Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-05-22 adjMay 22, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) 625 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held jointly with the School Board on May 22, 1989, at 8:00 A.M., Meeting Room #5/6, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from May 17, 1989. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 8:15 A.M.), Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The. meeting was called to order at 8:12 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Mr. Way asked that Agenda Item 2b. be taken up first because Mr. Papenfuse, who would be making the presentation, needed to leave the meeting early. Agenda Item No. 2b. Joint Meeting with School Board: Appropriations for Asbestos Removal at Stony Point, Yancey, and Murray Schools. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Charles S. Armstrong, William W. Finley, Clifford W. Haury, Charles S. Martin, Charles R. Tolbert, and Roger R. Ward. Also present were Mr. N. Andrew 0verstreet, Division Superintendent, Mr. David Papenfuse, Assistant Superintendent for Finance, and Mr. A1Reaser, Director of Building Services. Mr. Agnor said he had sent a memo to the Board forwarding Mr. Papenfuse's memo in which he was requesting early approval in the CIP for three asbestos projects. Bids were received on the projectp, and it is expected that the contract will be awarded by June 3. He said the idea was to accomplish this during the summer months. Since there is an .appropriation already in the CIP for Stony Point and Yancy Schools, even though asbestos removal was not in the original plans, Mr. Agnor's recommendation was to use the current appropria- tion available on those two schools. He sai~~ the remodeling of Murray School is under discussion. He thought the asbestos removal should be done just before the remodeling, if the remodeling is approved. He said the asbestos should be taken out before the remodeling starts to avoid having to patch already finished areas. Mr. Papenfuse said there are two areas ~f asbestos removal. One is the floor tile, which is the case at Stony Point!~!and Yancey. The other area is in ceiling tile. That is the case at all three~schools. He said the asbestos at Murray School would inevitably have to be r~oved. The cost total is $90,000. One-half is for removal; the other half is f~ replacing materials. The question is whether to do it now or to wait ~nd rebid it. He said the asbestos is in classrooms, and an asbestos r~e~noval team will be called in to actually do the work. Then a general contractor will do the repair work. (Mrs. Cooke arrived at 8:15 A.M.) Mr. Way asked if the renovated materials would be ruined if asbestos removal takes place after the renovation. Mr{. Papenfuse said they would remain in tact. The renovation money would n~t be wasted because those materials would be saved. Mr. Tolbert asked if asbestos has been f~und in the hallways and other areas or just in the classrooms. Mr. Papenfuse said mostly in the classrooms. Mr. A1Reaser, Director of Building Services,=isaid there are other maintenance needs, but the asbestos removal is the most hazardous situation. He said if a piece of tile is broken, exposure will occur because of the location of the asbestos. ~ Mr. Lindstrom said the same thing had happened with the Circuit Court building. It seemed unlikely that there woul4 be exposure, but the decision was made to remove the asbestos anyway. He felt the asbestos should be removed from all three schools with one contract because of the safety ele- ment. 626 May 22, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) Mr. Perkins asked if this was all the asbestos identified in the County. Mr. Papenfuse said it was not. These are the areas having greatest potential exposure, however. He said asbestos is imbeded in the plaster in Red Hill, but it would be disturbed only if the walls were torn down. Mr. Way asked if the funds had already been appropriated for asbestos removal at Stony Point and Yancey Schools. Mr. Agnor said there would need to be an appropriation for Murray School only. He said the amount in the CIP for Murray was set before bids had been received. Mr. Papenfuse said the total for all three projects is $248,000, which includes removal and replacement. The cost for asbestos removal only is $163,000. Mr. Lindstrom asked what would be the source of the funds if the alloca- tion were increased to include Murray School. Mr. Agnor Said Stony Point and Yancey Schools would be funded this fall through VirginiaiPublic School Authority (VPSA) bonds. Murray would have to be funded from an allocation to the CIP in the next fiscal year. He said maybe the best way would be to authorize the projects, and he would bring the appropriation in the proper format back to the Board. Motion was offered by Mr, Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to authorize asbestos removal for all three schools. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there would be any way to capture the expense for Murray School in the fall issue of the VPSA bonds. Mr. Agnor said he thought this expense would be recoverable through those bonds. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom,i Perkins, and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 2a. Report on Health Insurance Survey. Mr. Bob Brandenburger, Benefits/Safety Coordinator, smid there were three issues to discuss: 1) The 3-Tier Health Plan; 2) Change in BC/BS Renewal Dates; and 3) Flexible Benefits Feasibility Study Status. Regarding the status of the proposed 3-tier Blue Cross/Blue Shield Plan for 1989-90, Mr. Brandenburger said the Health Advisory committee, composed of employees and Blue Cross/Blue Shield representatives had been working to develop a plan for next year. County employees had been given three plans from which to choose and were surveyed as to their preferences. Of the 848 employees responding, 13 chose the Comprehensive 200 plan,~while 14 chose the Comprehensive 500 plan. As a result of the survey, the committee felt there was not enough interest to warrant the increase in administrative costs to implement a 3-tier insurance plan. Mr. Brandenburger also pointed out that people who chqose KeyCare cover- age under the 3-tier plan would pay more for that coverage~than they would if only KeyCare coverage was provided. He said because there was overwhelming support in the'~.isurvey, the com- mittee also reco~nended the addition of a prescription drug card at an addi- tional cost of approximately $1.50 per month per subscriber. The Committee is still reviewing a possible recommendation to add a Subscriber plus Spouse option. He said the results of that review and a recommendation would be reported to the Board by June 1. Mr. Brandenburger concluded with the recommendation t~at the County not offer a 3-tier plan, but offer only KeyCare coverage, with'~ithe addition of the prescription card. Mt. Bowie asked if the prescription card is an option. IMf. Brandenburger said everyone will get a card. He explained that "generic"{ prescriptions will cost $4.00 each, while "name brand" prescriptions will cos~ $7.00 each with a prescription drug card. Mr. Lindstrom said there is a noti!~ceable difference in prescription costs using the prescription card. His wif~ has a card, and he does not. May 22, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) 627 Mr. Tolbert asked if employees who do not enroll for KeyCare coverage would get any benefit from the County's contribution for insurance coverage. Mr. Brandenburger said they would not. Mr. Tolbert said he assumes that no action would be needed by the Boards to leave the coverage as it currently is. Mr. Brandenburger said the pre- scription drug card would be added at contract renewal. Mr. Way asked if any Board members opposed the recommendation by staff. Hearing none, Mr. Way said it was the consensus of the Boards to accept staff's recommendation. Mr. Brandenburger then discussed the contract renewal date. He said it is recommended that the contract renewal dates for Blue Cross/Blue Shield and BENEPLUS be changed in order to decrease the management complexities of these programs. The change would improve management and reduce potential errors. The renewal date for BC/BS would change from.July 1 to October 1, and the renewal date for BENEPLUS would change from July to September 1. He said there is a perception by the school division that their premiums are higher because deductions are made over a ten month period compared to local govern- ment employee deductions over a twelve month period. Mr. Way asked if the Personnel Department had given any thought to send- ing a memo explaining the difference between schooland local government deductions. Mr. Brandenburger said they had not sent a memo but had discussed this problem in various personnel meetings. Mr. Agnor said several years ago the County had moved the renewal date to July 1 to coincide with the fiscal year hoping for smoother administration. HoWever, it turned out not to work as well as before the change. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and lSeconded by Mr. Perkins to accept staff's recommendation on the three-tier program and to change the contract renewal dates as recommended by staff. Mr. Perkins said it is important to keeplin mind that when the contract renewal date was changed before, teachers felt that meant a change in their work contract, and there were problems as a ~esult. Mr. Tolbert said one of the problems at that time was in not knowing She premium amount at the time of the budget planning. Mr. Overstreet said tha{ should not be a problem at this point because the Board's contribution for employees is a specified amount. Mr. Bowie said he would support the motion, but he thinks it is confusing to employees as to when they can sign up for BENEPLUS. Mr. Brandenburger said employees would be receiving a memo this week. explaining the changes to them. Roll was called and the motion carried b~ the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins, and Way. None. The last item Mr. Brandenburger discussed was the flexible benefits feasibility study which the Board had authorized at an earlier meeting. He said that study would be completed by the end ~of June, and a report would be provided to the Board in July. .~ Agenda Item No. 2c. General Discussion: Long Range Plan. Mr. Way said the Board had received the ~eport from the Long Range Planning Committee. He asked if there were amy comments at this time. Mr. Tolbert updated the Board on two majdr phases affecting the long range plan: 1) Redistricting and 2) Capital ~rojects. He said the first phase of redistricting as recommended in the report is to be done by Septem- ber, 1990. Currently, the School Board is prgparing maps and texts to explain the proposed changes, which will be available ~for the public by the second meeting in June, hopefully. He said public h~arings on redistricting would not be held until September or October, but the School Board would like to get information out as quickly as possible. ~ He said the first phase of redistricting ~equ~res no new capital pro3ects other than the Crozet replacement school and Che new Souths~de School. Redis- tricting plans for 1991 will be based on current capital project plans. He 628 May 22, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) said the School Board would make that information available to the public. The goal is to plan the redistricting for two years at one time. In that case, redistricting will depend on some capital projects~ For example, it is envisioned that Murray School will be enlarged and converted back into an elementary school. Regarding other capital projects, he said the School Board hopes to start reviewing those recommendations and preparing a capital plan for the next five years, of which the first two or three years would be