Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-09-19 adj S eptember 19, 1984 (Afternoon-Adjourned from Se tember 12 1984) ..~~ An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 19, 1984, at 2:30 P.M. in Meeting Room 12, County Office Building, McIntire Road, CharlottesVille Virginia; said meeting being adjoUrned from September 12, ' i984. ' -.i PRESENT: Mr, F R..Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, and Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: Mr. J. T~ Henley, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker Jr.; Deputy County Attorney, James Bowling, IV; and Deputy County Executive, Ray B. Jones. ~ ~ Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 2:40 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, for a joint meeting with the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authori-~i~ ty. Present was Mr.- James B. Murray, Jr., Chairman. Agenda Item No. 2. Consideration of Current ApPlications before the Albemarle " County Industrial Development Authority. Agenda Item No. 3. Consideration of Reserving Funds from State's Share. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. James B. Murray, Jr., Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority, how many applications for financing are pending at this time that must be filed before October 1. Mr. Murray said the IDA met yesterday and considered the final draft of an inducement resolution for HCMF XV Limited Partnership for funding of up to $6.5 million for the building of a 120-bed nursing home to be known as Heritage Hall to be constructed on Fifth Street Extended. The applicant will use the proceeds of the bond issue to construct a bridge, make road improvements and site improvements other than just on the portion of the property where the nursing home will be located· Mr. Murray said the County ordinance which governs the issuance of IDA bonds will not need to be amended- since nursing homes are already allowed and there is still one authorized issue avail- able· At this time, Mr. Tucker gave the Planning Staff report as follows: "HCMF XV Partnership has made application to the Industrial Development Authority for an inducement resolution to assist in financing of a 120-bed nursing home (Heritage Hall) pro- posed to be located within Willoughby PUD. Willoughby PUD: The preliminary plan for Willoughby PUD has been amended s~veral times since its or' ' substantially reducin ........... ~l~al approval, ~ ~u~u reslaentlal densities. Vacant areas within the PUD are primarily for higher-density residen- tial and commercial uses. Special use permit approval would be required in a residential area (Section 20.3.2.3, Nursing Home) or commercial area (Section 22.2·2.3, Hospital as referenced by Section 20·4·2·1). While the PUD preliminary plan may not require amendment, a physical survey of the nursing home area would be required at a minimum. Should the special use permit be approved, site plan approval would subsequently be required. Comprehensive Plan: The Land Use Plan basically reflects the approved Willoughb~ PUD for this area. While the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address nursing homes in terms of need, staff would note that a certificate of need has been issued by the State. This would be the first nursing home to locate in the County since Eldercare Gardens was approved in 1976. ~_~na.l.Considerations: Sect . nance conta~.~'-~~?n~: ion 5 ~1 - homes Wji~?° ~uPp±ementary regulati~ ~_~f t~u Zoning Ordi- extensive review of these regulations would · n~e more ~uvernlng nursing be made at time of special use permit review, the following preliminary comments are offered: a) Access from emergency services appears adequate via City streets or 1-64 (University of Virginia and Martha Jefferson Hospitals; Charlottesville s Ridge Street Fire Station); , b) The location appears compatible to existing uses in the area. Future development of other areas of Willoughby should take into consideration the Heritage Hall develop- ment (if approved); c) Currently, the site is remote from shopping, social, recreational and cultural uses. The developer should provide transportation to such uses which are not to be provided on-site· In special use Permit review, consid- eration should be given to on-site provision of recrea- tional, social and cultural facilities. Summary: While~exhaustive review has not been made at this time, a nursing home does not appear inappropriate within the ~illoughby PUD. Most locational criteria would be satisfied &n this area, while other criteria could be addressed during special use permit review·,, Se tember 19 1984 Afternoon-Ad'ourned from September 12, %984) 429 Mr. Murray noted Paragraph 10 of the inducement resolution which reads: "The Bonds as described herein in excess of Albemarle County's allocation for 1984 shall not be issued unless it shall have received an allocation of the State Ceiling (as defined in Executive Order Number 50 of the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, dated Au- gust 1, 1984), and nothing in this Resolution shall be construed as any assurance that such allocation will be available or, if available, will be made. The Company's right to Albemarle County's 1984 allocation is subject to any priority rights that Riverbend Limited Partnership may have to the County's 1984 allocation. The Company shall have no right to Albemarle County's 1985 allocation under this inducement resolution." Mr. Murray noted that the County has an allocation of $4.3 