Mr. Marshall said if it goes the way Mrs. Humphris said, it appears that
five of the Board members will vote it down. Mr. Bowerman said if it goes the
way Mrs Humphris suggested, then the request should not be heard.
Mr. Cooper said his attorney could not be present today, and he has
spent $12,000 in engineering fees for the sewer, $10,000 for the easements,
and $60,000 to lay the sewer line. He did work under the building permit, and
he does not feel that what he is proposing is unreasonable, but is within the
intent of the Board. Mr. Marshall said he believes Mr. Cooper misinterpreted
the Board's previous actions. He voted "yes" today because he knows how much
money Mr. Cooper has spent, and he wants to help him save it, but if the
request comes back in the same form in which it was presented today, he will
vote "no". Mr. Cooper asked if there is any form in which the request can be
presented so that the Vote will be "yes". Mr. Marshall said if the request is
within the guidelines the Board vote~ for in 1992. Mr. Bowerman said if that
is the case, the request does not have to come back to the Board at all. If
Mr. Cooper took the existing footprint, took out 150 square feet for an
apartment, closed off that much of a dining room, and put a patio in the back
of the building that was not covered, he could do exactly what he wants to do,
and do it now.
Mr. Cooper asked how capacity is to be determined. Mr. Davis said it
would be the existing capacity in 1992, and it would have to be determined.
Mr. Tucker said there was no determination of what the capacity was in 1992.
What the staff interprets, what the State interprets, and what Mr. Cooper
interprets from that action seems to be the only issue. He said staff has
attempted to determine capacity (in the staff's report) by saying it is to
serve a 100-seat restaurant.
Mrs° Thomas said to have a public hearing and at the end say the
capacity is now established at 85 plus an apartment, or whatever number is
arrived at, would be a legislative action which is needed and is useful. Mr.
Tucker said the Board would normally think of this as a service areas boundary
amendment, but there is no boundary. It is the conditions attached to the
boundary adjustment that are being amended. Mrs. Thomas said the applicant
must have a clear understanding from the discussion today that enlarging the
footprint is not going to be approved.
Mrs. Humphris asked what the Board should be taking to the public
hearing. Mr. Bowerman said it is to define "capacitye" Mr. Cilimberg said
staff has tried to help the Board make this determination by making a sugges-
tion, but if the Board thinks this is too much, and wants to only establish
capacity at 100 and no more, and say it is for the existing building, it
cannot go up, it cannot go out, it has to stay in that footprint, the Board
can do that today and then the applicant and the staff will know exactly what
the Board wants the public hearing for. Mr. Bowerman said that is perfect.
Mrs. Humphris said that is perfect, it cannot go up, it cannot go out, it
cannot change and it is to serve 100 people whether it has an apartment or
not. Mr. Cilimberg asked the County Attorney if that is clear enough for the
record.
Mr. Davis said the motion was simply to set a public hearing on the
applicant's request. The Board has now given clarification as to how to
advertise the request° That is very clear. Whether or not that is acceptable
to Mr. Cooper can be debated at the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board could go ahead and define "capacity" today.
Mr. Davis said if the Board wants to clarify today what was meant by "existing
capacity" in 1992, then a public hearing is not needed. Mr. Bowerman said he
thinks the Board can define capacity today. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Cooper
wants a bigger footprint. Mr. Cooper said it is nothing that requires a
variance. Mr. Cilimberg said that is not what the Board is saying, and he
wants to make this clear because staff has spent many hours discussing this
request. Mrs. Humphris said the Board is not going to change the footprint.
Mr. Cooper said there is no legal definition for the word "footprint". Mro
Davis said "existing structure" means no expansion of the structure, up, out
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000054
(Page 27)
or anywhere. Mr. Cooper asked if that is the legal definition. Mr. Davis
said that was the intent of the Board in 1992 and they have clarified that
intent today.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board needed to take one more step and have a
motion to that effect. Mr. Bowerman said if the Board did that it would be
able to preclude having a public hearing because the Board already knows what
it did the first time, but apparently that was not clear. Mr. Bowerman said
he knows what he meant, and he can clarify that now. If the applicant
continues to want to go to public hearing, that is his option. Mr. Bowerman
said he will accept the figure of 100. Mrs. Humphris said she will also. Mr.
Bowerman said he will accept the fact that there can be some outside dining,
as long as it does not require any change in the structure~ and he is willing
to define 100 as the capacity, and included in that figure is the accessory
apartment, and he would make that a motion.
Mr. Davis asked if for purposes of clarification it was the Board's
intent that "existing use" be broad enough to include an accessory use to the
restaurant, or the apartment. Mr. Bowerman said "yes"
Mr. Cooper said if the term "existing Use" is broad enough, why isn't
the term "existing structure" broad enough.
At this point, motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to clarify the
existing building capacity to be no more than 100 seats. The Board clarifies
that the existing use requirement from the prior approval of the service
boundaries would allow for an accessory residential apartment. The Board
further clarifies that the existing structure would not allow for any expan-
sion of the 1992 structure either up or out. The motion was seconded by Mrs.
Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Mrs. Humphris asked what happens to the motion on the public hearing.
Mr. Davis said if Mr. Cooper is agreeable to the existing service area
(jurisdictional area) which is now defined and clarified, then there is no
need for a public hearing. If Mr. Cooper wants to expand the structure~ have
a second story, or have more seating capacity than 100, then there is a need
for a public hearing. Mr. Cooper said he will talk to his partner and his
lawyer before making that decision.
Mr. Cooper introduced his architect Mr. Evan Williams. Mr. Williams
said significant parts of the original building were not structurally sound.
At the entrance there was a structure which concealed a cooling plant and the
previous owner took that screen with him. Is that screen considered existing.
Mr. Davis said that anything that showed in 1992 when the Board took its
action could be structurally repaired or replaced, as long as it is not
expanded.
Agenda Item No. 19. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 12:37 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphrisv
to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344.A of the Code of
Virginia under subsection (1) to consider a personnel evaluationv and under
subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding legal matters
involving an agreement and probable litigation, and a matter of pending
litigation relating to a property dispute. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 20. Certify Executive Session. The Board reconvened
into open session at 1:59 p.m. Motion by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs.
Humphris, to certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board
members's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the
open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and
identified in the motion authorizing the. executive session were heard,
discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 21. Discussion of charges to Historic Preservation and
Mountain Protection Plan Committees.
Mr. Cilimberg said on May 3, 1995, the Board appointed two new ad hoc
committees, the Historic Preservation Committee which is to devise a preserva-
tion plan, and the Mountain Protection Plan Committee Which is to devise a
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000055
(Page 28)
mountain protection plan for the county. Both plans are intended to address
all available options for these activities and to include recommendations
regarding regulatory ordinances. When each committee has completed its work,
the committee will submit its evaluations and recommendations to the Board.
If a committee recommends adoption of an ordinance, then it must also address
what activities should be regulated and which resources should be protected.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends that two Board members, one for each
committee, be chosen to act as liaison members. Attached to the staff's
report (on file) is an outline of tasks for each committee which the Board may
confirm or modify.
Mrs. Thomas said work needs to proceed so ordinances can be recommended
for adoption by the Board. She suggested formulating an ideal position in
both plans as well as a fall back position, especially if the ideal position
is not adoptable the first time around. A strategy for mountaintop protection
can be best illustrated by showing some bad examples. She said she was in
California and saw the sky blotted out by a huge development on a mountaintop
which appeared to loom down over the road. She said she did not want this to
happen in Albemarle County. The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority used a tech-
nique at a recent hearing which showed what the Ivy landfill would look like
if its height increased to 800 feet. In terms of historic preservation, she
hopes the committees will look at what is working in other places. A small
part of the Route 29 Alternate 10 Bypass is taking more homes than would
normally have to be taken because a large piece of property in its way is
designated as historic due to one historic building sitting on the property.
This is an extension of historic that she has no interest in. She said this
is her picture of going too far.
Mrs. Humphris said a friend brought her some photographs which she would
be happy to share with committee members. One of the pictures shows a huge
apartment complex that was built on a mountaintop outside of Asheville, North
Carolina. It is one of the most appalling land uses that could be imagined.
Regarding the Historic Preservation Committee, she said'her grandparents used
to own a beautiful pre-civil war home with historical significance located on
Ridge Street just a few blocks from the present County Office Building. The
site is now where Noland Plumbing is located. Although her family tried to
save the house, it was in the 1950's and nobody else cared. She understands
the problem on a personal level and sympathizes, as well as empathizes, with
the missions of both committees. She is willing to help in any way she can.
Mr. Marshall said he was born and raised in Charlottesville, and that he
used to live on Park Street. His home was the first home of the Albemarle
County Sheriff. His father was a book binder with the Michie Publishing
Company and earned $30 per week. He said his family was lucky when they sold
their house because it was sold to attorneys. The house is now a law office
and is still in excellent condition. The house was built before Monticello
and is considered a historic landmark. He said there is a need for additional
homes and space, but there is only so much land to go around. Everybody
cannot afford to maintain a piece of property like his former home place. If
property is to be preserved by some law or ordinance, then some method of
financing or a tax break should be available to those individuals who cannot
afford to keep it, so that it can be preserved and yet they will not lose
their home. In regard to mountaintops and open spaces in Albemarle County, he
hopes the committees will use the same tact. He is willing to assist in any
way he can.