critical. Whether or not the capital needs are approved will depend on the redistricting plans. The School Board will be working on the capital projects.over the summer to get ready for a presentation to the Planning Commission and then to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Tolbert said this work could go on during the su~er, while redistricting will not. He said that is the plan from the School Board for implementing the recommendations of the Long Range Planning Committee. Mr. Lindstrom said it seems the School Board, through the work of the Long Range Planning Committee, has saved the County a tremendous amount of money in terms of the scope and detail of the report. He' said if the County had hired an outside consultant, it would have cost somewhere within a six figure range. He pointed out that the County had enjoyed~ the same benefit from the Planning Commission in working on the Comprehensive Plan revisions. He said the County is fortunate to have the expertise andiwillingness available to undertake a major project such as this one. Mr. Lindstrom said, with regard to the Whitewood Road project, it would be helpful to see what kind of community recreational facilities might be possible in that location. The County has a tremendous need for recreational facilities, and this site is unique in that it is centra~!y located in a densely populated section of the County. He said he realized that the cost of finding another site is the reason for considering this q~e for a school. Nevertheless, there is the potential for linking this area with foot and bike paths to the Ivy Creek Natural area. He said his recollection of the area is that it has rough topography on the back portzon of the p~operty. He said he would like to get more information on the topography, andi!:,ihow much additional expense it would be to use the area. ~ Mr. Haury said the Long Range Planning Com~nittee had?anguished over that point. He said Mr. Home had described the possible recr~eational uses. The committee had also discussed the concept the City had used at Walker School of having a pool, gym, and a school building. He said Mr. Hdrne had emphasized that if a school is built on the Whitewood Road property, 'there might be some green space and recreational use as well. Mr. Haury said~. the committee had set that aside because of the deadline constraints. He said the ideal situa- tion would be to put a school and recreational facilities?there. Mr. Tolbert said some of the problems in looking at ~he Whitewood Road site were time constraints and having no input from archit'ects. He said Mr. Home had taken the "footprint" of the Southside School aHd placed it on the property to see if the school would go there. They had determined that it would fit on the property, but an architect should be hired to study the site and give suggestions for its use. Mr. Bain said he concurred that an architect should appraise the proposed site. Mr. Tolbert',said doing that may mean coming quickly to the Board for some pre-planning mo~ey. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not question whether a school is needed. One of his concerns is whether the School Board feels there w~uld be a compati- bility problem for recreational facilities adjacent to a ~chool. He said that was done to some extent at the Southside School. The ' .4 d~ff~erence is that activities there are of a more organized type. .:~ Mr. Way asked what is the target date for the Whitew~bd School project. Mr. Tolbert said the plan is to open in 1992. He said a ~cision would have to be made and let the contract right away to meet that da~e. Mr. Bowie said he would like more information becaus~i'he has seen green space disappearing in other major counties. It might be ~e right place for a school, but he feels the options should be clear. He said he would hate to see the last remaining green space in Albemarle County dmsappear. He also May 22, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) 629 pointed out that the Long Range Planning Committee report was excellent. He said he is concerned that projects coming forward are followed closely and that a continual review process is carried on. Mr. Haury said the committee looked at putting a school in the urban ring in an effort to get children from Four Seasons and Berkeley out of the Hollymead School. He said the committee was sensitive to the green space issue, but they were looking for a solution to relieve the pressure on Hollymead. Mr. Haury said there would be no problem filling the new school. Mr. Home had indicated that the growth at Forest Lakes should be observed carefully. If that growth occurs, there wilI be even more children than now anticipated. Mr. Tolbert said 100 students at Hollymead come from the Four Seasons and Berkeley areas. The school at Whitewood Road would reduce the population at Hollymead. He said the School Board had thought about extending the district for the new school up Airport Road and take more pressure off Hollymead. He said it turned out that there were so many children in Berkeley and Four Seasons and along Whitewood Road within walking distance of the proposed school that an extension of the district wou~d not be needed. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the report included an increase in the employment base for the University of Virginia expansioH. Mr. Tolbert said that would be hard to estimate. He said if growth at the University is the same as the past three to four years, it would be included in ithe estimates. If there should be a sudden spurt of growth, that would not be included. Mrs. Cooke said in a prior meeting she had mentioned that the Woodbrook School is grossly under utilized. It seems to her the problem of overcrowding at Hollymead could be solved by enlarging Woodbrook. She said she did not know the requirements for a school in a residential area, but it seems it would be to the advantage of the school system to look at Woodbrook. There is a large amount of land that could be used. Mr. Tolbert said there is a section in the report on Woodbrook which discusses putting in extra classrooms. He said the problem with that is a School Board policy, which this committee did'.'not recommend changing, that no elementary school should go much above 600 students. Adding classrooms at Woodbrook would accommodate an additional 200~250 children. The new school would take 600 students, and it would be close to capacity the day it opened. He said the committee did not feel that additional classrooms at Woodbrook would handle the problem. Mrs. Cooke said additional classrooms at Woodbrook would answer the problem of the growth in Nor!