million which will revert back to the State if not used in the next eleven days. This application from HCMF is the only application pending and it is too late to take other applications at this time. If Riverbend Limited Partnership closes on its loan in 1984, it will not be charged against the County's allocation because the project is "grandfa~thered''- The inducement resolu- tion for this issue is written so that if this project is not built in 1984, it will have no prior claim to any allocation in any future year. Mr. Carroll Mason, one of the applicants, made it clear in hearings that they intend to close on the loan before the end of 1984 if there are no unforeseen problems. Mr. Lindstrom asked about the words "This Resolution shall become invalid should there be no public approval of the financing or should the Albemarle County Code not be amended, all as required by applicable law, regulations, and ordinances." in paragraph 3 of the inducement resolution. Mr. Bowling replied that when this request first came into being, it was thought that the County Code would need to be amended to allow for an additional issue. That is not the case, so no ordinance amendment is needed. Mr. Carroll Mason, applicant, was present. He said they have obtained a certificate of need from the State. This will be a new industry in the County as they will employ about 130 people. This facility will be on the tax books, there will be vans furnished for transportation needs, but the majority of activities will be in-house. As to the amount of funds in the State's reserve for industrial bond issues, he knows of a number of localities that will not be using any of their share of the State's reserve, so there should be sufficient funds available. Mr. Lindstrom asked the reason for seeking this type of financing other than the financial advantage to the developer. Mr. Mason said it is purely financial because with the limits imposed by the State on Medicaid reimbursements, and with Medicare limits, the project might not be possible otherwise. Mr. Lindstrom asked how many beds will be available in this facility for persons using Medicaid. Mr. Mason said that one hundred percent will be available, although they would expect Ghat between 85 and 90 percent of the people would be getting some type of assistance. Mr. Lindstrom asked the difference between the interest rate on these bonds, and standard financing rates. Mr. Mason said it is 11 percent as opposed to between 13 1/2 and 14 percent. Mr. Fisher asked if the clients of this facility receive any advantage from this type of financing. Mr. Mason said that without this type of financing, the developers could accommodate purely-private pay clients and that would exclude a lot of people. Mr. Murray said he understands the State Health Department does an annual review, and if a rate increase for this facility were requested on either a daily or monthly basis, that change would have to be cost justified. Mr. Mason said that is true, but they would also have to justify it to FHA. Mr. Lindstrom said the financing does not seem to dictate what the rate charged will be. Mr. Mason said that without this financ- ing, they would need to charge more than that allowed by the State. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that is allowed. Mr. Mason said no. Mr. Lindstrom said the facility could not then be built. Mr. Mason responded in the affirmative. Mr. Lindstrom said the question seems to be whether there is that much of a local need for this type of facility. The staff report indicates that there is a need. Mr. Mason said the local health systems agency has abdicated its original objection to construction of the facility by not pursing appeal routes. He feels that the facility would be completely occupied within six months of opening. Mr. Fisher said the Board has had several similar applications over the years, and he has not always been convinced this is a valid approach, but this kind of subsidy is worthwhile for these people and he feels the Board should vote for this bond issue. He asked if the Board needed to adopt a resolution. Mr. Bowling said the Board must first decide whether to approve the application, then decide if it will allocate Albemarle County's allocation to this project, and then decide if the Board will ask that the additional funds requested by the applicant come from the State's reserve. At this time, Mr. Bowie offered motion that the County allocate its local bond issuing allocation of $4,312,500 to H.C.M.F. XV Limited Partnership; that the balance of $2,187,500 be requested from the State's reserve; and that the following resolution be adopted: WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the Authority), has considered the application of H.C.M.F. XV Partnership, a Virginia limited partnership (the Company) for the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $6,500,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the acquisition, development, construction, improvement and equipping of a 120-bed nursing home (the Facility) located off Fifth Street, Albemarle County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing hereon on September 18, 1984; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Supervisors (the Board) of Albemarle County, Virginia (the County), to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; and 4,30 3 September 19, 1984 (Afternoon-Adjourned from Se tember 12 1984 WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a record of the public