Mr. Bowerman said in 1980, when he was on the Planning Commission, there
was a Historic Preservation Committee. The committee brought forth recommen-
dations that went nowhere. The primary reason was that unlike Charlottes-
Ville, there really was not a historic district. Historic sites are scattered
all over the County and this makes it difficult to implement a plan. At that
time, concern was expressed over individual rights versus public rights.
Imposing controls or regulations on people and private property was the real
issue. The County attempted to come up with'regulations twice now and these
committees will now make a third attempt. This is a daunting and uneasy task.
He feels the Board will be supportive of the tough decisions the committees
members will be required to make.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board should not ignore the attempt that was made
by a Citizens for Albemarle Committee a couple of years ago. They spent time
and a tremendous amount of effort developing a product that she is sure can
serve as a basis if the new committees are interested.
Mr. Perkins said the guidelines (on file) are very good. From a legal
standpoint, in particular with the Mountain Protection Plan, there might be
some State laws that would prohibit the County from doing certain things,
specifically the Right-to-Farm Legislation. The Board will need to r~view
this from a standpoint as to whether something is permanent, like a dwelling
or temporary, such as timber harvesting. He said that what something looks
like today may not be what it would look like in the future°
Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall volunteered to serve on a
committee or to act as a liaison to the Board. Mrs. Thomas said certain
members of the Planning Commission have also indicated they would like to
serve.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000056
(Page 29)
Mrs. Thomas asked if the MOnticello viewshed is considered part of
historic preservation. It needs to be defined. She said in a discussion she
had about the Ivy Landfill, it was mentioned that other historical properties
regard themselves as having viewsheds. She said the concept of the viewshed
and its value to historic preservation may be worth reviewing.
Mrs. Humphris said that she and Mrs. Thomas went to a meeting that Mr.
Bill Wade, Superintendent of the Shenandoah National Park, invited them to a
month ago at Skyland. She and her husband took a hiking tour of the historic
parts of the park. She was overwhelmed by the fantastic view to the west of
the Shenandoah Valley. However, all that could be seen were the glaring roofs
of poultry houses up and down the valley. She said she did not know if it is
possible to legislate something in order to change this.
Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: Charlottesville/Albemarle Joint
Security Complex Expansion.
Mr. Tucker said that on May 15, Charlottesville City Council adopted a
resolution supporting only renovation of the existing complex, those renova-
tions include installation of a new kitchen facility and upgrading of the
ventilation system. Council did not approve any additional cell space since
they are undecided as to the need at this time. Council has requested that
the Board approve the $4.8 million renovation, which includes the intake
center, in lieu of the original $16.0+ million jail expansion.
Mr. Tucker said this item has been brought to the attention of the State
Board of Corrections, but they have taken no action at this time. The State
Board meets again on June 13, and if this request is supported by both Council
and this Board, the request will be brought to the State Board for action on
that date. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors support the City's
request for renovations. This will allow staff time to attempt to obtain some
state funding toward the ultimate expansion of the Joint Security Complex
(Jail).
Mrs. Humphris asked why the amount is $16.0+ million in the resolution
when the working figure is $15.8 million, which is $4.8 million for the intake
center and $11.0 million for renovation and expansion. Mr. Tucker said the
resolution will be changed to reflect $15.0+ million.
Mrs. Humphris said she wants to make sure that everybody understands the
Jail Board's position. Contrary to what Councillor Tom Vandever said, the
Jail Board has not been able to find anybody at the State level who will allow
the Jail Board to do anything less than what is required. In the beginning,
all the Jail Board asked to do was build the intake center and make other
improvements, such as the ventilation system. The Jail Board was denied this
request and told the upgrade could not be done without providing more beds.
The planning study indicates the number of beds which are needed and a phasing
for providing those beds. She said this leaves the Jail Board in a position
of being responsible for going back to the Board of Corrections and asking
again if this can be done, with no assurance of a satisfactory answer. The
Jail Board, if this Board votes for it to do so, can go ahead and ask for the
intake center and that the upgrade be done without the provision of additional
space. There is still the problem of not having enough space, and Mrs.
Humphris said it is odd to her that City Council has taken the position of not
supporting the projections. In the City Council's recent study, they had a
consultant provide numbers to compare with the numbers that the planning study
uses for future expansion needs. She said their own consultant's numbers were
at a higher level of need than the Board had in its proposal. She is not sure
what is going on, but the Jail Board will do whatever is needed to house the
inmates as required by law.
Mrs. Thomas said given the limited requests the Board is able to make,
even if the best possible situation occurs, the State will only pay half of
the $4.8 million which will leave the County with a $2.4 million obligation.
A bond or some form of borrowing will need to be done. She said the Board has
to notify the State soon as to what type of financial plan the County will be
using. She asked if the County's financial plan will or will not include a
setting up a Jail authority. Mr. Tucker said it does not have to include an
authority, but this Board has already taken action to form an authority. That
action was based on the original proposal to expand the jail. The City has
not taken any action as yet. The City and the County will need to determine
the type of financial package and how it will be funded. There will be
advantages and disadvantages of funding it with and without an authority
especially if the Jail Board is moving in the direction of an expansion.
Mr. Davis said the financial plan must be sUbmitted to the State
Treasury Department, and the statutory deadline is July 1, 1995. There may be
some flexibility, given the current situation, to extend the deadline on
behalf of the Jail Board.
Mrs. Humphris said if this Board passes the resolution, there may be a
problem of obtaining the actual beds needed. Also, if the resolution is
passed, then the State might allow the County to do expansion without the bed
space and may fund half of it. If the State denies this proposal and if the
Jail Board decides to move ahead, then the County will have to pay all of it,
which will mean the County must come up with $2.4 million. She said she did
not know if the County had that kind of money.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000057
(Page 30)
Mr. Davis said the amount of money the County will have to pay at the
beginning of the project, assuming the cost is a 50/50 split between the City
and the County, will be $2.4 million. Then if the State reimburses the money,
it may be in a lump sum refund or paid out over 20 years, which is the
financial plan the State is most favorable toward. If the State refuses to
pay the money in a lump sum, the County may have to spend $2.4 million and
receive reimbursement over 20 years for half of the money to be reimbursed.
If the County borrowed the money, the State would pay interest, but the State
may not pay interest if the money is paid out in the beginning of the project.
Mr. Bowerman said unless the Board can convince him otherwise, he thinks
the studies the Jail Board did, in terms of future capacity needs, along with
the City's independent study are obvious. Anything less than trying to meet
those needs makes no sense. He said an intake center and the $4.8 million
expansion is needed. The City recognizes this need and has an obligation to
fund half of it. However, the City refuses to recognize the need for addi-
tional bed space. He feels the Board will not get anywhere if the Board goes
ahead and approves this because it is not dealing with the issue or the
problem. Mr. Tucker said all the resolution does is to allow the County, if
approved, to obtain participation from the State. Mr. Bowerman said a year
ago, the State denied this application and he thought it was stupid to proceed
with it. Mr. Marshall asked if that was without the City's support. Mr.
Bowerman said the Board had the City's support at that time. He said it is
silly to proceed with this based upon what the State has already told the Jail
Board. He said according to Mr. Tom Vandever the beds will not be needed, but
the City's paid consultant indicates the needs are even greater than what the
Board originally said they would be. He said Mr. Tucker's point-of-view is
well taken and is proper. He does not agree with it because it is not paying
attention to the real need and the reality of that need.
Mrs. Humphris said there is a desperate need for the expansion. The
Jail Board feels let down by City Council about this situation. There seems
to be a lack of understanding regarding City Council's reasoning on this
issue. She feels the County should take what it can get, if the Jail Board
would be willing to ask the Board of Corrections to let the County have at
least a small portion of what is being requested. She reminded the Board that
the jail complex will be going through another summer without a proper
ventilation system. The County has been fortunate during the past couple of
summers. The superintendent provides fans, ice water, ice cream, and anything
else he can to make 100 degree heat bearable in a facility that is brick and
absorbs the sun. People who cannot sleep and are agitated due to the heat can
be a problem to their own safety and the safety of the correctional officers.
She said even though there may not be a chance of getting what the Board is
requesting, the Jail Board will go and ask. The problem is the City's non
participation in solving these concerns. She does not want this Board to "cut
off its noses to spite its face" just because the City refuses to fulfill its
obligations. It is incumbent on the Jail Board to do anything it can to get a
ventilation system, a kitchen, and an intake center. She appreciates how Mr.
Bowerman feels, but she is responsible for the inmates at the jail. Mr.
Tucker asked if the County is any worse off by not attempting this even though
there is no assurance that it will be approved.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board is acceding to a position that is not
logical or in the public interest. Mr. Tucker said if this request is denied
again, then the burden will be on the City to reconsider this issue. Mr.
Marshall said the City has more people in the jail system than the County.
Mr. Bowerman said this change recognizes that the County will be placing more
people in jail in the future and the funding would switch to 50/50 under an
authority. Mr. Marshall said he does not understand what the City is doing or
what their plans are. Mrs. Humphris said the City is not allowing the County
to be privy to what their plans are and that is the problem.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the question of town reversion is connected to
this issue. Mr. Davis said there is a proposed agreement which tries to
address reversion in the proposal that City Council and the Board has re-
viewed. It says if there is a reversion, either the County or the City or a
combination will be responsible for the jail, but it is an unresolved issue as
to how it will be affected if reversion occurs.