~hfields and the Raintree area. She said she foresees the growth in that areal!becoming a big problem soon. Mr. Tolbert said the Whitewood Road scho$1 would relieve Woodbrook for a number of years, whereas, additional classrooms would be only a temporary measure. He said the committee did not see enlarging Woodbrook as the best solution. ~! Mr. Bain said on Page 16 of the blue boot%, the date for the opening of Southside School is shown as September, 1991, i:and it should be 1990. Mr. Way said he wanted to make sure Mr. Alndstrom's original request was clear. He asked if there were members of the!iBoard who opposed gathering the information requested. No one opposed. ~'! Mr. Finley asked how much of the green ~rea the new school would actu- ally take. Mr. Tolbert said the building takes a small amount of land. There would be space needed for parking and recreation facilities such as baseball fields. Mr. Finley said some schools adjacen~ to a recreational facility have already experienced problems with strangers cdming around. Mr. Lindstrom said that is what he is concerned about, especially for adult activities. Mr. Tolbert said there is a': good deal of public use of playing fields at Jouett and Greet now. 630 May 22, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Lindstrom said it seems that a ball field with organized league play would be less likely to have problems of that type than a passive area where people come for unsupervised activities. Mr. Perkins said there is available land adjacent to the Albemarle/ Jouett/Greer area and at the Charlottesville/Albemarle Technical Education Center. Mx. Reaser said-~~ ~ ~c**!n_ J~tt art '~u~d. He said majority o~ the land has gullies on the southwestern side. He said there is an aerial photograph map of the site. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to look at the aerial map. Mr. Haury saidthe committee had looked only at the Whitewood Road land. They had not considered this land because of the need for playing fields at Albemarle High School. He pointed out that, again, time constraints did not allow them to focus on that site. Mr. Tolbert said perhaps the architects who would be hired to study the Whitewood Road property could look at the land behind Albemarle High School as well. He said the School Board wanted to avoid having buses drive by one school going to another. He said that creates problems for years. Parents want children to attend the closest school. Mr. Perkins said perhaps the land behind Albemarle High could be con- served as green space and used for a community recreational facility. He alsc pointed out that the Regional Library might be able to use the unused land at the CATEC site. Mr. Haury said there was some discussion of a community recreation area behind Albemarle High School. Apparently, through the C6~nty Parks and Recreation Department, some citizens have expressed an ihterest in a pool and recreation center going there. He said the committee did~not have time to go into detail with the possibility. He said there is a lo~!of land there, and that could be added to the study. Mr. Finley asked what the deadline is for the bond ~ssue referendum. Mr. Tolbert said the deadline for School Board approval is this summer or again in September. He said the package would then go to the Planning Commission, and at some point to the Board of Supervisors to appropriate ~,~he funds. He said that introduces another set of deadlines. Mr. Agnor said Virginia Public School Authority bond~ are issued twice a year. Those dates are around September or October and then again in March and April. If general obligation bonds are used, there woul~ have to be a refer- endum. He said the election did not have to be in November. A special election could be held. Mr. Way asked when the package would have to go to VPSA. Mr. Agnor said it had to be in Richmond by July 1. Only the four projects already approved would go in this fall. The next date for submission would probably be January. He said VPSA would publish the date ahead of ti~e. Mr. Tolbert said Mr. Haury is the expert on the longlrange plan. If members of the Board of Supervisors have questions betwee~ meetings, they could call either Mr. Haury or Mr. Tolbert. Agenda Item No. 4. Executive Session, Board of Supecvisors, Personnel Matters. At 9:16 A.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to adjourn into Executive Session for personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom~i Perkins, and Way. NAYS: None. May 22, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) Agenda Item No. 3~ Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. At 10:10 A.M., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to appoint Ron Keeler as Agent for the Board for purposes of signing subdivision plats for recordation, and site development plans, until a Director of Planning and Community Devel- opment is appointed. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 5. Adjourn. At 10:15 A. M. motion was offered by Mr.. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adjourn to Wednesday, June 7, 1989, at 1:30 P.M. for a work session on the Capital Improvements Program and legislative matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. CHAIRMAN