hearing, and a "fiscal impact statement" with respect to the Project have been filed with the Board; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the benefit of H.C.M.F. XV Partnership to the extent required by Section 103(k) to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 103(k), does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds or the creditworth- iness of the Project or the Company, but, as required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950 as amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and monies pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County, nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. The Bonds as described herein in excess of Albemarle County's allocation for 1984 shall no~ be issued unless it shall have received an allocation of the State Ceiling (as defined in Executive Order Number 50 of the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, dated August 1,1984), and nothing in this Resolution shall be construed as any assurance that such allocation will be available, or if available, will be made. The Company's right to Albemarle County's 1984 alloca- tion is subject to any priority rights that Riverbend Limited Partner- ship may have to the County's 1984 allocation. The Company shall have no right to Albemarle County's 1985 allocation under this inducement resolution. 4. The issuance of these bonds is subject to all approvals necessary under all applicable local ordinances and regulations being duly obtained. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher reiterated that any zoning matters related to this facility will be taken up as new business. This approval today is strictly to do with financing to meet deadlines. Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 4. Financing. Procedure for Setting 1985 Priorities for Industrial Development Mr. Murray said the Industrial Development Authority discussed this issue yesterday. He reported to them that he had discussed the question with Deputy County Attorney, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., and they feel it would be best to use only a small group to look at alternatives and make a report to the two boards. In fact, they are agreeable to having this entire matter prepared by County staff. The only comments made by Authority members is that when the County allocates the 1985 allocation, it will be a matter of public interest, and it is possible the public will not be aware of the consequences. The Authority feels that there should be a concerted effort made to notify the public of the amount of the allocation early in the year. Mr. Fisher suggested that the staff might look at what other localities in the State propose to do in this regard. If the Board went strictly on a first-come, first-served policy, and looked at each application on its merits until the money ran out, that may not serve the public interest best. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that there be some type of review similar to that conducted each year during adoption of the County budget. Mr. Tucker said there is a rumor that the State will prepare its own criteria for issuance of IDA bonds. However, that will not be known until January. At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that the staff be requested to examine what other localities within the State are proposing to do with this procedure, to outline the pros and cons on the question, and to return some concrete examples for Board review, listing implications of decisions. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Not Docketed: At 3:31 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 3:39 p.m. to have a joint meeting with the School Board. School Board members present were: Mrs. Jessie C. Haden, Chairman, and Messrs. Charles Armstrong, John Baker, Walter Perkins and Charles Tolbert. Also present were Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Carlos Gutierrez; Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Administration, David C. Papenfuse; Assistant __ Se tember 19 1984 (Afternoon-Ad'ourned from September 12, 1984) Superintendent for Instruction, Dr. Elizabeth D. Morie; and Director of Personnel, Dr. Carole A. Hastings. Agenda Item No. 5. Staff Recommendation on School Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee. Mrs. Haden said that at the end of the last school redistricting, there was discus- sion of forming a committee for a comprehensive plan for total education needs in the County. She said the School Board supports the formation of a steering committee of School Board members, members of the Board of Supervisors and the County Planning Commis- sion, to proceed with the aid of staff members on such a plan. Hiring of a consultant has also been discussed. Mr. Tucker noted the following memorandum dated September 18, 1984, addressed to the Board of Supervisors and School Board in reference to a School Facilities Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee: "During initial discussions of the above referenced plan, concern was expressed regarding the direction such a plan should take and who would be responsible for assuring that the preparation of the plan would be in keeping with the long-range educational and development goals of the Board of Supervisors and School Board. Mr. David C. Papenfuse and I have met and discussed this issue and offer the following recommendations. We propose that a Comprehensive School Facilities Plan Steering Committee be established