Mrs. Thomas said if the City has no debt for this at all, then it is not
an issue. The City can postpone this until after it becomes a town, and then
it is not an issue. She said during the battle about annexation this was the
item that pushed many governmental decisions. If a governmental decision did
not make sense, it was probable that it involved annexation strategy on one
side or the other. She is afraid this is the first of many of those govern-
mental decisions that will not make sense and it is probably driven by the
modern equivalent of annexation (reversion). The Board should take the Jail
Board's advice and move forward with this request and let it be turned down.
Otherwise, the public and the City will not know whether it would have been
successful or not. The Board can say it would have been turned down and it
was illogical, but its better to find out for sure.
Mr. Davis said this project should be funded at the $4.8 million level
in this fiscal year because the next opportunity for obtaining State funds is
in the 1998 budget. The next opportunity for the Jail Board to go back to the
State Treasury Department and ask for matching funds will be July, 1997~ which
postpones the expansion identified in the planning study by two or three
years.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000058
(Page 31)
Mrs. Humphris said s~&'h~es'~~dy Understands, particularly City
Council, that the funding construction schedule is complex and it will take
time to get this project underway. She said the County is in jeopardy of some
law suits. The Jail Board is doing everything possible at the jail to provide
more space. A double-bunking project has been completed that cost approxi-
mately $20,000 which was taken out of the telephone discretionary fund. She
said more beds are needed for inmates and there may be problems with the law
when determining inmate's civil rights on this issue. As far as she knows,
everything that City Council has discussed has been behind closed doors. She
has no idea what City Council is thinking, nor does she understand their
reasoning in not believing these needs are warranted. It does not make sense
that City Council is giving up on funding through the State. There is no
obligation to move forward with the expansion. If funds are granted, the
County does not have to do all that is being proposed.
Mr. Bowerman said an intake center is really needed because of the
current system's inefficiency. He said it is inefficient and dangerous that
there is not a lockup in the County Office Building. The proposed improve-
ments are only a piece of the total need.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt
the following resolution with the amendment that $16.0+ million be changed to
15.0+ million. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
Mr. Martin.
RESOLUTION
W~EPd~AS, the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Board
has requested approval of a $15+ million project to renovate and
expand the Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex; and
W~EREAS, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors on April
6, 1995, voted to support the $15+ million renovation and expan-
sion project; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council adopteda resolu-
tion on May 15, 1995, supporting only the $4.8 million renovation
component of the renovation and expansion project; and
WHEREAS, no part of the project can proceed without concur-
rence of the County and the City; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public's interest to proceed as
expeditiously as possible with at least the renovation component
of the project; and
WHEREAS, to secure state funding for the $4.8 million
renovation project, the Jail Board must receive approval for the
project from the State Board of Corrections and meet other dead-
lines and requirements specified in Title 53.1 of the Code of
Virginia.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby requests that
the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Board take all neces-
sary steps to proceed with the $4.8 million renovation component
of the renovation and expansion project for the Albemarle-Char-
lottesville Joint Security Complex and to qualify the project for
state funding pursuant to Title 53.1 of the Code of Virginia.
Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Request for a two percent stipend for
the Albemarle County Sheriff.
Mr. Tucker said that effective July 1, 1995, employees of the Common-
wealth Attorney's Office and the Sheriff's Office have been granted a two-
percent stipend per the Board's budget deliberations earlier in the Spring.
At that time, the constitutional officers for each of these offices were not
included in the supplement at the request of the constitutional officers
themselves. Since that time, due to a technicality in the proceedings of the
General Assembly and a disagreement between the Governor's Office and the
Appropriations Committee, state monies were provided for an additional two and
one-half percent increase for sheriff's deputies for 1995-96, but not for
sheriffs. Sheriff Hawkins has requested that he be included in the County's
two percent supplement to help rectify this issue.
Mr. Tucker said if the two percent stipend for the Sheriff is granted,
it would amount to $1221 including benefits. If the Board approves this
request, the additional amount could be appropriated to the Sheriff's budget
out of the Fund Balance at the end of this fiscal year. The other constitu-
tional officers were not affected by this particular General Assembly action,
so the Board might choose to make this a one-time stipend in recognition of
that fact.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 0000~9
(Page 32)
Mr. Bowerman aSked if other constitutional officers were requesting
stipends. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Marshall asked if other constitutional
officers were left out of this process. He said the officers were supposed to
be included with other employees but were inadvertently left out during the
General Assembly. The Sheriff realized this error and tried to correct it,
but it was defeated. Mr. Tucker said this is the reason the Sheriff is
requesting this now.
Mr. Marshall said he will abstain from voting because the Sheriff is his
first cousin.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
appropriate $1221 for a one-time, 1995-96 budget year amount to supplement the
Sheriff's salary. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 17. Approval of FY 1995-96 Capital Improvements Program
(CIP) Appropriation Ordinance, and Resolution of Intent for use of VPSA Bond
proceeds.
Mr. Tucker said the FY 1995-96 Capital Improvements Program waS approved
by the Board on April 12, 1995, in the amount of $10,556,729. The CIP
Appropriation Ordinance reflects the additional $250,000 approved by the Board
for the Capital Projects/Debt Service Reserve that will be transferred from
the FY 1995-96 Operating Budget into the General Government Capital ImproVe-
ment Fund. An allocation of $110,000 to replace voting machines has been
deleted since the machines were previously bought through a lease/purchase
agreement. The lease payments of $116,000 will be paid from the General
Government Debt Service Fund utilizing the $110,000 savings in the FY 1995-96
transfer to the CIP and an additional $6000 taken from the FY 1995-96 Debt
Service Transfer.
This CIP budget is divided into three separate funds: the General
Government Capital Improvements Fund, the School Division Capital Improvements
Fund and, the Stormwater/Utilities Fund.
Mr. Tucker said a Resolution of Official Intent for use of Virginia
Public School Authority (VPSA) bond proceeds needs to be adopted so the County
can begin paying costs on any of the school projects listed on Attachment A
(on File) and be reimbursed by the VPSA bonds when they are issued this Fall.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt
the 1995-96 Capital Improvements Program Appropriation Ordinance, as presented
and set out in full below. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
COUNTY OF ALBE~L%RLE
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
CAPITAL I~PROVE~ENTS PROGRA~
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1996
AN ORDINANCE making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary
expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1996; to prescribe the provisos,
terms, conditions and provisions with respect to the items of appropriation
and their payment; and to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this
ordinance and all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of
such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I: GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as
follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30~
1996:
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Paragraph One
ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS
1. Albemarle County Office Building ADA Renovations$ 52,160
2. Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal System 75,000
3. Health Department Clinic Wing 80,000
4. General Government Computer Upgrade 155,000
5. County Office Building Maintenance and Repairs 45,921
$408,081
Paragraph Two
FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY
1. Police Department Computer System
2. Fire/Rescue Building/Equipment Fund
3. Fire Pumper Replacement
4. E-911 Building
Paragraph Three
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
$ 70,000
250,000
250,000
340,800
$910,800
1. Revenue Sharing Road Projects
2. Landscaping Route 29 North
LIBRARIES
Paragraph Four
$500,000
3,000
$503,000
1. Maintenance/Replacement Projects
Paragraph Five
PARKS AND RECREATION
$ 40,000
1. ADA Compliance at Parks
2. ADA Compliance on School Playgrounds 89
3. Red Hill Elementary Rec Improvements 67
4. Greer Outdoor Rec Improvements 77
5. Rivanna Greenway Access and Path 25
6. Scottsville Community Center Outdoor Improvements 63
7. Crozet Park Improvements 50
8. Milton/Chris Greene/Mint Springs Security 10
9. Warren Ferry 20
10. Maintenance and Replacement Projects
$ 80.278
,375
,000
,000
.000
.525
.000
r000
000
77,000
$559,178
Paragraph Six
EDUCATION (GENERAL GOVERNMENT)
1. PVCC Social Sciences Building
$ 62,335
Paragraph Seven
CAPITAL PROJECTS RESERVE
1. Capital Projects/Debt Service Reserve
$250,000
O000GO
$ 408,081
$ 910,800
$ 503,000
$ 40,000
$ 559,178
$ 62,335
$ 250,000
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
To be provided as follows:
Transfer from General Fund
Transfer from General Fund Capital Project
CIP Fund Balance
E-911 Fee Revenues
Rescue Payment
$1,880,000
250,000
240,794
340,800
21,800
$2,733,394
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
$2,733,394
$2,733,394
SECTION II: SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
from the SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND'for the purposes herein
specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1996:
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
paragraph One
EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION)
1. ADA Structural Changes-Miscellaneous Schools
2. New High School
3. WAHS Building Renovations
4. AHS Phase II, III Restorations
5. Woodbrook Renovations/Addition
6. Cale Addition
7. Stony Point Renovations/Addition
8. Brownsville Renovations/Addition
9. Crozet Addition
10. Murray High Renovations
11. Burley Roof Replacement
12. Instructional Technology for School Division
13. Administrative Technology for School Division
14. Security Systems - All Schools
15. Education Maintenance & Replacement Projects
00006 .