to prepare the program objectives of the plan and review all elements of the plan as they are completed. We suggest the Committee be composed of the following persons: Two members of the Board of Supervisors Two members of the School Board Two members of the Planning Commission; and Support staff as needed. Since the decision to use staff or a consultant to prepare the plan has not been made, this decision must be made early in the process. It is felt that once completed, this plan should be adopted as an element of the County's Comprehensive Plan to provide a long-range guide for capital needs of the schools." Mr. Fisher said there should be some discussion of this concept. Mr. Lindstrom supported the recommendation of the staff, saying he feels this would be a way to deal with school needs. Mr. Way felt the plan should address the need for upgrading some of the older schools to the same level as some of the other schools. He suggested that the proposed committee have some parents as members as opposed to just being composed of.. officials. Mr. Bowie wanted all magisterial districts represented on the committee in so far as possible. Mr. Baker asked if the committee would state its own objectives and draft the concepts of the study. Mr. Tolbert said that during the redistricting process, it became apparent that a plan to address such things as building development and enrollment projects became apparent. The County Comprehensive Plan addresses many different phases of growth in the County, so it was felt that such a plan to cover education needs should be added to that comprehensive plan process. Some steering committee must make the initial plans for such a process. Mr. Baker suggested that the basic concepts for such a plan be stated, and that might make it apparent as to who should serve on the committee. Mr. Fisher said a plan would determine which schools need attention first, at what period of time, and how much those needs would cost. That would help alleviate dealing with every situation on a crisis basis. Mr. Armstrong suggested that using a consultant might help avoid the emotional issues inherent in such questions. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the committee hold hearings in various parts of the community, as he felt that having just a few parents on the committee would create feelings of unfairness, and having a large number of members would make the committee unworkable. Mrs. Cooke agreed and said the committee will receive plenty of comments from parents anyway. She said that keeping the decisions as objective as possible is a good aim. Mrs. Haden said that each school has a parent advisory group which could provide all the information the committee would be able to handle. Mr. Fisher asked the expected completion date of the study. Mr. Tucker said it would probably take between 12 and 18 months to complete. Mr. Fisher suggested the committee formulate a procedure to ensure there is agreement on the goals of the commit- tee, and return that to the two Boards for approval. Mr. Tolbert said the School Board would like to proceed quickly, since there were needs left out of the Five-Year Capital Improvements Program on the assumption that it did not make sense to tell the consultant the results expected from the study. At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that the Board of Supervisors create this committee, that the membership be as suggested by staff, that the membership of the committee be spread as widely throughout the County as possible. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to be a member of the committee. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Way expressed concern about constituting a committee for some unspecified purpose and without giving that committee a charge. He said he really does not under- stand what has been said today about the need for this study. Mr. Lindstrom then amended his motion to consider a specific charge to the committee by the October 10 meeting of '43; September 19, 1984 (Afternoon-Adjourned from Se tember 12 1984) ___ the Board of Superisors, hopefully to have all parties accept the charge by the end of October. Mrs. Cooke accepted the amendment to the second. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ' AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Mrs. Haden said the School Board is in agreement with this method of proceeding. She then asked Mr. Tolbert and Mr. Baker to serve on this committee for the School Board. Mr. Fisher then appointed Mr. Lindstrom (urban area) and Mr. Way (rural area) to serve for the Board of Supervisors. He requested that Mr. Tucker coordinate the first meeting of the committee. Agenda Item No. 6. Report on Tenth Day Enrollment by Schools. Mr. Papenfuse reported tha= the tenth day enrollment for Albemarle County Public Schools was 8,869 which represented a 26 student drop from one year ago. This is the smallest amount of decrease in the past seven years. This fiscal year's operating budget is based on an average daily membership of 8,800. Considering that the average usually ends 30 to 40 students less than the tenth day enrollment, it appears that State Basic Aid will be realized at or above the budgeted amount. Mr. Papenfuse said the large kindergarten and second grade enrollments have caused some staff problems. Dr. Morie said the new State graduation requirements have resulted in large science classes at both of the high schools. The elementary enrollments present a greater problem. State