$186,485
2,400,000
943,650
1,007,000
200,000
78,000
70,000
100,000
80,000
95,000
140,000
1,080;000
70,000
44,900
1,358,300
$7,853,335
$7,853,335
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
To be provided as follows:
Transfer from General Fund
Interest Earned
VPSA Bonds
$250,000
100,000
7,503,335
$7,853,335
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
$7,853,335
$7,853,335
SECTION III: STORMWATER/UTILITIES FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
from the STORMWATER UTILITIES FUND for stormwater and utility improvement
purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1996:
Paragraph One
STORMWATER/UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS
$ 110,000
1. County Master Drainage
2. Stormwater Projects
$ 60,000
50,000
$110,000
SUMMARY
Total STORMWATER/UTILITIES FUND appropriations for
Fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
To be provided as follows:
Transfer from the General Fund
Stormwater Fund Balance
Total STORMWATER/UTILITIES FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
$ 60,000
50,000
$110,000
$ 110,000
$ 110,000
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED
IN SECTIONS I - III IN THIS ORDINANCE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1996
RECAPITULATION:
Section I - General Government Improvements FundS2,733,394
Section II - School Division Capital Improvement 7,853,335
Section III - Stormwater/ Utilities Fund 110,000
$10,696,729
GRAND TOTAL
~10,696t729
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized
to transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies
become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made
to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation ordinance.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
SECTION IV
000062
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in
Sections I, II and III are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions
and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those
set forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appropri-
ations are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropria-
tions--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the
amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate
revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appro-
priations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full.
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable
in such proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of th~
respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to b~
available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of
Supervisors included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund
budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the
said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent
of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these
agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an
appropriation.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual
services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau~ agency~ or
individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by
requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for
items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required;
and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving
the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but
such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department,
bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or
Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing
such competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the contract-
ing department, bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required
for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action
of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obliqations incurred contrary to the purchasinq procedures pre-
scribed in the Albemarle County Purchasinq Manual shall not be consid-
ered obliqations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not
issue any warrants in payment of such obliqations.
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by
any or all County departments, bureaus or agencies under the control of the
Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on
account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automo-
biles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate
as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be
subject to change from time to time to maintain like ratese
Paragraph Five
Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to
regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Six
Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions
of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Seven
This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred
and ninety-five°
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
the following Resolution of Official Intent to reimburse expenditures for
various public improvements with proceeds of bonds. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000065
(Page 36) :~
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
RESOLUTION
OF
OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES
FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROCEEDS OF BONDS
WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia (the "County"), intends to undertake various
improvements to its public school system as described on Exhibit A
attached hereto (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the County intends to pay costs of the Project
prior to the issuance of the Bonds, as hereinafter defined, and to
receive reimbursement for such expenditures from proceeds of the
sale of the Bonds;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBE-
MARLE, VIRGINIA:
(1)
(2)
The County intends to finance the Project through the
issuance of bonds in an amount not to exceed
$7,853,335 (the "Bonds").
The County intends to receive reimbursement from pro-
ceeds of the sale of the Bonds for costs of the Pro-
ject paid by the County prior to the issuance of the
Bonds.
(3)
The County intends that the adoption of this resolu-
tion be considered as "official intent" within the
meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 pro-
mulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.
Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of Annual Appropriation Ordinance for FY
1995-96 Operating Budget.
Mr. Tucker said the FY 1995-96 Operating budget was approved by the
Board on April 12, 1995, in the amount of $110,753,130. When the one-time
split billing of real property revenues of $15.0 million was added, the total
adopted budget amounted to $125,753,130.
The only significant change from what was approved by the Board earlier
is the addition of $17,500 for the 0.5 FTE (half, full-time equivalency)
Housing Counselor position which was approved by the Board last month using
State and donated funds. With this addition, the total budget is now
$125,770,630.
Mr. Tucker said two other changes need to be brought to the Board's
attention. The first is that the County's Debt Service Fund is now two
separate funds, a General Government Debt Service Fund, and a School Division
Debt Service Fund. This was done at the recommendation of the auditors.
The second change is the addition of $116,000 in Lease/Purchase payments
for the voting machines, which were originally approved for funding in the FY
1995-96 Capital Improvement Program budget. Funding for these lease payments
in the General Government Debt Service Fund came from a reduction of $110,000
in the transfer to the Capital Improvement Program Fund and a reduction of
$6000 from the original debt service transfer amount from $6,845,880 to
$6,839,880 to the School Division Debt Service Fund.
The projected $15.0 million from the split billing of real property
taxes has been placed in a reserve fund since these taxes will be collected in
June, 1996 but not actually spent until Fiscal Year 1996-97. Although the
Board will have time during the next fiscal year to consider a citizens'
recommendation during the public hearing that all of the revenues from the
split billing be placed in a separate fund to be used only for the new high
school, a preliminary analysis shows that it would be more cost-effective for
the County to spend part of the $15.0 million (approximately $7.2 million) on
other school projects in the FY 1996-97 Capital Improvement Program instead of
borrowing, than it would be to keep these revenues in a special account
earning interest until the remainder of the funds are needed in FY 1997-98.
The approved FY 1995-96/1999-00 CIP currently utilizes these revenues in this
manner.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
the FY 1995-96 Annual Appropriation Ordinance. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
OF THE COUNTy OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1996
000064
AN ORDINANCE making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary
expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1996; to prescribe the provisions with respect to the items of
appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all ordinances inconsistent
with this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
from the GENERAL FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein
specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
Paragraph One
TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS AND OTHER REFUNDS
$41,000
1. Refunds and Abatements
$41,000
Paragraph Two
GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT
$4,796,974
1. Board of Supervisors $289,332
2. County Executive $454,190
3. Elections $136,575
4. Finance $2,112,974
5. Information Services $1,291,774
6. Legal Services $296,880
7. Personnel $215,249
$4,796,974
Paragraph Three
JUDICIAL
$1,667,903
1. Circuit Court
2. Clerk of the Circuit Court
3. Commonwealth's Attorney
4. General District Court
5. Juvenile Court
6. Magistrate
7. Sheriff
$72,194
$448,954
$352,089
$12,150
$37,794
$8,535
$736,187
$1,667,903
Paragraph Four
PUBLIC SAFETY
$7,966,802
1. Ambulance, Rescue Squads
2. Community Attention Home
3. Correction and Detention (Jail)
4. Fire Department (City)
5. Fire/Rescue Administration
6. Forest Fire Extinction Service
7. Inspections
8. Emergency Operations Center (E-911)
9. Juvenile Detention Home
10. Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR)
11. Police Department
12. SPCA Contract
13. Volunteer Fire Departments (JCFRA)
$171,429
$60,240
$186,098
$601,550
$279,905
$13,800
$616,950
$449,686
$71,911
$37,403
$4,923,475
$13,040
$541,315
$7,966,802
Paragraph Five
PUBLIC WORKS
1. Engineering
2. Refuse Disposal (Landfills)
3. staff Services
$884,028
$222,626
$914,787
'~2,021,441
$2,021,441
Paragraph Six
HUMAN SERVICES
$5,093,032
1. Charlottesville Free Clinic
2. Children and Youth Commission (CACY)
3. Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS)
$5,000
$22,250
$27,054
June 7,
(Page 38)
1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
4. District Home
5. FOCUS - Teensight
6. Health Department
7. Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA)
8. Jefferson Area Disability Services BOard
9. JAUNT $280,000
10. Ch'ville/Albemarle Legal Aid Society (CALAS)$15,655
11. Madison House $4,205
12. Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) $7,310
13. Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) $19,600
14. Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE) $57,115
15. Social Services $3,586,308
16. Region Ten Community Services $250,104
$5,093,032
$40,000
$19,615
$618,000
$139,530
$1,286
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE
Paragraph Seven
1. Library
2. Literacy Volunteers
3. Parks and Recreation
4. Piedmont Council of the Arts
5. Teen Center
6. Darden Towe Memorial Park
7. Virginia Discovery Museum
8. Visitor's Bureau
9. WVPT Public Television
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Paragraph Eight
$1,549,591
$12,000
$952,235
$6,460
$48,168
$104,995
$11,460
$104,661
$7,000
$2,796,570
1. Albemarle Housing Improvement Prog (AHIP)
2. Community Action Agency (MACAA)
3. Gypsy Moth Program
4. Housing Office
5. Planning and Community Development
6. Planning District Commission (TJPDC)
7. Route 29 Bus Service
8. Soil and Water Conservation
9. VPI Extension Service
10. Zoning
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
Paragraph Nine
$346.710
$45.790
$24~121
$295.393
$819.603
$55.344
$38.200
$24851
$111319
$446,899
$2,208,230
1. Contingency Reserve
2. Split Billing Reserve
$62,126
$15,000,000
$15,062,126
CAPITAL OUTLAYS
Paragraph Ten
1. General Government Capital Improvements
2. General Government Stormwater Fund
3. Capital Improvement Program Reserve Fund
4. School Division Capital Improvement Prog
REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT
Paragraph Eleven
$1,880,000
$60,000
$250,000
$250,000
$2,440,000
1. Revenue Sharing Agreement
Paragraph Twelve
OTHER USES OF FUNDS
$5,049,991
1. School Fund
2. School Division Debt Service Fund
3. General Government Debt Service Fund
$39,013,874
$6,839,880
$116,000
$45,969,754
SUMMARY
Total General Government Fund appropriations
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
To be provided as follows:
000065
$2,796,570
$2,208,230
$15,062~126
$2,440,000
$5,049,991
$45,969,754
$95~113,823
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Revenue fr°m Local Sources (General FUnd)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Revenue from the General Fund Balance
Total GENERAL FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
$89,396,188
$5,513,935
$203,700
$-0-
$95,113,823
000066
SECTION II - REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for SCHOOL purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
Paragraph One
REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
1. Instruction
2. Administration, Attendance & Health
3o Pupil Transportation Services
4. Facilities Operation/Maintenance
5. Facilities Construction/Modification
6. Other Uses of Funds
SUMMARY
$48,693,875
$2,398,060
$4,937,465
$6,464,607
$234,345
$1,046,502
$63,774,854
$63,774,854
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
To be provided as follows:
$63,774,854
Revenue from Local Sources (Gen Fd Trans) $39,013,874
Revenue from Local Sources (Sch Fd Balance) $291,015
Miscellaneous Local Revenue $571,710
Revenue from the Commonwealth $23,292,535
Revenue from the Federal GOvernment $605,720
$63,774,854
Total SCHOOL FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
SECTION III - OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1996:
Paragraph One
FOOD SERVICES
1. Maintenance/Operation of School Cafeteria $1,826,190
$1,826,190
SUMMARY
Total FOOD SERVICES appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
To be provided as follows:
$1~826,190
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from Refunds and Rebates
Revenue from the Federal Government
Revenue from Fund Balance
$1,288,503
$12,676
$-0-
$371,877
$153,134
$1,826,190
Total FOOD SERVICES resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
$1,826,190
Paragraph Two
ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE
1. Food Service
$325,153
$325~153
SUMMARY
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Total ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE
OPERATIONS appropriations for fiscal year
Ending June 30, 1996:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Sales)
Total ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE
Resources available for fiscal year
Ending June 30, 1996:
Paragraph Three
PRE-SCHOOL GRANT
1. Special Ed Pre-School Program $76,930
SUMMARY
Total PRE-SCHOOL GRANT FUND appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government $76,930
Total PRE-SCHOOL GRANT FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
Paragraph Four
McINTIRE TRUST FUND
1. Payment to County Schools $10,000
SUMMARY
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Investments Per Trust $10,000
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
PREP PROGRAM
1. E. D. Program
2. C. B. I. P. Severe
Paragraph Five
SUMMARY
Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition and Fees
Total PREP PROGRAM resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
Paragraph Six
FEDERAL PROGRAMS
1. Chapter I
2. Chapter II
3. Migrant Education
4. Drug Free Schools
5. Adult Education
6. Title II
7. Carl Perkins
SUMMARY
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
To be provided as follows:
$325,153
$842,438
$532,636
$1,375,074
$1,375,074
$560,636
$40,811
$85,833
$35,375
$75,026
$27,225
$100,591
$925,497
000067
$325,153
$325,153
$76~930
$76,930
$76,930
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$1,375,074
$1,375,074
$1,375,074
$925,497
$925,497
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
$925,497
COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND
Paragraph Seven
1. Community Education
$1,174,914
SUMMARY
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition
Revenue from Driver's Education Fee
$1,054,863
$120,051
$1,174,914
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
SUMMER SCHOOL
Paragraph Eight
1. Summer School
SUMMARY
.$182,069
Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition
Miscellaneous Revenues
Transfer - School
Total SUMMER SCHOOL resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
$148~366
$8,703
$25,000
$182,069
00006S
$925,497
$1,174,914
$1,174,914
$1,174,914
$182,069
$182,069
$182,069
SECTION IV - DEBT SERVICE
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the function of DEBT SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENERAL
GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND and the SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
Paragraph One
GENERAL C, OVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND
1. Lease/Purchase Payments - Voting Machines
2. Lease/Purchase Payments - Data Processing
Equipment for General Government
$116,000
$42,060
$158,060
$158,060
Paragraph Two
SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND
1. Debt Service Payments
2. Lease/Purchase Payments -
Capital Equipment for the Schools
$6,839,880
$295,025
$7,134,905
$7,134,905
S~MMARY
Total DEBT SERVICE appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
To be provided as follows:
$7,292,965
Revenue from Local Sources (Tr fm Gen Fd)
Revenue from Local Sources (Tr fm Sch Fd)
Revenue from Local Sources (Tr fm Info Serv)
$6,955,880
$295,025
$42,060
$7,292~965
Total DEBT SERVICE resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1996:
$7,292,965
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I - IV IN THIS ORDINANCE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1996
RECAPITULATION:
Appropriations:
Section I - General Fund
Section II - School Fund
Section III - Other School Funds
Section IV - Debt Service Funds
$95,113,823
$63,774,854
$5,895,827
$7,292,965
$172,077,469
Less Inter-Fund Transfers
General Fund to School Fund ($39,013,874)
General Fund to Debt Service Fund ($6,955,880)
School Fund to Debt Service Fund ($295,025)
General Fund (Info Serv) to Debt Service Fund ($42,060)
($46,306,839)
GRAND TOTAL
000069
$172,077,469
($46,306,839)
$125,770,630
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized
to transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies
become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made
to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation ordinance.
SECTION V
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in
Sections I and IV are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and
provisions hereinbefore set forth in connection with said terms and those set
forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appropri-
ations are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropria-
tions--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the
amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate
revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appro-
priations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in fullo
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such
proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is
to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal
year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of
Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Social Services Board not
included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as
submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency
under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the
Social Services Board without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being
first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures
which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
Ail balances of appropriations at the close of business on the thirtieth
(30th) day of June, 1996 are hereby declared to be lapsed into the County
treasury and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations which may be
made in the appropriation ordinance for the next fiscal year, beginning July
1, 1996. Any balance available shall be used in financing the proposed
expenditures of the respective funds for the next fiscal year.
Paragraph Four
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual
services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or
individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by
requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for
items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required;
and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving
the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but
such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department~
bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or
Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing
such competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the contract-
ing department, bureau, agency or individual.
0000 ?0
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43) .... ~'~'" '
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required
for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action
of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obliqations incurred contrary to the purchasinq procedures pre-
scribed in the Albemarle County Purchasinq Manual shall not be considered
obliqations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any
warrants in Dayment of such obliqations.
Paragraph Five
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by
any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the
Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on
account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automo-
biles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate
as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be
subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Six
Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to
regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Seven
Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions
of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Eight
This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred
and ninety-five.
Agenda Item No. 18a. Appropriation: At-Risk Four Year Old Program at
Stone Robinson School.
Ms. Roxanne White said at its February 8, 1995, meeting, the Board
approved a planning grant in the amount of $5000 for a human services team to
develop a program design and implementation plan for a community-based At-Risk
Four Year Old program. Since that time, an advisory group has been working on
a grant application that was submitted to the State Department of Education on
May 15, 1995. Last Friday, notice was received that the grant has been
awarded based on approval of local matching funds. The program can be
implemented in September. Local matching funds are needed in the amount of
$36,191, and staff requests the use of $51,625 from the Glenmore proffer funds
for a one-time capital expenditure to house the program.
The total budget for the first year of the program is $138,025; $62,612
in personnel costs, $23,788 in operating costs; and $51,625 in one-time start-
up costs for a modular unit to house this program at the Stone Robinson
Elementary School site. The use of the proffer funds to purchase and set up
the modular unit has been approved as a valid use of the proffer funds by the
Zoning Administrator since the increased enrollment at Stone Robinson from the
Glenmore development precludes the use of any space in the school. Should the
program be discontinued for any reason, the modular classroom would be used by
the School Division either at Stone Robinson or at another school site in the
County (Detailed report is on file in the Clerk's office.).
Mrs. Humphris asked what guidelines were used in utilizing the Glenmore
proffer funds. Mr. Tucker said the funds can be used for school and community
related activities, but primarily for school-related activities. He said the
Board had approved use of these proffer funds for the East Rivanna Fire
Department's Fire House a couple of years ago.
Mrs. Humphris asked how many weeks this program will last. Ms. White
said for the full school year. Mrs. Humphris then asked how the follow up for
the program would be monitored. Ms. White said Family Services will be
working with the group as well as the under five study center with the Univer-
sity of Virginia. Each agency will work together to develop the evaluation
criteria. An assessment of children will be done ahead of time and this
information will be tracked. She said with preventive programs there is not
much data. However, preventive programs work to solve problems, and to keep
them from happening later on, which eliminates the need for future services.
Mrs. Thomas said the University of Virginia Education School has a
division that does evaluation and setting up of the criteria and standards.
She is impressed with the community's involvement. She asked who is taking
the lead with this proposal. Mr. Tucker said this proposal is Ms. White's
work, she wrote the grant. Ms. White said this is a pilot project with many
people working together, and that it is a new way of providing services with a
good evaluation component.
Mr. Bowerman said he supports the program with the exception of the
proffer funds. He believes general funds should be used. The Glenmore
proffer funds should be used for long-term capital improvements like a fire
house or for a school building. He realizes this is a school building, but it
00007 .
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
has a short-term useful life. Mr. Tucker said this concern was raised before.
The facility will not be permanent and, in a few years, Stone Robinson will
probably come back and ask for an expansion. Mr. Bowerman said he would
rather use the Glenmore proffer funds to do a full classroom expansion, and
that other carry-over funds or another source of funding should be used for
this project.
Mrs. Humphris said she agreed with Mr. Bowerman. The funds should be
used for a permanent expansion. Ms. White said there are plans in the future
to look at expansion needs. Mr. Bowerman asked if the resources could be
pooled to fund this project. Mr. Tucker said yes.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
approve the program in the amount of $36,191 for operating expenses, with
another $51,625 being used to purchase and set up a modular unit for the
program at Stone Robinson Elementary School to be funded from the Carry-over
Balance.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin°
Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mrs. Thomas said she serves on the VACo Land Use Committee and Mrs.
Humphris is on the VACo Human Resources Committee. They were chosen because
they were the only two people who attended the regional meeting. Three things
came out of that meeting that she had not heard about anyplace else.
The General Assembly has essentially placed on the Zoning Administra-
tor's ruling a guarantee. The Zoning Administrator will not be able to say
she made a mistake. After 60 days, the ruling will stand. Mrs. Thomas feels
it will place the County in more jeopardy than at present because the Zoning
Administrator makes hundreds of rulings.
Mr. Davis said there are some requirements that would have to be met
before the decision is irreversible; if the applicant relied on the ruling in
good faith; if there were a material change of position; and, a decision has
to be made where the Zoning Administrator has some discretion to make a
decision.
Mrs. Thomas said the General Assembly has essentially provided the
private trash haulers a guaranteed income for a period of time. If the County
should decide the tier city is the way to go and the County required suburban
areas to have their trash picked up by the City trash haulers or by some other
public trash haulers, then the business of the private trash haulers would
have been damaged and the County would have to compensate them for a time for
the income they had lost. This only becomes important if the County does
something creative like service districts or tier cities. It makes it much
more difficult and limits the County's flexibility.
Mrs. Thomas said the third item also has to do with solid waste. At the
national level, there is something called "flow control" legislation. The
County would not be able to say in the future that the County's trash haulers
have to use Albemarle's landfill. At the moment that does not matter, but if
the locality went to a conversion plant to turn trash into fuel pellets so it
could be used to heat the University Hospital, which is an old idea, there
would need to be a certain amount of trash. If the cost of the landfill were
higher to the trash hauler, that trash hauler might opt to go some place else
with the trash, and there would not be enough trash to go into that system.
Congress is about to say the County can never force anyone to use its trash
disposal system. The trash hauler could go wherever they wanted to. Con-
gressman Bliley is leading the push on this. If anyone lives in his district
and would like to tell him there is concern about the proposals he has only
agreed to grandfather counties that have bonded indebtedness that depends on
controlling their flow. Anyone else (which includes Albemarle County) would
never be able to control its solid waste flow, which might never make any
difference to the County, but it also could make a lot of difference at some
time in the future.
Mrs. Thomas said she and Mrs. Humphris attended a meeting of the VACo
Finance Steering Committee and Augusta County has a program that she would
like for staff to check into. Augusta no longer has a separate process for
purchase of County automobile decals. When the personal property tax is paid,
a decal is issued at the same time. It reduces one administrative step, both
for the applicant and for county government.
Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Marshall both said it sounded like a good idea.
Mrs. Humphris said there are some problems which she found out about by
talking with Mr. Tucker and Mr. Huff. Albemarle staff has come up with an
alternative which is better. Mrs. Thomas said she just wanted staff to look
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000072
(Page 45)
at alternatives even if the personal property tax rate had to be raised
slightly to replace revenue. If it cuts out one whole step, on the face of
it, it sounds good.
Mrs. Humphris said there is a question of unfairness when speaking of
increasing the personal property tax to compensate for lost revenue. Mr.
Tucker said there are a lot of things that seem simple on the surface, but
logistically are complicated. He will have the Director of Finance come to a
Board meeting and list the issues the County would run into through implemen-
tation of such a program. He said it would cause the rate on the County's
personal property tax rate to skyrocket in order to cover the cost of the
decal. Mrs. Thomas said Augusta has just gotten the enabling legislation this
last session of the General assembly so they have not implemented the program
yet. It might be good to just monitor their program for a while. Mr. Davis
said Augusta had to get enabling legislation to allow them to issue decals at
no cost. They had to do that because the State Code does not allow them to
enforce the decal ordinance unless there is a fee charged for that decal. Mr.
Davis said Fairfax County is now billing the personal property tax and the
decal on the same bill, but they are still separate items. If a person sends
in the money for both, they are sent a decal, but if a partial payment is
sent, no decal is returned.
Mro Perkins noted that his necktie was a gift from North Shore, New
Zealand.
Mr. Perkins noted receipt of a letter from the County's sister city,
Prato, Italy, and said the Board will have to decide what to do with it.
Mrs. Humphris said she understands there was a letter from Mr. Andy
Flood at Branchlands about the flood potential there. She wondered if a reply
had been sent.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board is soon going to have to deal with the
Foxfield Races because the problems are getting too great for the neighbors to
deal with.
Mrs. Humphris asked if a reply had been sent to Ms. Martha Tuzson
Stockton to a letter dated March 6, 1995, about water conservation. Mr.
Tucker said he would check.
Mrs. Humphris said she read about a change in usage of the reservoir to
something more active in the Charlottesville Observer. The Board also
received a copy of a letter from one of the neighbors signed by a lot of the
other neighbors, and she does not know what the proposal is all about. Mr.
Tucker said it is not going anywhere'. Mr. Bowerman asked if a letter will be
sent to these people saying the project is not going anywhere. Mr. Tucker
said the lady who wrote the letter has talked with Mr. Pat Mullaney and he is
handling this. Mrs. Humphris asked for a printed list of names so they can be
copied on any reply letter.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned a letter from the Southern Environmental Law
Center about the problems with the Moore's Creek designation. She asked if
that has been responded to. Mr. Tucker said he thinks staff has responded to
the questions. The Board took action several years ago regarding that matter.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned a letter from Mr. Allan Kindrick about a change
in classification of his real estate in Earlysville and about Chris Greene
Lake being used as a water source which he thinks is inconceivable, and asked
if that had been replied to. Mr. Tucker said it was dealt with by the
Planning Commission. Mr. Kindrick was present at that meeting, as were
representatives from the Airport Authority, where the issue he raised concern-
ing pollution, was discussed. Mr. Tucker said he thinks it has been dealt
with since Mr. Kindrick heard all of the discussion at the Planning Commission
meeting. He asked if Mrs. Humphris wanted a reply in writing. She responded
"yes".
Mrs. Humphris mentioned a letter from the Graemont Homeowners' Associa-
tion about road maintenance, and asked if that had been referred to anybody
since they requested that the County fix the road. Mr. Tucker said he
believes there has been a reply.
Mr. Bowerman said there have been plans to improve the boat launch
landing near the Reservoir Dam where one currently exists, but it is not in
the current five-year capital plan. There is no problem with the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority so he would like to get that project moved up in
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) ~%~-m~.~,~,~
(Page 46)
terms of getting the boat launch improved so people can get some access. Mr.
Tucker said staff has already met with Mr. Wendell Wood about the greenway
designation along that area. There is need for some additional land and staff
wants to use some of that land for parking as well as the boat ramp.
Mr. Bowerman said the sidewalk along Old Brook Road is in this year's
plan. Since he has not heard from the County Engineer, he has not been
involved in right-of-way discussions at all, so he assumes it can be done
soon. Mr. Tucker said he will check on this project.
Mr. Bowerman said some constituents have expressed a concern about a
type of air gun which is like a pistol, but is powered with compressed air
cylinders and shoots pellets. He questions whether the County can have any
type of restriction on that type of a weapon. He has talked with Mr. Davis
about this, and apparently under State Code, the Board can add an item
concerning discharge of that particular type of weapon in the same areas where
discharge of a firearm is not allowed. He feels it is a dangerous type of gun
which is being sold at department stores without much supervision, and he
feels the Board needs to do something about it. There was an incident
recently at Woodbrook School and a child was expelled. Then there was another
incident were a child from outside of the school district had a gun and was
menacing other children. At this time, there is nothing in an ordinance which
gives the county any power over that type of gun. He thinks the Board should
do something.
Mr. Tucker said this was handled at the school system level. Mr.
Bowerman said one issue was a police matter. He asked if any restriction
could be put on these guns so they have to be sold to an adult, or with
permission of an adult. He understands they can be sold at some locations to
anyone. Mr. Davis said the County has no enabling authority to regulate the
sale of these weapons on the local level. There is state authority to limit
the discharge of air-powered or gas-powered weapons. That type of regulation
has been done by ordinance in the County for firearms in residential areas.
The Board could also prohibit the discharge of these air-powered weapons in
residential areas.
Mr. Bowerman said he would talk to the three state delegates about the
state issues. The sale of those weapons is a state issue. He asked staff to
look at banning the discharge of the air-powered, or particularly gas-powered
guns, especially the ones that are identical to semi-automatic weapons which
are very transportable.
Agenda Item No. 23. Recess. At 3:30 p.m., the Board recessed.
Agenda Item No. 24. Reconvene in Meeting Room 235 (Totier Room). The
Board reconvened at 3:38 p.m. in Meeting Room 235.
Agenda Item No. 25. Joint Meeting with School Board.
School Board Members Present: Mr. Russell Madison Cummings Jr., Mr.
William W. Finley, Mrs. Susan Gallion, Mr. George C. Landrith, III, Mr.
Michael J. Marshall, Mrs. Karen L. Powell and Mrs. Sharon Wood.
Officers Present: School Superintendent, Dr. Kevin Co Castner~ and
Assistant Director of Human Resources, Robert B. Brandenburger.
Item 25b. Discussion: Health Care Insurance Proposals.
requested that this item be heard before Agenda Item No. 25a.)
(It was
Mr. Richard Huff, Deputy County Executive, summarized the staff report
which is on file in the Clerk's office and made a part of the permanent
records of the Board.
Mr. Huff said the County's medical and dental insurance contracts for
employees of both Local Government and the School Division are scheduled to be
renewed on October 1, 1995. The County procured the services of Corporate
Benefit Consultants to provide information on health care issues due to the
competitive market in Charlottesville. The consultant assisted in the
development of the request for proposal that went out in February for medical
and dental insurance. There were seven responses to the proposal's bid
process. In the past, there have been two or three responses. The process
was set up to negotiate with the top three health care carriers and the top
two dental carriers. Based on continued good claims experience and the
negotiated bid process, the rates for the County's medical and dental plans
for next year are projected to be below the current year's rates. The
County's Health Care Executive Committee considered all bids, consultant
recommendations, and comments of various groups including the General Govern-
ment Leadership Team, Schools Leadership Team, Teacher Advisory Committee and
the Health Care Advisory Committee.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 0000'74
(Page 47)
Mr. Huff said it is important to Offer a choice of insurance plans and
just not one plan. The results have been very competitive. School personnel
will be notified of any decisions made before the end of the school year.
This has been an issue in the past. When school personnel return to school in
August, the open enrollment period Ks in process leaving employees feeling
rushed. This is because of the September 20, 1995, deadline for getting
enrollment data on the computer for coverage to be effective on October 1.
October premiums are subtracted from the September paycheck. The insurance
carriers need 45 to 60 days lead time in order to provide educational bro-
chures and videos on the various plans. As a result of these efforts,
premiums for all employees may be reduced substantially, thereby reducing
employees out-of-pocket expenses for health care.
Mr. Huff said the Health Care Executive Committee to continue
proposes
offering three medical plans through Trigon Blue Cross/Blue Shield. No change
in benefit design is proposed for KeyCare II and KeyCare III. The Committee
recommends substituting the "Point-of-Service" Plan for the Comprehensive 500
Plan and to establish the premium levels as shown in Appendix 2 of the staff's
report (on file). The Point-of-Service plan will utilize a primary care
physician (a gatekeeper), who will be responsible for monitoring the cost of
services provided. The Point-of-Service Plan will offer preventive screenings
which are fully covered and performed by the patient's primary care physician
on a voluntary basis at a 100 reimbursement percent level. Health care costs
will be monitored to keep health care inflation under control. The Board's
contribution rates are referenced in Appendix 1 of the staff's report (on
file). The Committee also recommends continuing with the current Delta Dental
plan at the premium levels as shown in Appendix 2 of the staff's report (on
file). The Advisory and Executive Committees felt it was more prudent to
concentrate on the insurance component, and for that reason, proposals to
address the wellness issue and plan surpluses will be brought to both Boards
in September or October.
Mr. Huff said retirees will be offered the same rate as active employees
by increasing premiums by $1.00 at the employee rate and $2.00 at the family
rate. Claims utilization will be monitored separately from that for active
employees so adjustments to premiums can be done.
The total monthly contribution from the County will be less than~the
$2060 per employee which is the amount budgeted for FY 1995-96. The County
contribution for KeyCare III single coverage increases from 85 percent to 90
percent but results in a premium decrease for employees. The purpose of this
discussion is to share information on this process and to obtain approval of
the Boards for the recommendations
presented:
Recommendations:
Medical:
Switch from a three-tier plan to a one-tier plan;
Continue to monitor retiree utilization separately, but establish
the same premium for active employees and retirees;
Retain the County's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) as the
gatekeeper for psychological and substance abuse services;
· Retain Trigon Blue Cross/Blue Shield as the insurance carrier;
· As a self-insured medical plan, retain a claims reserve of 20 to
25 percent;
· Increase the Specific Stop Loss level from $75,000 to $100,000;
· Whether offering three or one medical plan, delete the Comprehen-
sive 500 medical plan and replace it with a Point of Service or
Managed Care plan.
Dental:
· Retain the current Delta Dental plan;
· Retain the current Basic Services benefit design and add optional
programs if there is sufficient support;
· Retain a minimum of $800,000 in medical plan reserves;
· Retain the Board contribution level at 90 percent of KeyCare III
single coverage and continue to move toward a 95 percent funding
level, if possible;
· Establish retiree and active employee premiums at the same level
as shown;
· All committees strongly feel employees should continue to have the
opportunity to choose a medical plan that best meets their needs
and thus supports the offering of three medical plans;
· Continue the Delta Dental plan with the rates shown on Appendix
III of the staff's report (on file);
· Adoption of all other recommendations of the consultant as noted.
Mr. Huff said employees were surveyed regarding other dental services.
There was only a 25 percent response rate to the other suggested services that
could be offered. He said it was an all or nothing deal. Employees cannot
pick and choose the services they want. He said he is not sure why there was
such a low response rate. The current dental plan will remain as is. At a
later date, this issue will be revisited.
000075
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Mr. Huff said the cOUnty is responsible for claims incurred during the
contract year but paid after the contract year ends, if cancellation or a
change in carriers should occur. The cost projected will be approximately
$565,000 to Trigon Blue Cross/Blue Shield. He cautioned both Boards not to
focus too heavily on the total liability or total claims to be paid. The
total cost of claims are conjecture only at this point. Fixed costs, such as
administrative costs, can be controlled.
Mr. Landrith asked if the Point-of-Service Plan is perceived as having
better benefits and will the number of employees increase significantly for
this plan. Mr. Huff said there are 142 employees enrolled in the current Comp
500 plan. The projection for the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Point-of-Service Plan
is that 40 percent of employees will enter this plan in the first year, based
on 1803 contracts.
Mr. Finley asked if all the carriers provided preventive services. Mr.
Huff said the Point-of-Service Plan offers this at 100 percent. The other
carriers can offer the same 80 to 100 percent rate. This rate can be differ-
ent depending upon what the County is willing to pay for, since the County is
self-insured.
Mr. Mike Marshall asked about switching from one insurance carrier to
another. Mr. Huff said in August or September, if someone has incurred a
claim, it will not be processed or paid through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Mr.
Mike Marshall asked why it would not go to Blue Cross/Blue Shield. It was a
claim made during the time coverage was provided by them even if they would
not be providing coverage after that. Mr. Huff said because the County is
self-insured, the claim will come to the County. Mr. Mike Marshall said if
the County is self-insured, does the County budget money to cover this claim.
Money has already been taken out of the employee's check, and the Board has
made its contribution. The money is there. Mr. Huff replied "yes." However,
when a comparison is made, Blue Cross/Blue Shield's numbers have taken this
into account for the first three months of the new year. The claims are a
certain amount because Blue Cross/Blue Shield knows it will be getting the
claims from the prior year. QualChoice or any of the other insurance carriers
will say they do not have to deal with Albemarle County. It is Albemarle's
problem. In order to get an apples-to-apples comparison, $565,000 must be
added to the other carriers projected claims during this time period.
Mr. Mike Marshall asked what point there is in changing carriers if the
County cannot afford to switch carriers because of the $565,000 overlap. Mr.
Huff said it is not an issue of not being able to afford it, but whether or
not an insurance carrier will price the product competitively enough to allow
the County to do it. Mr. Bowerman said it is apples-to-apples when that
comparison is made. Mr. Mike Marshall said the insurance carriers are
carrying forward the two-month period overlap, and it is not being factored
into the 1997 plan for a better price for this year. Mr. Huff said Blue
Cross/Blue Shield has to include in their number those claims incurred, but
not paid. The other insurance carriers do not have to include this in their
number so to get apples-to-apples and to be fair to Blue Cross/Blue Shield,
the County has to go back and add that to what the other carriers have quoted.
Mr. Finley asked if this is the first year the County has moved toward
competitive bidding. Mr. Huff said there was competitive bidding in the past,
but without good response. Other insurance carriers could not effectively
compete against Blue Cross/Blue Shield so they never bothered to provide a
bid. Now that there is QualChoice and Commonwealth Health Alliance, the
market has become very competitive. The same process will be repeated again
next year in the hope of making many more products available to employees.
Mr. Forrest Marshall asked how long the County is obligated to have this
plan. Mr. Huff said the County will be obligated for one year. Blue Cross/
Blue Shield, in its quote, has guaranteed the County that it will hold down
administrative and fixed costs for two.years with the exception of the
reinsurance for any claim over the $100,000 limit° This is due to Blue
Cross/Blue Shield having to purchase coverage from another carrier, so this
cannot be guaranteed. The County can change insurance carriers next year if
that is the consensus, but at least the County will know what Blue Cross/Blue
Shield's administrative costs are.
Mr. Finley asked if the $3.9 million is the total administrative cost
and claims (or the estimated amount) that will go to Blue Cross/Blue Shield
from the County's self-insured plan. Mr. Huff said yes. This is the estimat-
ed amount, and not a guaranteed amount. Mr. Finley asked if the fixed cost is
based on claims. Mr. Huff said it was based on so many dollars per contract.
If the County adds a lot of people, administrative costs will go up due to the
number of dollars per person that have to be administered. Everybody's
comparison was made on the same number of people with the understanding that
if the County added 150 new people to the system, the County has a per month
per employee rate locked in.
Mr. Forrest Marshall asked if Blue Cross/Blue Shield is offering any
guarantees on cost after three years. Mr. Huff said the rate is based on
claim utilization and cost, which will be monitored. Mr. Marshall said the
State Board of Health is concerned about the quality of and reduction in
health care in the State. He said there is very little control over provid-
ers, and that the insurance companies are dictating to health care providers
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) O0007G
(Page 49)
what they can or cannot do wi~h patients. Patients, as a whole, are suffer-
ing. The County has to realize the reasons why these costs are going down.
If the County wants quality health care for its employees, then it must be
willing to pay for it. Mr. Huff said an evaluation model will assist in
determining the quality of health care being provided as well as who is
providing the care. Mr. Marshall said the market place will determine this.
People will start demanding quality health care if they are not satisfied.
Mr. Finley asked how allowable charges are determined and if that
determination is considered as administrative cost bY Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
Mr. Huff said "yes."
Mr. Bowerman asked if mammographies are covered under the Point-of-
Service plan. Mr. Huff said "yes." It is a service offered to employees but
not their dependents. However, it is offered as an add on service for
dependents. Mr. Brandenburger said it is a supplemental service that is
offered by separate contract through Martha Jefferson Hospital for employees.
Spouses of employees may also obtain it at the corporate rate but not at the
employee rate. Mr. Huff said under the Point-of-Service plan, mammograms are
covered at a 100 percent rate, including the doctor's visit.
Mr. Huff said it is important that all employees know that the Point-of-
Service plan is not for everybody. It will require employees to do some
things in exchange for the lower premium. For instance, an employee cannot go
directly to a specialist of any kind, that referral is made by a primary care
physician (gate keeper). Mr. Forrest Marshall asked if this will save money.
Mr. Huff said, in some cases, people are accessing the most expensive care
possible for something that does not require this level of care. The primary
care physician helps the employee make a decision about what is needed. If
the employee chooses to go without the physician's support, he/she can still
go, but there will be a financial penalty in terms of reimbursement.
Mr. Cummings, an employee of the State, said the State did not do a good
job of educating employees on their health care choices, especially by
offering them only one plan. He said if the County does go to a Point-of-
Service plan, employees needed to be educated on what is required of them.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
approve the staff's recommendation to continue offering three medical plans to
employees with Trigon Blue Cross/Blue Shield that being KeyCare II, KeyCare
III, and Point-of-Service with premium levels as shown in Appendix 2 (on
file), and to approve the Delta Dental Plan premiums as recommended and shown
in Appendix 3 (on file), at the 90 percent funding level or $1740 per employ-
ee, which is the Board's contribution rate. These plans will become effective
October 1, 1995.
Roll was called~ and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Powell, seconded by Mr. Mike Marshall
that the School Board also approve the above motion. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Cummings, Mr. Finley, Mrs. Gallion, Mr. Landrith, Mr. Marshall,
Mrs. Powell, and Mrs. Wood.
None.
Item 25a. Discussion: Compensation Study, Request for Proposals.
Mr. Brandenburger said on April 5, 1995, the Board of Supervisors
decided to hire a consultant to complete a compensation study that would
include all compensation programs and performance management programs in both
the General Government and School Division. The Board further directed staff
to prepare a request for proposals for consideration and approval by both
Boards.
Staff recommends the following process: 1) Establish a review team to
conduct an initial assessment of the proposals; 2) This team would rank the
proposals and provide it to the Boards or a subcommittee of the Boards; 3) The
Boards, or their subcommittee, would conduct interviews of one or more
firms/individuals and make the selection; and 4) The Boards or their subcom-
mittee, with assistance from the review team, would complete negotiations,
contract development, and contract approval. A detailed copy of the Compensa-
tion Study proposal is on file and made a part of the permanent records of the
Board.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the Subcommittee Review Team should consist
of two members from the Board of Supervisors, two members from the School
Board, with the Chair from each Board, and one other person. The final
decision should be a recommendation from the subcommittee to both Boards, then
back to the subcommittee to administer and carry out the preliminary recommen-
dations. Mr. Tucker suggested that a staff member be a point-of-contact for
the subcommittee.
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000077
(Page 50)
Mr. Finley asked when"~his~need~to be done. Mr. Brandenburger said he
does not anticipate any results from the request for proposals until mid-July.
Mrs. Powell said that Phase I is scheduled to be completed in 60~ days,
and that Phase II will be completed in 120 days. Given this time period, it
will be December or January. She asked if this is part of the request for
proposals and how can these dates be completion dates. Mr. Brandenburger said
_ when the request for proposals was put together, it was done with the stipula-
tion that October 1, 1995, be the deadline. This is based on the consultant's
ability to work within the potential scope, which will not be known until the
request for proposals are sent out. A consultant has an opportunity to review
the scope of the work that will be required, even if the County has an October
1, 1995, deadline. The consultant will then decide if he/she can meet this
date. The date is a negotiating tool. When reviewing the proposals and if
the selection process is followed with the review team making recommendations
to both Boards for the ultimate selection, the time frame can be a long drawn
out process. By not knowing the starting date of when a consultant will
actually be under contract, the October 1, 1995, deadline became more tenta-
tive.
Mr. Finley asked if an assessment, as stated on the top of page 4, will
be a short list, and if all proposals will be forwarded to the review team
subcommittee. Mr. Brandenburger said the review team will provide a detailed
list of the top two or three chosen, depending upon how many vendors respond.
All responses and proposals will be funnelled through the review team and made
available to both Boards before a final decision is made.
Mr. Finley said on page 5, section 7.0, control of the project is the
responsibility of the Director of Human Resources. He asked what the word
"control" meant. Mr. Brandenburger said in terms of direct support to the
Board, assuming there is a review team subcommittee, someone needs to ensure
that interfacing is occurring, clerical support and other issues are being
coordinated along with the consultant's work with the schools and the County.
Mr. Tucker said the Director of Human Resources will be the point-of-contact
on this project.
Mr. Finley asked if the Director of Finance will only be involved during
the submittal of proposals, as stated on page 2, section 2.3. Mr. Brandenbur-
ger said "yes." As the Purchasing Agent for the County, the individual will
be responsible for promulgating the request for proposal and properly handling
it in the proper format.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 4:40 p.m. and returned at 4:46
p.m.)
Mrs. Thomas asked how detailed the criteria for the consultants will be.
What guidelines can be developed regarding comparisons between the public and
private sector, competitiveness to other areas, and the review of the pay-for-
performance program. She suggested both Board's meet and develop guidelines
to save the County money. Mr. Forrest Marshall said he would like to keep the
pay-for-performance program.
Mr. Finley asked about the biweekly reports on page 5, section 6.0. Mr.
Brandenburger said the consultant will be providing status reports to the
review team subcommittee. He cautioned against narrowing the scope of the
request for proposals too much. However, anything that can be provided such
as specific guidelines to the consultants in narrowing down the scope of what
is needed should be done. There are things happening in compensation other
than the pay-for-performance program that may be just as effective. Mr.
Forrest Marshall said supply and demand should be considered when determining
raises rather than having a cross-the-board standard because all jobs are not
the same.
Mr. Perkins said the proposal looks good, but he is not an expert. He
said any consultant hired should interview Board members, School board
members, County employees, community leaders and citizens. Mr. Brandenburger
said this can be written into the format. Mr. Bowerman said each Board member
should ask their constituents about this issue rather than asking citizens off
the street due to bias. Mrs. Humphris agreed.
Mrs. Powell suggested that business experiences and practices be entered
as a consideration in the request for proposal process. She asked if the
consultant will have private sector experience as well as experience in under-
standing the commonalities between the County and the School Division. Mr.
Brandenburger said this can be reviewed but may be difficult to require° Mr.
Michael Marshall cautioned about being too narrow regarding the consultant's
qualifications.
Mr. Finley asked what type of consultant is being considered. Mr.
Brandenburger said most consultants are experts in compensation issues. When
the request for proposal is sent out, it can be sent out not only through the
usual modes of communication such as the newspaper, but also to organizations
who specialize in this field and who have both public and private experience.
Mrs. Powell asked if the consultant should be well-versed in State law. Mr.
Brandenburger said it depends upon what State issues are involved. Any
consultant should be familiar with laws regarding compensation. Staff can
provide information as to legalities.
000078
June 7, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Mr. Michael Marshall Said the request for proposal should be sent out in
the for~ that gets the most unconditioned responses. If the focus is too
narrow, then the responses returned will be tailored to the preset conditions.
He said the Boards should allow the consultants to provide their best analysis
and recommendations, then the Boards will have a better selection to choose
from.
Mr. Brandenburger said the subcommittee should be developed as soon as
possible, so that internal selection processes can begin. Mr. Tucker suggest-
ed that both Boards meet, perhaps in July, to discuss differences and similar-
ities regarding compensation before, or shortly after, the consultant is hired
regarding compensation issues. Mr. Bowerman said the Boards needed to become
,re focused, with staff help, in determining what the issues are. Mr. Tucker
suggested that members from the private sector be added to the review team
subcommittee.
Mrs. Powell asked about consultant costs. Mr. Brandenburger estimated
the cost can be above or below $50,000 depending upon the scope and terms of
the study. If staff can provide as much input as possible, costs will be
lowered. Mr. Forrest Marshall reminded the press, in attendance, that it was
the public who demanded a consultant be hired due to staff determining a
process for their own salaries.
Item 25c. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mrs. Humphris said the design of the new high school should be environ-
mentally efficient and innovative ideas should be developed for making the
school a true laboratory for students. The public should be involved in the
design process for economic and environmental efficiency. Mr. Bowerman said
the school should be mandated this way regardless of cost. Mrs. Humphris said
possible environmental grant monies should be sought.
The joint meeting with the School Board was adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
Not Docketed: At 5:10 p.m. a motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, for the Board to go into Executive Session pursuant
to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider
a personnel evaluation, and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel
and staff regarding legal matters involving an agreement and probable litiga-
tion and a matter of pending litigation relating to a property dispute. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin
At 6:00 p.m., the meeting reconvened in open session. Motion was
offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to certify that to the
best of each board member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully
exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the Executive Session
were heard, discussed or considered in the Executive Session.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin
Agenda Item No. 26. Adjourn.
At 6:02 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion
was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adjourn this
meeting until June 14, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Chairman