guidelines are used to determine staffing in the elementary schools. The guidelines allow 25 children in a kindergarten class, require a full-time aide when there are between 26 and 30 students, and require that when classes get to 31 students there be a full-time teacher added. At Crozet Elementary School, there are 28 pupils in one kindergarten class, and an aide has been added to that class. At Red Hill Elementary School, there are 30 students in each kindergarten class, however there are three migrant children in each of those classes, and these children should be leaving in October. Aides have been added to each of these classes, and there is a federally-funded teacher who works with the migrant children in Red Hill School for three hours each day. Because these migrant children will be leaving, a decision was made to hire aides instead of a teacher. Dr. Morie said that at Stone Robinson Elementary School an aide was added but at Scottsville Elementary School a full-time teacher was added. ' Mr. Fisher said a deleqation of parents was present today from Red Hill School and Mrs. Haden has kindly agree~ to hear one spokesman. Mr. Leroy Yancey said he was not present to complain about the school or the school staff, but only to express concern about the pupil/teacher ratio. The parents feel there should be an additional teacher hired rather than the two aides. He knows there is sufficient classroom space available at the school for another class, but is not sure about furniture. Dr. Morie said staff- ing at a 20/1 ratio would be the ideal situation, but is something that would need to be done when the budget is prepared. Mr. Papenfuse said the cost differential between two aides and one teacher is $7,000. Mrs. Haden said these parents had requested to be present today knowing that the School Board was going to be presenting some final enrollment figures to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fisher said he hopes the School Board will keep an eye on the marginal situations and be flexible enough to deal with them. Not Docketed. Report on Staff Compensation. Mr. Papenfuse said he had mentioned to the Board of Supervisors in a recent meeting the problems the schools are having with staffing. At this time, $247,844.43 more than the amount actually budgeted is committed in salaries; $225,484 of that is in teachers' salaries. Adding 30 percent for fringe benefits brings that figure to over $300,000. Mr. Papenfuse said they will try to cover as much of this amount as possible within the current appropriation, but considering the magnitude of the problem, it is unlikely that anything less than serious program or maintenance reductions could recover this amount. Mr. Fisher asked if there will be any increase in revenues to partially offset this increase in salaries. Mr. Papenfuse said that state sales tax is running ahead of schedule, and if the system picks up any additional students, the County will receive some additional state aid moneys. Agenda Item No. 7. Report on Merit Pay Plan for School Administrators. Mrs. Haden said the School Board has adopted a merit pay plan for administrators, central office and building level administrators. Dr. Hastings said this plan was adopted as a one-year pilot program for the 1984-85 school year. The plan is based on three major components; a job description; objectives agreed upon between the employee and his supervisor; and leadership qualities. This plan also sets out a procedure for addressing major performance problems. Each of the components listed is weighted. Job description gets 40 percent of the total; objectives receives 30 percent of the total; and leadership characteristics receives 30 percent of the total. Those employees receiv- ing between zero and 42 points would not be eligible for a salary increase; those receiving between 43 and 75 points would receive only the general increase; those receiv- ing between 76 and 90 points would get the general increase plus a five percent merit; and those receiving 91 to 100 points would get the general increase plus a seven and one-half percent merit. Dr. Hastings said that because there was no statistical basis for estimating the amount of money needed to pay for the pilot year of this plan, an amount sufficient to give every administrator a merit increase was included in the budget. September_. 19, 1984 (Afternoon-Adjourned from September 12, 1984) 433 Mr. Fisher said this seems to be a good start, but he expressed concern about budgeting for the entire staff to receive an increase. Mrs. Haden said the School Board felt it was important to make a statement that all administrators can earn a merit increase. Mrs. Cooke said she feels this is a positive approach and is glad to see it in the school system. Mr. Way said he feels this will be a real improvement in the system. He said it will cost more, but he feels will be worth the cost. Agenda Item No. 8. Set Next Joint Meeting Date. would meet again on December 5, 1984, at 4:00 p.m. It was agreed that the two boards Agenda Item No. 9. Cancel Regular Meeting Scheduled for September 19 at 7:30 p.m. Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn to October 3, 1984 at 4:00 p.m. in Meeting Room 5. At 4:50 p.m., motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Way, to cancel the regular meeting scheduled for September 19, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., and to then adjourn until October 3, 1984, at 4~00 p.m. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley.