1993-06-02June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
00008
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 2, 1993, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S.
Martin and Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
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. There was no one from the public to speak.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mro Bain,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve Items 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.3a on the
consent agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information with the
exception of items 5.9, 5.14, 5.15 and 5.16. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Statements of Expenses for the Month of May, 1993 for the
Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and
Clerk of the Circuit Court, were approved as presented by the vote shown
above.
Item 5.2. Request the Board to grant administrative approval to the
Department of Planning and Community Development for review for compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan for proposed water and sewer projects in the
County's growth areas.
The staff's report states that Virginia Code §15.1-456 requires that
extension, enlargement or reconstruction of proposed water and sewer projects
in the County be reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Ail
such projects have heretofore been forwarded to the Planning Commission for
its approval/disapproval. Staff proposed, and the Planning Commission
approved, a recommendation that the Department of Planning and Community
Development be granted administrative approval for these 456 review projects
solely within the designated growth areas, and for which projects meet the
following specific criteria:
The proposed water and/or sewer project is located solely within a
designated growth area; and
2e
The proposed utility service is within the appropriate service
("jurisdictional") area for the type of service requested; and
The proposed utility service is for water distribution and sewer-
age collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances, not to
include water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treat-
ment facilities and the like.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 27, 1993, by a vote of
6:1, recommended approval of this request. (Mrs. Humphris noted a statement
which indicated that granting staff administrative approval will not preclude
the Commission or the Board from overruling staff action. She asked how the
Board will know that staff has taken any action since she did not find a
mechanism mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Tucker said he had assumed that
this Board would not necessarily be interested in this review unless the
Commission brought up the matter first. If the Commission has such a review,
it would then come to this Board for review. Staff intends to list these
approvals on the Consent Agenda so Board members will be informed of any
approvals. Mrs. Humphris said that is fine.)
The request to grant administrative approval to the Department of
Planning and Community Development for review for compliance with the Compre-
hensive Plan (under §15.1-456) for proposed water and sewer projects in the
County's growth areas which meet the criteria outlined above, was approved by
the vote set out above.
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 5.3. Memorandum from Dr. Robert W. Paskel, Division Superinten-
dent, addressed to Mr. Robert Tucker, Jr., County Executive, dated May 26,
1993, entitled "Change in Clerk's position for CATEC Center Board", was
received.
Dr. Paskel notes that the Albemarle County School Board, at its meeting
on May 24, 1993, voted unanimously to approve a request from the CATEC Center
Board to amend Section III of the joint agreement governing CATEC to read as
follows: "The Clerk of the Center Board shall be selected from the staff of
the Vocational Center." He also noted that this change must be approved by
both school boards and the governing bodies of the city and county.
This change was approved by the Board of County Supervisors by the vote
set out above.
Item 5.3a. Resolution to accept roads in Signal Hill Subdivision into
the State Secondary System of Highways. Request dated May 28, 1993, was
received from Ms. Loret M. Ruppe, Civil Engineer, II, requesting adoption of
the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Signal Hill Subdivision described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A), fully incorporated herein by
reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised this 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 Trans-
portation to add Signal Hill Road and Beacon Hill Road, as de-
scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) 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 this Board guarantees a clear
and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
1)
Signal Hill Road from the edge of pavement of State Route
636 to the intersection of Beacon Hill Road (Station 19+08)
as shown on plat recorded 6-23-89 in the Office of the .Clerk
of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 1053, pages 728-731, with
a fifty-foot right-of-way for a length of 0.36 mile.
2)
Beacon Hill Road from the edge of pavement of Signal Hill
Road to the end of cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded
6-23-89 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in
Deed Book 1053, pages 728-731, with a fifty-foot right-of-
way for a length of 0.38 mile. Additional drainage easement
shown on plat recorded 6-3-93 in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court in Deed Book 1313, pages 267-269.
Total mileage 0.74 mile.
Item 5.4. Memorandum dated May 26, 1993, from Ms. Amelia G. McCulley,
Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Robert B. Brandenburger, Assistant
County Executive, re: ZMA-93-04, Covenant Church, the reason for rezoning.
Ms. McCulley notes that the petition was to rezone about 1.3 acres from
R-4 to CO for church use. This addition to the existing church will include
parking and recreational area on property not previously used for these
purposes. It is her opinion that these are not permitted uses within the
prior zoning. They are not listed as primary permitted uses and a parking lot
is not customarily found in an R-4 residential district. Such activities are
secondary and accessory to the church, a use not permitted by-right under that
prior zoning. The rezoning avoided the situation where the Church property
would be split-zoned which would result in internal setbacks from the two old
property lines of commercial adjacent to residential. Finally, the Church
indicated that for financing purposes, homogeneous zoning of the property was
necessary.
Item 5.5. Financial Management Report for April, 1993. It is noted
that projected General Fund revenues have been adjusted to display recent
revisions. Projected Local revenues have been increased from $670,000 for a
one-time state sales and use audit adjustment. Projected Local revenues have
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) OOOO~
(Page 3)
been reduced and State revenues increased by $267,000 as a result of the
change in funding the Clerk of the Circuit Court's office through the Compen-
sation Board. Projected General Fund expenditures for all General Government
operations continue to be reduced by one percent.
Projected School Fund expenditures for certain accounts are reduced by
three percent. The Education hold back was reduced from ten percent to three
percent in April. The average daily membership estimate has been finalized at
10,199. This will result in a $121,000 reduction of State Funds.
There has been no activity for the Fund Balance report.
Item 5.6a. Copy of application filed with the State Corporation Com-
mission by Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc., for an expedited increase in
natural gas rates, was received for information.
Item 5.6b. Copy of application filed with the State Corporation Com-
mission by Virginia Electric and Power Company for approval of a pilot program
to conduct field testing and analysis of certain new electric energy technolo-
gies, was received for information.
Item 5.6c. Copy of application filed with the State Corporation Com-
mission by Virginia Electric and Power Company for approval of financing for
energy efficiency measures as a pilot program, was received for information.
Item 5.7. Bond Program Report and Monthly Report for Arbor Crest
Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) for April, 1993 was received for
information.
Item 5.8. Quarterly Report of Services and Expenditures for JAUNT for
services provided from October 1, 1992, through March 31, 1993, received for
information.
Item 5.9. Status of 1990 Groundwater Protection Study.
It was noted that Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, has
worked with the Water Resources Committee to update this report. Of the
original twenty recommendations, one has been completed, four have been
partially implemented, six need further clarification, and the remaining
eleven have been prioritized by the committee. As cost is a significant
factor in implementing many of the recommendations, the Committee will review
these for consideration during the next budget cycle. A pilot project will
commence this Summer in the Hardware River/North Garden area in an effort to
define requirements for monitoring/assessing groundwater quality and quantity
before broader implementation plans can be developed.
(Mrs. Humphris said there is so much information in the study that it
triggered many questions about water quantity and quality for the future. Mr.
Tucker suggested a work session be set for the Board's meeting on July 7,
1993.)
Item 5.10. Copy of draft minutes of VACo's Board of Directors for
May l, 1993, was received as information.
Item 5.11. Copy of Report on Audit for the Year Ended June 30, 1992,
for Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle
(on file in Board Clerk's office), was received as information
Item 5.12. Letter dated May 18, 1993, from the Honorable Thomas J.
Bliley, Jr., Member of Congress, re: EPA's implementation of financial
assurance regulations for Subtitle D Landfills, was received for information.
Mr. Bliley notes that the effective date of the landfill rules has been
extended by six months to April 9, 1994. The financial assurance compliance
deadline has been similarly extended by one year, from April 9, 1994, to
April 9, 1995. Mr. Bliley says that this administrative extension, when
complemented by the soon-to-be-released "financial guarantee" and "financial
test" rules, should make eventual municipal compliance with Title D regula-
tions considerably less burdensome.
Item 5.13. Letter dated May 17, 1993, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commis-
sioner, Department of Transportation, re: Estimated 1993-94 Fiscal Year
Construction Allocations for the Secondary System and Arlington and Henrico
Counties, was received as information.
Mr. Roosevelt said his office is preparing a budget for next year for
Secondary Road Improvement Funds. The County's Planning Office will need to
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) O000S5
(Page 4)
develop a detailed bUdget for the funds which are available to the County for
next year. He hopes the budget public hearing can be held in July.
Mr. Bowerman said he has read two articles in the newspaper about the
situation with the Primary Highway System. The report by the Commonwealth
Transportation Board deleted money for the Route 29 North interchanges and
moved that money to the bypass. He discussed this with Ms. Kincheloe. She
informed him that it was an oversight on the part of the Commonwealth Trans-
portation Board. Ms. Kincheloe indicated that in 1997-98 funding will remain
as it has been reported, which is approximately $4.0 million for the bypass
and $1.0 million for the interchanges (a reduction for the interchanges from
the previous amount).
Mr. Bowerman said Ms. Kincheloe informed him that in the preliminary
recommendations for the Primary System in 1998-99, there is $4.692 million
designated for the bypass and $1.0 million for the interchanges. This is
going to be changed to zero for the bypass and $5.692 million for the inter-
changes. This will move all of the money for the bypass back to the inter-
changes to balance the problems in 1997-98. Ms. Kincheloe agrees that the
appearance of the figures was something other than what the Commonwealth
Transportation Board had hoped to portray, and that the Board was correct in
identifying the problem.
Mr. Bowerman said this change should alleviate the concern which was
expressed by this community regarding the preliminary allocations. The final
allocation public hearing will be held on June 10, 1993. At that meeting,
these figures will not be changed because the information has already been
printed. However, at the June 24, 1993, meeting, which is when the Primary
plan will actually be adopted, the numbers will be changed and incorporated.
He said reference should be made to this change at the final allocation
hearing on June 10, 1993. Mr. Bowerman said he is satisfied that the appear-
ance of these figures has been recognized. He is also satisfied that it was
not done intentionally and that the situation will be corrected.
Mrs. Humphris asked when the figures will actually be changed. Mr.
Bowerman reiterated that the change will take place in the figures when the
vote is taken on June 24, 1993, and the plan is adopted. At that time, the
plan will be reflective of the changes that he just mentioned. He emphasized
that Ms. Kincheloe cautioned him that the numbers would not be changed by
June 10, 1993, when the final allocation public hearing is held, because the
document has already been printed. He said this Board has to be aware of all
of this and needs to make sure these things come to pass.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Bowerman had gotten any indication of why
this Board was not notified that something was being done when it would so
obviously concern this community. Mr. Bowerman answered that he cannot speak
for the Transportation Board members, but his clear impression was that they
really weren't aware of the situation. The changes had been made by staff.
The tape of the meeting will indicate whether or not it was discussed. He
added that Ms. Kincheloe actually seemed surprised when he called her last
week. Mrs. Humphris stated that there were two tapes involved with that
meeting, and she has them in her possession. She hasn't had a chance to
listen to the whole meeting, but she will do so and let the other Board
members know what she hears.
Item 5.14. Letter dated May 19, 1993, from Mrs. Constance R. Kincheloe,
Department of Transportation, addressed to Mr. David P. Bowerman, re: Route
29 North corridor improvements, was received as follows:
"Thank you for your letter of February 17. I appreciate the
opportunity to clarify some of the concerns you brought to my
attention and bring you up to date on the current status of the
study.
The process is now under way to contract with a consultant firm to
design plans for the grade separation of the Hydraulic Road,
Greenbrier Drive and Rio Road intersections. As part of the NEPA
process, a'Design Public Hearing will be held. This hearing will
be conducted after plans have been developed to a point where
individuals and businesses can see the exact limits of right of
way required and the impacts associated with grade separations at
these three intersections. At that time, public testimony will be
taken and consideration will be given to comments and concerns
raised by those affected by these improvements.
Projects can be delayed or even stopped at the design stage if
significant new issues that were not identified at the location
approval stage are brought to light and if there is adequate proof
that the design and construction of the project will inflict
extreme social and economic hardship to the citizens or businesses
along the corridor.
This was demonstrated when the Department of Transportation
presented plans for improvements to the Route 29 Corridor at a
Location and Design Public Hearing held on October 30, 1986. The
concerns expressed by businesses along the Route 29 corridor and
the businesses directly affected by the improvements at the Rio
Road intersection were so strong that the project was delayed.
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) O0008G
(Page 5)
The result of the concerns expressed by businesses and citizens
was the development of the Route 29 Bypass Corridor Study and the
Expressway Study.
Following the Route 29 Bypass Study, the Department passed a
resolution on November 15, 1990, approving a three-phased develop-
ment concept for the improvements along the Route 29 Corridor.
Phase I would be the widening of existing Route 29 to six lanes
with continuous right-turn lanes from the Route 250 Bypass to the
South Fork of the Rivanna River. This is to be accomplished with
two projects, the first from Hydraulic Road to Rio Road to be
advertised for construction in July of this year. The second
project from Rio Road to the river is scheduled to be advertised
in July, 1994.
Phase II called for grade-separated interchanges at Rio Road,
Greenbrier Drive and Hydraulic Road to be built when traffic
conditions dictate and funding is available. Construction of the
interchanges is subject to approval of the design after public
hearings are held during Phase I so that right of way for the
interchanges can be preserved. Phase III would be to construct
Alternative 10 when traffic on Route 29 becomes unacceptable and
funding permits. You are correct that in the design year 2010 if
the base case widening of Route 29 is constructed without grade-
separated interchanges at these three locations, the level of
service on Route 29 would remain a level F. Construction of the
interchanges would improve the level of service to a level B on
mainline Route 29 only and the level of service on the connecting
roads is yet to be determined. Phase II and Phase III are still
in the early stages of development, and there will be opportuni-
ties during the design stages of these projects for citizens to
identify concerns and issues that were not identified in the
location approval stage of the study.
As you know, the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) provided federal discretionary funds for feasibility
and design studies on the high priority National Highway System
corridors. The Department of Transportation originally submitted
a proposal for $7.5 million to study the entire Route 29 Corridor
from North Carolina to Washington, D.C. although this original
proposal was rejected, $1.5 million was approved to study a
section of the Route 29 corridor. VDOT is preparing a preliminary
scope of work to evaluate a section of the corridor. The first
section is proposed to be between Charlottesville and Warrenton.
This study will produce recommendations for multimodal transporta-
tion improvements along this section, as well as a process and
guidelines for extending the study to other segments of the
corridor. It is our intention that throughout the entire process
local committees will be working with the consultant and VDOT
staff. Public participation will be an integral part of the
study.
The Department is very interested in working with Albemarle
County, the City of Charlottesville, and the University of Virgin-
ia to reach the most acceptable solution to the problem of traffic
congestion along the Route 29 Corridor.
I understand Mr. Hodge has responded to your concerns about the
construction of sidewalks along the Route 29 corridor, and I hope
this will clarify the remainder of the concerns expressed in your
letter.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
Constance R. Kincheloe
Mrs. Humphris said this letter is in reply to Mr. Bowerman's letter of
February 17 concerning comments Mrs. Kinchloe made about the interchanges at
the North Charlottesville Business Council meeting. Mrs. Humphris told the
Board members that every time she sees such a statement in a VDOT letter,
memorandum or on any piece of paper, she will make a comment. She noted that
Ms. Kincheloe references the location and design public hearing held on
October 30, 1986, and says, "the concerns expressed by businesses along the
Route 29 corridor and the businesses directly affected by the improvements at
the Rio Road intersection were so strong that the project was delayed." Mrs.
Humphris said she will state again that there were approximately 20 business
owners and their lawyers at the hearing. These people were quite naturally
upset as to what they perceived as disturbance caused by the possibility of a
grade-separated interchange at Rio Road and Route 29. She said there were
thousands of people who went to the location and design public hearing on the
bypass. She thinks it should always be in the record that approximately 20
people in one situation made a difference and thousands of people in another
situation, who based their opposition on a $3.6 million study, were not heard.
Item 5.15. Memorandum dated May 21, 1993, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, re: National Highway System (NHS), received for
information.
000087
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Tucker not~d that a letter had been received from Mr. Ray D.
Pethtel, Commissioner, dated May 10, 1993, and attached thereto was a state-
wide map,a map of Albemarle County, and a mileage summary table describing the
final proposed NHS as submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Mr. Tucker said no change was made to the 29 North Corridor regarding the
Western Alternative 10 Alignment, i.e., that alignment still remains within
the NHS as proposed by the State. He has contacted of Mr. Dick Lockwood's
office to determine why the recommendation of the County and the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) to remove this alignment was not followed. No
response has been received as of this date.
Mrs. Humphris said that, in spite of the local decision of the MPO and
the Board of Supervisors not to put the Route 29 bypass into the National
Highway System at this time because of lack of information on timing and
design, it was done by VDOT officials anyway. She emphasized that it was done
by VDOT staff and not by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Mr. Tucker is
trying to find out the reasons for this. She said this needs to be known
because it is the understanding of this Board and the MPO that the whole idea
of federal funding for State projects was to give localities more opportunity
for input in the decision-making, which is mentioned frequently in connection
with ISTEA funds. Although this Board and the MPO tried to convey their
strong wishes to VDOT through the system it didn't work. The reasons for
VDOT's decision are still needed.
Item 5.16. Monthly update on highway improvement projects currently
under construction, received as information as follows:
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
JUNE 1, 1993
ROUTE LOCATION STATUS ESTIMATED
NO. COMP DATE
250 ST CLAIR AVE CONSTRUCTION 83% COMPLETE SEP 93
TO RT 1-64
20 AT INT ROUTE 742 CONSTRUCTION 34% COMPLETE AUG 93
(AVON ST EXT)
654 BARRACKS RD FR RT CONSTRUCTION 36% COMPLETE JUL 93
1406 TO GEORGETOWN RD
631 5TH STREET EXT CONSTRUCTION 6% COMPLETE FEB 93 *
S OF RT 1-64
· REVISED DATE
· * NEW PROJECT
Mrs. Numphris noted an error relating to the scheduling of the Route 631
project. Mr. Roosevelt apologized for the error, and said he would see that
the correct date is used for this project.
(Note: Mr. Bain left the room at 10:10 a.m.)
Item 5.17. Memorandum dated May 26, 1993, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive re: Rivanna Solid Waste Authority FY 1994 Tip Fees, was
received as information.
Item 5.18. Letter dated May 25, 1993, from The Honorable John W.
Warner, re: EPA's implementation of financial assurance regulations for
Subtitle D Landfills, received as information. Senator Warner noted that the
EPA has delayed implementation of the new landfill standards because the
process of approving state programs has taken longer than the agency planned.
Although the plan is still not final, he hopes it will address most of the
Board's original concerns.
(Note: Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 10:14 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: March 4, April 8, April 15,
and September 16, 1992, February 3 and May 5, 1993.
Mr. Marshall reported that he had read the minutes of April 15, 1992,
pages 1 through 15, and he recommended approval.
Mr. Bowerman had read September 16, 1992, pages 11 to the end, and he
found them to be in order, with one typographic error where a middle school is
referenced instead of an elementary school.
Mr'. Perkins indicated that he had read February 3, 1993, pages 14 to the
end, and found them to be in order. Mr. Perkins mentioned that he was called
by Mr. Donnie Dunn relative to the meeting on February 3, 1993, and his peti-
tion concerning a water bottling plant near Free Union. Mr. Perkins said Mr.
Dunn recalled that staff requested some information, but he did not think he
June 2, 1993 (Regul~ Da~ ~%i~'i
(Page 7)
had been asked to supply the information. Mr. Perkins asked that staff check
the tape of the meeting and give Mr. Dunn an answer.
Mrs. Humphris made motion to approve the minutes of April 15, 1992,
pages 1 through 15 (at Item 12); September 16, 1992, pages 11 (Item #10) to
the end; and February 3, 1993, page 21 (at Item 14) to the end. Mr. Marshall
seco~de4 the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Route 678/
Route 250 West Intersection Improvements.
Mr. Bowerman said there are several citizens present who wish to speak
concerning this issue. However, the Board, in all likelihood, will not make a
final decision today.
Mr. Cilimberg said the history of this project is long. A location and
design public hearing was held on November 17, 1992, for the relocation of
Route 678 to approximately 700 feet west of the existing intersection (just to
the west of Ivy Commons and the Jefferson National Bank) This was the
approximate location established for this relocated intersection in the 1983
Comprehensive Plan. Since that time, new development considerations (i.e.,
the Ivy Commons rezoning and the Jefferson National Bank site plan) have
allowed for this assumed relocation. The approximate cost of this project
would be $610,000.
Mr. Cilimberg said the majority of the public comments received at that
hearing, and in writing, opposed the relocation. Some people suggested
improving the Route 678/Route 250 intersection at its present location. An
alternative has since been investigated which would improve Route 678 at its
current intersection with Route 250, including additional turn lanes on Routes
678 and 250 to serve the multiple turning movements in that area associated
with these roads as well as existing businesses (Duner's Restaurant, Ivy
Commons, Jefferson National Bank) and Route 738. The approximate cost of this
alternative would be $256,000.
Mr. Cilimberg said the original intent of this project was to remove the
offset intersection at Route 250 with Route 678 and Route 738, to improve
access to the Meriwether Lewis Elementary School, improve the grade of Route
678 as it approaches Route 250 and to improve sight distance at the Route
678/Route 250 intersection.
Mr. Cilimberg then gave the following staff comments regarding the
existing traffic situation and the affect of either improvement:
1) Accident data from 8/1/86 through 7/31/91 showed four
documented accidents on Route 678, three of which occurred in wet
conditions, two of those involving rear-end collisions on the
steep grade curve of Route 678, the third involving a sideswipe on
the steep grade curve of Route 678.
2) Accident data for the same period indicates 16 document-
ed accidents on Route 250 in this area, four of which were rear-
end collisions involving stopped or turning vehicles on Route 250
at the Route 678 intersection, and one of which was a failure to
yield the right-of-way by a vehicle turning left onto Route 678
from Route 250.
3) About four percent (78 our of 1949 vehicles in the 12-
hour daytime study) of the Route 678 and Route 738 traffic at the
offset intersection at Route 250 is making a through movement
across Route 250. The most significant potential conflicts at
this offset intersection seem to be left turns from either Route
678 or Route 738 dealing with right turns from the opposing
direction, not left turns dealing with through movements.
4) With the reopening of Murray Elementary School, through
school bus movement between Routes 678 and 738 at Route 250 has
been greatly reduced.
5) A significant number of left turns occur from Route 250
onto Routes 678 and 738 according to the 12-hour daytime study
(408 onto Route 678 and 425 onto Route 738), which must yield to
over 3500 through trips on Route 250 in each direction.
6) The relocated intersection of Route 678 at Route 250
would:
a. Provide additional (and intended) access to the
Jefferson National Bank, an improvement over existing access only
through Ivy Commons.
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
000089
b. Severely impact or involve a taking of one resi-
dence along the new Route 678 alignment north of the intersection
with Route 250.
c. Provide the minimum acceptable sight distance to
the west at Route 250 based on typical operating speeds of Route
250 traffic coming from the west.
d. Result in a grade of the relocated Route 678 that
is virtually the same as for the existing Route 678°
7) Improvement of the existing intersection at Route 250
would:
a. Not provide additional (and intended) access to
the Jefferson National Bank°
b. Not severely impact or involve the taking of
adjacent property.
c. Reconfigure the existing intersection to more
clearly delineate turning lanes.
d. Provide improvements to Route 250 for turning
movements into Duner's and Ivy Commons (i.e., a continuous left
turn lane from Ivy Commons to the Route 678 intersection for
eastbound Route 250 traffic and a continuous right turn lane
across the frontage from the Route 678 intersection to just past
the Ivy Commons entrance).
8) The offset Route 678/Route 738/Route 250 intersection
could not be realigned to remove the offset. There is not enough
distance for necessary turn lane transition on Route 250 east to
the railroad bridge. Sight distance to the east also may not be
realized under this option.
9) Traffic signals have not been considered as part of this
project, but traffic would have to meet warrants for them to be
allowed according to the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT).
Mr. Cilimberg said that with these findings, the public comments
received at the location and design public hearing regarding the relocated
intersection, and the new alternative of improving the existing Route 678/
Route 250 intersection which has not gone to public hearing, it might be
advisable for the Board to request location and design public hearing on both
alternatives before either the Board or VDOT taking any further action.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would be glad to answer questions, and Mr. Dan
Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, is also present.
At this point, Mr. Bowerman asked for comments from the public.
Mr. Thomas Bergin said he is a member of the Vestry and a junior warden
of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Ivy. To his knowledge, the Church has not
received notice about any of the plans for Route 678. He thinks the original
plan should be brought back to public hearing since the church membership was
not notified the plan was going forward. He thinks the church membership
should be given an opportunity to comment on the various plans, and be
furnished with a full set of documents.
Ms. Ann Smith said she lives on Route 678 just past the entrance to
Locust Hill Subdivision. She is present on behalf of her neighbors who live
between the beginning of Route 678 and the proposed new road. There are
probably six or seven different individuals/groups who would be affected if
this new plan is accepted. She does not want the road shoddily constructed
into a bigger road from Route 678 to Route 250 to carry the 4000+ cars in the
year 2000. She thinks the proposed change needs to be discussed at another
public hearing.
Mr. Jay Marymor, who lives at 935 Owensville Road, remarked that he has
written a letter to the members of this Board, and he called attention to the
footnotes in that letter. He described the sight distance presently on Route
250, and the sight distance with the proposed plan. He showed a picture of
the access to Ivy Commons and the proposed new road. He then discussed the
safety issue if the road is moved 700 feet west, and he called attention to a
topographic map included with his letter. He noted that the rise of the road
to the point where the turn disappears to the west is approximately 25 to 50
feet. He said that when a vehicle comes around the curve, the first thing the
driver sees is the top of the bank; the road as it goes down the hill is not
seen. This point has been neglected in all of the comments.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Marymor to be brief since the Board already has
his very detailed report. Mr. Marymor stated that the cost of this project is
estimated to be $610,000. However, this cost does not include regrading the
proposed road to the eight percent grade. The County's Engineering Department
has estimated that the cost of that road and the regrading will be approxi-
mately $1.0 million.
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
00009O
Ms. Sharon Donovan referred to the original intention of fixing the
offset of the roads. She said the grade and sight distance would not be
improved with this plan. In fact, the sight distance will be worse. She
asked the Board to take into consideration the difference in the costs. She
also feels that eventually there will be need for a traffic light. She said
all of these reasons for the original proposal no longer exist and she thinks
the alternative plan makes more sense.
Ms. Mary Bear stated that she is a neighbor of Ms. Smith. She lives on
the curve of old Route 678 and has lived there for 35 years. There is no
shoulder on that road and the traffic moves fast. It is a dangerous road.
Fixing the intersection would only be patch work because there would still
have to be something else done to that road. If the original plan is ap-
proved, the work can be done right the first time, even if it means grading to
get more sight distance on Route 250 West. She pointed out that there is a
new development being built in the area, which means more cars. She hopes
both plans will be brought to a public hearing so the Board can hear the
residents' comments.
Mr. Marshall asked MSo Bear to which plan she is referring. Ms. Bear
responded that she is talking about the first plan, and she thinks it needs to
be brought back to public hearing. She emphasized that she is agreeing with
Ms. Smith's comments, and also noted that nobody in her neighborhood was told
about the new proposal.
Mr. Tim Michel, representing Ivy Commons, remarked that he does not feel
strongly one way or the other. He asked if the Board approves the second plan
if the savings can be used to take care of the offset between Routes 738 and
678. He said it is an engineering disaster. , and if someone proposed such
an intersection today, that person would be fired. He hopes the Board can
take the money and solve the problems on Route 250 since he feels the second
plan only goes halfway toward solving the problems. He asked that the
alignment be made better so there can be some sort of stacking of traffic
which cannot occur as the road currently exists. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Michel if
he means there is no stacking of cars along Route 678 at the present time.
Mr. Michel said he does not believe there will be enough stacking of
cars on Route 678 after the project is completed. The plan still shows the
road at an angle. Mr. Bain said he believes the plan shows room to stack six
or seven vehicles along Route 678 as traffic moves left coming into Char-
lottesville. Mr. Michel asked if the grade would be leveled at that point.
Mr. Bain replied, "no." Mr. Michel said he thinks the grade should be flat in
such areas.
Mr. Bill Stone said he resides at 2865 Meadow Vista Drive, which is
approximately one-quarter of a mile from the intersection of Routes 678/250.
He referred to comments made by some people who implied they were not given
adequate notice. He said there were big signs along Route 678 publicizing
this public hearing; one sign was in front of Locust Hill Subdivision, and one
sign was at the triangle intersection in front of the church. Mr. Stone said
he is at this meeting for two reasons. The first is to oppose the relocation
of Route 678. The second is to support the alternative to this plan, and he
wants to see that the plan go to a public hearing.
Mr. Stone said he is bothered by the fact that the original intent has
been minimized and negated with everything that is listed or shown to provide
minimal benefit. He said that nowhere in the memorandum does he see the
intent for the relocation as providing a beneficial or commercial advantage to
Jefferson National Bank or Ivy Commons. As outlined in the memorandum, if the
benefits and liabilities of both of these proposals are weighed, more people
will benefit from the alternate proposal. Fewer people are hurt, and the
Board could exercise prudent fiscal responsibility by saving the taxpayers
over $350,000.
Mr. Jim Garner, representing Jefferson National Bank, reminded the Board
members that the relocation of Route 678 was the primary consideration when
the location was selected for the bank. He suggested that some issues need
consideration when the alternatives are weighed. He recalled that there was a
County requirement that Jefferson National Bank dedicate 50 feet of its land
for the relocation of the road. There was also a requirement that the Bank
construct and build, at its own expense, a turning lane to get into the
property off the relocated Route 678. He pointed out the fact that the
building is facing the relocated Route 678, which also was a County require-
ment. If this plan is not approved, the Bank will be facing a field as the
primary entrance of the building is on that side.
Ms. Martha Sites remarked that she lives on the property which is most
affected by the plan of relocation for Route 678. She spoke to the Board in
December and would like to ask the same questions. What is the problem the
Board is trying to fix? The original intent has been negated. Has the alter-
native proposal been considered? She thinks this proposal needs some atten-
tion, and the public needs to be offered the opportunity to view the alterna-
tive proposal. Does the solution warrant the cost? The $600,000 estimate
does not include approximately $200,000 to purchase her own property° She
said the cost of the original project will be close to $1.0 million. She said
this is a major taxpayer investment to "fix" two-tenths of a mile of road and
it will not really fix anything. She wants to be sure the Board answers these
questions before they make a decision about this project.
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
000091
Mr. Ed Galloway said he lives on Meadow Vista Drive. He referred to a
comment made by Mr. Cilimberg about minimum sight distance. He has studied
the situation carefully and is convinced that a major accident is going to
happen at the intersection of Routes 678/250. The sight distance in that
location is not sufficient in case of bad weather, icy roads or careless
drivers. Any slow moving vehicle coming from Route 678 at the new intersec-
tion is in danger from anyone coming over the hill on Route 250 at highway
speeds. Regardless of the cost, property damage or environmental reasons,
there should never be an intersection at the point where it is now located.
Mr. Marshall said he is confused. He asked if Mr. Galloway is opposed
to the new intersection. Mr. Galloway replied, "no." He explained that the
new intersection will allow 700 more feet of visibility than the first
proposal. He is sorry he did not make himself clear. He explained that he
was referring to the realignment. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Galloway is
saying he thinks the realignment will be better. Mr. Galloway answered, "no."
He thinks the realignment will be dangerous. He suggested that the Board go
to that location and study the intersection carefully with an engineer. He
thinks the Board will conclude the same thing he did. He asked the Board not
to approve the realignment regardless of what else they do.
A lady stated that she lives two miles from the intersection on Route
678 near Meriwether Lewis Elementary School, and she drives the road daily.
She suggested that the Board go to the site and see what it looks like. She
took a step ladder to the site so her eyes would be at a bus driver's level.
If the Board members went to the site and looked down the road toward the
west, she can't imagine that anyone would think a school bus could pull onto
Route 250. It takes a school bus a little while to start moving. Although
this plan supposedly meets minimum sight distance requirements, she cannot
imagine that it really does. She urged the people who will be voting on this
matter to stand by the side of the road and imagine that they are driving a
school bus, and ask themselves if they would turn left at that site.
Ms. Valerie Manson, a resident of Owensville Road, said she will not
speak on the original or the alternate plan. She thinks the whole issue has
been poorly handled. Only yesterday at 1:00 p.m. did she receive the packet
of information which the Board has before them regarding the alternate plan.
She thinks other residents of Ivy would certainly be impacted by the alterna-
tive plan. She pointed out that these people were not notified with. Neither
Mr. Tom Bergin, who spoke on behalf of St. Paul's Episcopal Church, nor their
church officials were notified about the original plan.
Ms. Manson urged the Board to bring both plans to a public hearing so
all concerned parties in the Ivy area could be notified and completely brought
up to date on all alternatives. She said Jefferson National Bank was built
with the understanding that the new Route 678 was going to be approved. Now
the bank officials are left with an entrance facing a road that is not there.
Since this project has been on the books for over ten years (even before
Locust Hill was developed), she thinks it is only fair that the project be
postponed until the Ivy citizens have a full understanding and discussion of
both plans, preferably during the Fall months.
For clarification, Mr. Bowerman asked how many people opposed the
original concept. (Ten people indicated opposition.) Mr. Bowerman then asked
how many people opposed the second plan. (Eight people indicated opposition.)
Mr. Bowerman next asked how many people opposed both concepts. (Two people
indicated opposition.) Mr. Bowerman said there appears to be support for
something being done in the area, but disagreement as to what needs to be
done. He then asked Mr. Roosevelt to speak.
Mr. Roosevelt said he came to this meeting looking for direction from
this Board. He commented that this project was put into the Six-Year Plan
five or six years ago as a real need because of school bus traffic between
Meriwether Lewis and Murray Elementary schools. It appears that the need has
changed since the schools have been reconstructed. Perhaps the concern he and
other VDOT officials thought the Board had for an improvement in this vicinity
was in error. The concern at this time is the traffic on Route 250 and the
traffic congestion through Ivy, more so than the improvement of Route 678. He
thinks VDOT officials are passive on the improvements in this area, but they
agree that improvements are needed.
Mr. Roosevelt said as far as funding options are concernedv with the new
Federal ISTEA legislation, financing is in a flux. He is not sure if there is
anyone at VDOT who knows all of the ramifications at this time. He said the
project relating to the relocated Route 678 is certainly eligible for the
State secondary road funds allocated to Albemarle County. As to the alterna-
tive plan, he is not sure that State secondary road funding can be used. It
appears that the ISTEA legislation is going to give counties great leeway in
how they use their secondary road allocations. He also thinks the project is
eligible for Primary Road funds, however, the Board can only make recommenda-
tions when it comes to the use of primary funds. The Board would make their
request to the Commonwealth Transportation Board which makes the decision as
to where primary funds will be allocated.
Mr. Roosevelt said this Board has, for years, used County funds to match
State revenue sharing funds, and the alternative plan would be eligible as a
revenue sharing project. That decision would be made after proper planning
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) OOO09Z
(Page 11)
and public hearing procedures. He said the County could allocate half of the
required funds, and the State would match those funds dollar for dollar.
Mr. Bain referred to the alternative plan and asked if there would be
any consideration for the widening of Route 678 so three lanes could be
constructed. Mr. Roosevelt replied, "yes." To do any widening on Route 678,
and to improve the curve which is not shown on the schematic drawing, addi-
tional land would need to be purchased by VDOT for grading easements, etc.
Mr. Bain asked if money for the additional land was included in the prelimi-
nary figure. Mr. Roosevelt responded, "no." He apologized to Ms. Sites
because he said he told her on the telephone yesterday that funds were includ-
ed in the $256,000 estimate, but they are not. Additional money would be
required, but it would not bring the cost of the intersection improvement even
to the same level as the relocation project.
Mr. Bain noted that the relocation project went to public hearing in
November, 1992 and $610,000 was the amount estimated for that project. He
mentioned that the Sites' property would lose a reserved drainfield, but the
taking of property was not going to be necessary. He asked if this is still
the case with the grade, because there will have to be significant cutting
there. Mr. Roosevelt replied that this is correct. He said he did not know
who Mr. Marymor talked to or where he got his figures relative to an extra
$1.0 million being added to this improvement. He stated that the $610,000 was
the estimate of what it would cost to build the improvement shown on the plan,
which lowers the grade and makes the maximum grade approximately seven
percent, leaving an approximate 15-foot cut in front of the Sites~ property.
This figure did not include taking the Sites' property or the full purchase of
that property. If the grade is lowered any more than what is shown for that
plan, then a drainfield would have to be considered, and property for that
would have to be purchased. His estimate is that it would increase the cost
approximately $200,000. Mr. Marymor quoted a figure of $1.0 million for
additional grading, but whoever Mr. Marymor spoke to may have been referring
to what it would cost to grade Route 250 west of that intersection in order to
improve the sight distance. He does not have a specific estimate for this,
but it will be expensive because it is a vertical problem instead of a
horizontal problem. Grading would need to be done just west of the intersec-
tion to beyond the hill (700 to 1000 feet), to improve the sight distance.
Mr. Bain remarked that when this project was first considered, it was to
cost about $250,000. The significant difference came when VDOT officials
indicated that to make any improvements at all the cut had to be made, and
that was not originally considered. Mr. Roosevelt said he agrees that this
project has been poorly handled. There have been enough mistakes made that
everyone can share the blame. It is not his purpose, and he does not think it
is the purpose of this Board to assess blame at this point. He went on to say
that as details of the project were brought out, it was determined by VDOT
officials that there were grades which were not originally anticipated. He
said there is limited sight distance at the intersection which was not fully
recognized when the project was started, and the original estimate of $250,000
was made on poor information.
Mr. Bain said, assuming that both of these plans are taken to public
hearing, is it VDOT's intent to consider the warrants of the second plan. He
does not think, based on Mr. Roosevelt's comments, that the second plan meets
VDOT's criteria. Mr. Bain asked if studying the second plan will involve
significant costs. Mr. Roosevelt replied, "no." Traffic signal studies are
inexpensive, and they are done all the time. A signal study could be done at
this location based on the raw data of turn movements and the volumes of traf-
fic. As far as accident data is concerned, he does not believe the project
will qualify. He believes the information already obtained, was obtained on
an hourly basis by VDOT's Traffic Engineer although the information that was
sent to this Board concerning turn movements at that intersection related to
totals. He said VDOT staff may already have the raw data that is necessary
for a traffic study.
Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Roosevelt is referring to two traffic signals.
He said he does not see how one signal will work. Mr. Roosevelt responded
that the Traffic Engineer will have to examine this issue. Mr. Marshall
inquired if the traffic light would cost $200,000. Mr. Roosevelt answered
that this is a good starting figure for the project, but he is not so sure
that a light is needed at the Route 738 location. The drawings show that most
of the traffic turns right at that location, and there is plenty of time to
make a right turn. He also does not think there will be any problems making
left turns there.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks Route 738 should be considered along with
this project in order to align the two entrances. Mr. Bain responded that
improvements to the Route 738 entrance would cost a lot of money because of
the steep grade. There is also the Bank which would have to be considered, as
well as a house which might have to be removed. He is not indicating that he
doesn't want to make this improvement.
Mr. Perkins said the house is probably back far enough from the road
that it wouldn't have to be removed. He emphasized that he thinks the two
projects should be considered at the same time. The fact that the inter-
section is offset is one of the problems.
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 00009~
(Page 12)
Mr. Marshall suggested that cost estimates be done for this project so
the Board will know how much it will cost to improve both entrances. Mr.
Perkins remarked that sometimes there is a lot of congestion and the traffic
backs up to under the railroad bridge on Route 250. This happens when a car
is trying to make a left turn onto Route 738. He noted that cars coming from
Owensville Road are also involved in this congested area.
Mr. Marshall asked exactly how much money will be involved with the
alternative project. He knows how much traffic lights cost. Mr. Roosevelt
answered that the alternative plan does not include the cost of a traffic
light but it does include land acquisition. He asked the Board members to
recognize that the plan being displayed today just a schematic drawing and
there has not been a lot of detailed work done on the project. He said the
road may not have to be widened, but the bank would have to be cut back so
that drivers could see around the curve. He noted that to extend the project
up Route 678 and around the curve would add some costs to the project. Mr.
Marshall asked if land would have to be condemned. Mr. Roosevelt replied that
the land will certainly not be donated, and VDOT Will have to purchase it. He
is not sure whether or not condemnation proceedings will be involved.
Mr. Marshall said he will not favor any plan until he gets more concrete
information. The Board is being told that one project will cost less than the
other one, but he can add up the costs, and this is not the case. Mr. Bain
asked if Mr. Roosevelt's staff could examine the Route 738 project by itself
and give the Board some idea of the cost of the project. He said he would
like this information before the public hearing on the other projects. In
terms of dollars, it makes sense to study this project to see if it would be
possible to do the projects all at one time. He asked Mr. Roosevelt if it
would be possible for the Board to receive the information on Route 738 in the
next 60 days. Mr. Roosevelt said he would have to get the location and design
engineers, as well as rights-of-way and materials personnel, involved with the
study. He believes there is a lot of rock in the soil in that area. He can
also give the Board a cost estimate including the improvements to the curve,
and he can probably get this information back to the Board faster than 60
days.
Mr. Bain suggested that work might get started on one or all of these
projects in the Fall if that is not too soon for VDOT to get all of its work
done. If Route 738 is excluded, then decisions can be made involving the
other projects. He does not think there is any need to hold another public
hearing on the original plan because nothing else needs to be done. Mr.
Roosevelt agreed. He said if the Board members think the relocation plan is
something they don't want to do under any circumstances, then his suggestion
would be that the project be deferred. He could transfer the unused money to
other projects which are already underway.
Mr. Marshall stated that this worries him because the money might not be
available to the County when it is needed. Mr. Roosevelt informed Mr.
Marshall that this is Albemarle County's money, and it will not go out of the
County. Mr. Marshall said he would concur with Mr. Roosevelt about transfer-
ring the money to other projects. He would like to have the money for South-
ern Albemarle County, but the people in Ivy would not like it if the road is
not fixed in that area.
Mr. Bain said he thinks it has been the consensus of the Board to look
at the whole picture, to see what will benefit the community the most. He
asked Mr. Roosevelt how much of a problem and cost increase it would be to
construct an entrance for the Bank. Mr. Roosevelt replied that if an entrance
is built to serve the Bank, he does not believe that would be a valid VDOT
expense. If all of Route 250 in this area is widened, and the construction
work goes beyond where the other intersection would bef and construction of a
Bank entrance could be included with that project with someone other than VDOT
paying the cost, that entrance could be added into the project. He asked if
Mr. Bain wants the cost estimate for adding a Bank entrance.
(Mr. Bowerman left the room at 10:00 a.m.) Mr. Bain asked if Mro Roose-
velt thought the Bank entrance is not feasible because there would have to be
a left-hand turn lane installed which would be costly. Mr. Roosevelt said any
additional widening of the road or the installation of a left-turn lane would
be included in the cost for the entrance, which would have to be someone
else's cost. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 10:04 a.m.)
Mr. Bain suggested that Mr. Roosevelt bring information back to this
Board on Route 738 within sixty days so decisions can be made about the other
projects. Mr. Bowerman concurred. Mr. Roosevelt said the Board needs to
recognize that there will have to first be a location public hearing and then
a design public hearing. The location public hearing can be done without much
additional cost, but design work will then have to be done and a design public
hearing held. If the Board wants to have a single hearing, there will have to
be some time and money spent to do the detailed design.
Mr. Marshall wondered when costs would be available relative to the land
that the Highway Department will have to purchase. Mr. Roosevelt said he
furnish estimates on the cost to purchase land, and administrative costs if
condemnation procedures are followed. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Roosevelt
anticipates taking any houses in that area. Mr. Roosevelt replied, "no."
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000094
(Page 13)
Mr. Bain asked if it is the consensus of the Board to follow his sugges-
tion to Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Bowerman answered, "yes." Mr. Bain said the
discussion today has clearly been an information gathering session. He asked
staff to notify those who had spoken previously and were the most directly
involved with the project, other than members of the church.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the comments today were helpful, as well as
the differences in opinion relating to the two proposals. He then clarified
Mr. Bain's requests by saying that Mr. Roosevelt will bring additional
information back to this Board within 60 days. Mr. Bain noted that Mr.
Roosevelt will be bringing back information pertaining only to Route 738, and
then a decision will be made as far as scheduling further public hearings.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roosevelt if he wanted to bring anything to the
attention of the Board. Mr._Roosevelt replied that the Board's $100,000
request for Industrial Access Funds for the Mill Creek industrial road was
approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board with a number of conditions.
He said he will be advising the Board soon as to these conditions, and he will
be working on a State/County agreement.
Mr. Marshall mentioned that he has a concern about Route 20 South
between the Charlottesville City Limits and the entrance to Route 53. He
called Mr. Roosevelt about an incident which occurred when some people from
out-of-state were making a left-hand turn going into the Blue Ridge Sanato-
rium. The people indicated that the grass was so high at that point, they
almost pulled out in front of a car. The next day the grass was cut, but Mr.
Roosevelt has indicated that grass cutting is done by contract. The man who
cut the grass got it knocked down, but it was shabbily done, and nothing was
cut inside of the guard rail. Mr. Marshall said the City does such a beauti-
ful job with its property after the City limits are reached. He noted that
flowers are planted, and the grass is manicured, and he wondered if the County
could not do something similar. He said that 500,000 people a year are on
Route 20 South between Interstate 64 and Route 53. He suggested that perhaps
the County's Parks and Recreation Department could cut the grass the way that
lawns are cut, and maybe plant some flowers. He said there is always talk
about beautification of the entrance corridors, and this is the most important
entrance corridor in the whole community. He said the County's portion of
Route 20 South in this area looks similar to a pasture.
Mr. Tucker said there have been similar requests in the past for other
corridors, although he doesn't believe there has been such a request for Route
20 South. He noted that the City cuts the grass on the Route 250 Bypass to
the City limits, and there has been a request to continue this into the
County, as well as similar requests for Route 29 North. Staff has considered
these requests, but there are costs involved in such activities. He suggested
that staff present a report to the Board for the area to which Mr. Marshall is
referring. Mr. Marshall suggested that perhaps he could begin a joint process
between Monticello, the Bicentennial Center, Piedmont Virginia Community
College and the State. He reiterated that the Route 20 South entrance
corridor is the most important one in the County, and it looks the shabbiest.
He asked if other Board members agreed.
Mrs. Humphris answered affirmatively. She mentioned that she called the
VDOT office a couple of weeks ago about the tall grass which has grown up at
the construction site at the corner of Barracks Road and Georgetown Road. She
stated that the Booth's, who live in that area, had no sight distance coming
out of their driveway. She received a call from Mr. Mills, a representative
of VDOT, asking what Mrs. Humphris wanted done. She said she told him that
she didn't know whether it was the responsibility of the construction company
or VDOT to mow the grass at this specific construction site. She noted that
when the Booth's called her she knew it was a real problem because she had
already noticed it, and she was not even coming out of their driveway. Mr.
Roosevelt answered that as long as construction is being done in that area, it
should be the responsibility of the contractor to keep the grass mowed. He
added that ultimately it is his (Mr. Roosevelt's) responsibility to see that
it is done.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on an ordinance amending and reenact-
ing Section 2-51 of the Code of Albemarle, "Industrial Development Authority"
to allow the IDA to finance facilities located outside of the. legal boundaries
of the County with Board of Supervisors' approval. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 18 and May 25, 1993.)
Mr. Tucker explained that a request has been made to amend Section 2-51
of the County Code to allow the Albemarle County Industrial Development
Authority (IDA) to finance facilities outside of the legal boundaries of the
County subject to approval of the Board of Supervisors. The Board must also
approve any facility located within Albemarle County prior to the financing of
any such facility by any industrial development authority.
Mr. Tucker said Martha Jefferson Hospital officials are requesting Board
approval for the IDA to issue tax exempt bonds to refinance $37.0 million in
hospital debt. He noted that Agenda Item No. 9 is a resolution approving the
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) O0009~
(Page 14)
bond issue for the Martha Jefferson Hospital, and the resolution should be
subject to an amendment to the County Code. He explained that consideration
is being given to deleting the number of issuances that are approved each time
the Board approves a new issue. He said this is scheduled for a public
hearing on June 16, 1993. The public hearing today relates to amending and
reenacting Section 2-51 of the Code of Albemarle to allow the IDA to finance
facilities located outside of the legal boundaries of the County.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that when this matter was discussed in May, a
comment was made which left her feeling uncomfortable. She said the chairman
of the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority stated that the
reason this was brought to the Board was that there had been a split in the
thinking of the IDA members, and he thinks this type of political/
philosophical issue should be considered by this Board. At that moment, she
felt that this Board should have been privy to the thinking of the IDA members
so that the Board members would have known about their concerns. She said
when he made this remark she felt as though the process was not working
properly. She is going to ask about the IDA members' thinking if this matter
is brought before the Board again.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. No one came
forward to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Martin immediately offered motion, which was seconded by Mrs.
Humphris, to adopt the following ordinance amending and reenacting Section
2-51 of the Code of Albemarle, "Industrial Development Authority" to allow the
IDA to finance facilities located outside of the legal boundaries of the
County.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
0 R D ! N A N C Iii
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE IX
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Chapter 2 of the Code of Albemarle, Article
IX, Industrial Development Authority, be amended and reenacted in
Section 2-51 to read as follows:
Sec. 2-51. Board of Supervisors to approve location.
The board of supervisors must approve any facility financed
by the industrial development authority located outside the legal
boundaries of the county. The board of supervisors also must
approve any facility located within Albemarle county prior to any
financing of such facility by any industrial development
authority.
Agenda Item No. 9. Adopt Resolution approving bond issue for Martha
Jefferson Hospital.
Mr. Tucker reiterated his earlier comments relative to the need for the
Board to adopt the actual resolution approving bond issue for the Martha
Jefferson Hospital.
At this time, Mrs. Humphris offered motion, which was seconded by Mr.
Martin, to adopt the following resolution approving the Albemarle County
Industrial Development Authority's refunding revenue bonds issue for the
Martha Jefferson Hospital.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia ("Authority") has considered the application of
Martha Jefferson Hospital ("Hospital") requesting the issuance of
the Authority's refunding revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed
$39,500,000 ("Bonds") to assist in refunding all or a portion of
the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Charlottes-
ville, Virginia's $37,000,000 Hospital Revenue Bonds ("Martha
Jefferson Hospital Project"), Series 1990, originally issued on
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000096
(Page 15)
October 4, 1990, to, among other things, finance and refinance
various construction and renovation projects and capital equipment
purchases for the Hospital's acute care hospital facility in the
City of Charlottesville, Virginia, and has held a public hearing
thereon on May 25, 1993; and
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended ("the Code"), provides that the governmental unit
having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and
over the jurisdiction in which any facility financed with the
proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the
issuance of the bonds;
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia ("County") and the Board of Super-
visors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ("Board") constitutes
the highest elected governmental unit of the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board
approve the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the
issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a
certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement
have been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the
Authority for the benefit of the Hospital, as required by Section
147(f) of the Code and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia
of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code").
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not
constitute an endorsement to the prospective purchaser of the
Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Bonds or the Hospital.
3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary
Income Tax Regulations Section 5f.lO3-2(f)(1), this resolution
shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of
its adoption.
4. The Bonds may not be issued by the Authority until such
time as the ordinance creating the Authority has been amended to
permit the issuance of such Bonds.
5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing on an ordinance amending and
reenacting Chapter 6, "Elections", Section 6-2 of the Code of Albemarle adding
a fourth voting precinct in the Charlottesville Magisterial District to be
known as "Rio Hill Precinct," which also causes boundary adjustments to the
Berkeley and Woodbrook Precincts. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 18
and May 25, 1993.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the need for this ordinance amendment. Mr.
Bowerman immediately opened the public hearing.
Ms. Joan Graves said she is opposed to the division of the Berkeley
Subdivision for voting purposes. However, there is nothing this Board can do
about it today because the General Assembly has already taken action. She
noted that she wrote a letter to the Daily Progress. She knows of no input
from anyone in the Berkeley Subdivision relative to this division, and she
stated that she can show the Board with the use of a map, how the houses are
divided in Berkeley. She emphasized that she lives in the Berkeley Subdivi-
sion, but she can no longer vote in the Berkeley Precinct.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Bowerman said that from the point of view of getting the delegates'
districts back together, it makes sense to add a fourth voting precinct in the
Charlottesville Magisterial District. It also makes sense, from a logistical
point of view, in terms of the number of people voting in each precinct. The
Berkeley precinct is currently overcrowded, and the new precinct will accommo-
date approximately 2000 voters. There are approximately the same number of
voters at the Woodbrook and Berkeley precincts, and the new precinct would
help that situation. He the majority of voting is done in the mornings and
evenings. With the addition of this new precinct, no one will have to cross
Route 29 to get to their voting precinct. Those people who are on the west
side of Route 29 will stay on the west side of Route 29, and those people on
the east side of Route 29 will stay there. Although he understands Ms.
Graves' objections, he does not feel this proposed precinct in any way
diminishes the Berkeley community.
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000097
(Page 16)
Mr. Bowerman said that for some time he has felt the Charlottesville
Magisterial District should have a different name in order to avOid confusion
between this magisterial district and the City of Charlottesville. He has
seen confusion about the names ever since he has lived in the area. He has
had difficulty thinking of a name because he did not want a precinct named
"Route 29 North" or "Seminole Trail," but he thinks that "Rio Hill" would be a
meaningful name for the district. In the event that this Board chooses to
approve the name "Rio Hill" for the magisterial district at some future date,
he is inclined to favor the name "Agnor-Hurt" for the voting precinct. If
this is done, the administration and bureaucracy involved with the change
should coincide with the drawing of the district lines. He pointed out that
this is clearly the time to consider such a change, because the lines are
already being redrawn for this magisterial district. He is a little hesitant
about the way to proceed with this idea.
Mr. Bain said he would not want the Board members to hurriedly consider
changing the magisterial district name. He would like time to consider this
change, much more so than the addition of the new precinct.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he had received a couple of letters about
changing the name of the Charlottesville Magisterial District, but he said
that this idea had occurred to him even before he received the letters. He
stated that he thinks, if the Board considers such a change, that it should be
done sooner rather than later. Mr. Martin asked if the Board could approve
the division today without a name actually being given to the new precinct.
Mr. Bowerman answered that the precinct has to be named.
Mr. James Heilman, Registrar, said nothing can happen until the U.S.
Justice Department gives its approval, and this generally takes 60 days. He
is unsure about a name change, but the Justice Department usually approves
names without any problems. He said that if the Board approves the precinct
boundary change today, he will submit this information to the Justice Depart-
ment within a couple of days. An answer should be received sometime in
August, and all of the voters in the affected area will have to be notified of
their change of polling place.
Mr. Martin suggested that the boundary line change be approved today,
and at the next day meeting of the Board, the naming of the new precinct be
discussed. Mr. Bowerman said, for the sake of simplicity, he thinks the Board
should proceed with the boundary line changes today, as advertised, which will
create a "Rio Hill" Precinct. If names are going to be changed in the future,
they can all be approved at one time.
At this time, Mr. Marshall offered motion to adopt An Ordinance Amending
and Reenacting Chapter 6, "Elections," Section 6-2 of the Code of Albemarle,
to add a fourth voting precinct in the Charlottesville Magisterial District,
to be known as "Rio Hill Precinct," which will also cause boundary adjustments
to the Berkeley and Woodbrook Precincts.
Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 6, ELECTIONS
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
TO ESTABLISH A FOURTH VOTING PRECINCT IN THE
CHARLOTTESVILLE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Section 6-2, Voting Precincts, Charlottes-
ville Magisterial District, be amended and reenacted by redrawing
the precinct lines for the Berkeley and Woodbrook Precincts, and
by drawing new precinct lines for the Rio Hill Precinct, all as
described below:
Sec. 6-2. Voting precincts--Charlottesville Magisterial District.
The Charlottesville Magisterial District shall include four
(4) voting precincts, bounded as hereafter set out and named as
follows:
(a) Berkeley Precinct:
Beginning at the intersection of State Route 743 and U.S.
Route 29; then northwest on State Route 743 to its intersec-
tion with State Route 631; then northeast on State Route 631
to its intersection with Four Seasons Drive; then southeast
on Four Seasons Drive to its intersection with Commonwealth
Drive; then north on Commonwealth Drive to its intersection
with Dominion Drive; then southeast on Dominion Drive to its
intersection with U.S. Route 29; then south on U.S. Route 29
to its intersection with State Route 743, the point of
beginning.
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day'Meeting)
(Page 17)
(b) Woodbrook Precinct:
Beginning at t'he northern city limits of Charlottes-
ville and its intersection with State Route 631 and the
Southern Railroad right-of-way; then northeast with the
Southern Railroad right-of-way to its intersection with the
South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering northwest with the
South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with U.S. Route
29; then south on U.S. Route 29 to its intersection with
State Route 631; then southeast on State Route 631 to its
intersection with the Southern Railroad right-of-way and the
northern city limits of Charlottesville, the point of begin-
ning.
(c) Branchlands Precinct:
Beginning at the northern city limits of Charlottes-
ville and its intersection with State Route 631 and the
Southern Railroad right-of-way; then northwest on State
Route 631 to its intersection with U. $. Route 29; then
south on U. S. Route 29 to the northern city limits of
Charlottesville; then east with the city limits to its
intersection with the Southern Railroad right-of-way and
State Route 631, the point of beginning.
(d) Rio Hill Precinct:
Beginning at the intersection of Dominion Drive and
U.S. Route 29; then north on U.S. Route 29 to its intersec-
tion with the South Fork Rivanna River; then northwest with
the South Fork Rivanna River to its confluence with
Schroeder Branch; then north with Schroeder Branch to its
intersection with State Route 643; then north on State Route
643 to its intersection with State Route 743; then northwest
on State Route 743 to its intersection with State Route 660;
then southwest on State Route 660 to its intersection with
the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering south with the
South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with State
Route 743; then south on State Route 743 to its intersection
with State Route 631; then northeast on State Route 631 to
its intersection with Four Seasons Drive; then southeast on
Four Seasons Drive to its intersection with Commonwealth
Drive; then north on Commonwealth Drive to its intersection
with Dominion Drive; then southeast on Dominion Drive to its
intersection with U.S. Route 29, the point of beginning.
Mr. Heilman stated that it is also necessary to adopt a resolution
approving of the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School as the polling place for the new
precinct.
Mr. Bain moved adoption of the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED, that effective July 1, 1993, Agnor-Hurt
Elementary School shall be the polling place for the Rio Hill
Precinct.
Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. ll. Request from Gordon Ford to amend the service area
boundaries of the Albemarle'County Service Authority for water only to ex-
isting structures to Tax Map 59, Parcels 80 and 80C.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the parcels of land in question are located
on Route 250 West. The applicant owns Parcel 80 and is in the process of
acquiring Parcel 80C. The applicant has also indicated that there is a
structure on 80C which would need to be served, and he emphasized that the
request is for water service to existing structures only. Mr. Cilimberg
indicated that the County's parcel records only show structures on Parcel 80,
so the staff will have to examine Parcel 80C to make sure that there is a
structure that would need to be served. He said the problems experienced have
been documented in the report, so he would not go into detail in this explana-
tion.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that there have been both quality and quantity
problems over time and the owners have spent considerable money addressing
those problems. At the moment, quality and quantity problems can be addressed
by spending more money, but the concern is that even if money continues to be
spent, there is still an inferior system for provision of water on the site.
He said staff has noted in its report that Parcel 80C is subject to a conser-
vation easement with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Parcel 80 is not
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000099
(Page 18)
covered under such an easement, and Parcel 80 is where the actual manor house
is located. He said there is no intent ~to develop the properties further.
Mr. Cilimberg said it is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to have
water and sewer services provided within growth areas, with some exceptions
when quantity or quality problems exist. He said the Board has, from time to
time, where an adjacent line is available to the property, granted service to
those properties experiencing problems. It was on this basis that staff
recommended that the Board hold a public hearing, although staff will need to
get some of the details regarding the exact parcel which will be a part of any
services granted. The staff will also want to do some additional checking
with the Health Department and the County Engineering Department to make sure
all of the facts are relevant to consideration of whether or not the service
areas should be amended. He said that the applicants are present at the meet-
ing, if the Board members have questions.
Mr. Bowerman asked the acreage of the manor house lot. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that Parcel 80 has a total of nine acres and Parcel 80C has a total of
154 acres.
Mr. Bain asked the names of the owners of the property. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that the Knickerbockers are shown on the County's records as owning
Parcels 80, 80C and 80D. He said Mr. Ford has already purchased Parcel 80 and
is in the process of acquiring Parcel 80C. Mr. Bowerman inquired if there is
any possibility that the conservation easement will be extended by Mr. Ford to
other parcels.
Mr. Rick Richmond, representing Mr. Ford, answered that he does not
think this will happen because the applicant doesn't own the other parcels.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Richmond to address the matter. Mr. Richmond stated that
Mr. Ford's wife is a Knickerbocker. He said the main house at Windsor Hill
has been conveyed to the Knickerbocker daughter and her husband, but the
residue of Parcel 80C is still owned by Mr. Knickerbocker. He said this is
being handled as a family transaction. He noted that Parcel 80C is within a
conservation easement, with no intention to develop it, and the manor house is
being used solely for residential purposes by Mr. Knickerbocker's daughter and
her husband.
Mr. Bain inquired as to what other structures are located on Parcel 80C.
Mr. Richmond replied that Parcel 80C includes a Farm Manager's house. He said
Mr. Chris Chapman is the Farm Manager, and he is present at this meeting. He
stated Mr. Chapman lived in the house which is located on Parcel 80C, and it
is served by the same well which serves Parcel 80. Mr. Cilimberg stated that
the staff will have to check the County's records, because the computer was
not showing this information for Parcel 80C. Mr. Richmond explained that
there is a main house and an apartment cottage located on nine acres, and then
a farm manager's house is located on Parcel 80C.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the request is for all existing structures to be
served. Mr. Richmond answered, "yes." Mr. Bain stated that he has no problem
with holding a public hearing on the request. Staff will have to clarify
certain things. Mr. Bowerman agreed. Mr. Richmond indicated that he has
reviewed the other approvals for such service in the vicinity. There have
been four or five approvals close to Route 250 as well as on Ballard Road and
Owensville Road. These approvals have basically fallen, according to the
staff report and the minutes of the Board, under the same criteria which has
been presented in this application. Mr. Bain pointed out on the map where the
Board had denied or granted some requests. He recalled that the Board denied
one property owner, but he could not remember where the property was located.
Mr. Richmond noted a property which was approved for such service at the
intersection of Bloomfield Road, as well as the property behind the former
Plow and Hearth building. Mr. Cilimberg reminded Mr. Bain that he was
probably thinking about a vacant lot in a subdivision which was not granted
water service, because it was undeveloped.
Mr. Bain then made motion to hold a public hearing on the request from
Gordon Ford to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County
Service Authority for water only to existing structures to Tax Map 59, Parcels
80 and 80C, at the July 7, 1993, meeting.
Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Request from George Clark to recon-
sider ZMA-92-13.
Mr. Bowerman said the rezoning request (ZMA-92-13) from Mr. George Clark
was denied by this Board on a three to three vote approximately a month ago.
Mr. Clark is now asking the Board to reconsider that action. Mr. Bowerman
said he has received a letter from the applicant.
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) O00100
(Page 19)
Mr. Bain said the BOard has received a letter dated May 25, 1993, from
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, President of Gloeckner and Osborne, Inc. Mr. Bain
commented that he (Mr. Bain) asked staff to determine the actual number of
two-acre lots that could be developed at the top of the property. He said he
does not know if this information is available yet.
Mr. Bain mentioned that development using cluster provisions in the
County's Zoning Ordinance would allow the two-acre lots at the top of the
property; it would not affect the flood plain and the area below except for
the entrance road which has already been constructed. This would be a differ-
ent application because it is not a special permit request. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that such a situation would not be a rural preservation development
necessarily, if it only involves a rearrangement of the two-acre lots on top
of the hill. It also would not be a situation for village density lots. He
said it could be a Planned Rural Development or Village Residential plan.
There is not a special use permit allowance for rearrangement of lots, except
when there is a rural preservation development. He said staff can consider
this possibility but the 40-acre minimum has to be met for the preservation
tract.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Cilimberg is saying that this request can come
forward as a PRD. Mr. Cilimberg replied affirmatively. He reiterated that
this application could progress as a Planned Residential Development or a
Village Residential plan. Mr. Bowerman said larger lot sizes are involved
than with a Village Residential plan.
Mr. Bain stated that he does not know how much acreage is involved with
the two-acre lots and a cluster situation, but this is his suggestion. Mr.
Bowerman asked if Mr. Bain is saying that rather than reconsidering ZMA-92-13,
he would like to see a new application. Mr. Bain said he does not mind if the
applicant wants to go through the special permit process, but a substantial
part of the fees could be waived since staff would not have to expend much
time and effort if the applicant chooses to go through this process. Mr.
Cilimberg mentioned that the applicant's request outlines 39 lots, although
nothing has been submitted to show where the lots will be located. He pointed
out the area where he thought the proposed lots would be arranged, as well as
another area which he said would be open space. He believes Mr. Bain's
suggestion is for as many two-acre lots as can be located in that one area~
but the staff has not talked to the applicant to see if he would be willing to
proceed with that plan.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the development would have individual well and
septic systems. Mr. Cilimberg replied affirmatively.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the lots would have a minimum of two acres. Mr.
Bowerman answered that the lots would have to be two acres in size to accommo-
date both a well and septic system. Mrs. Humphris said the Board does not
know if the applicant is willing to configure the development in that manner.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Yancey or Mr. Clark if they would like to make
c omme nt s.
Mr. Yancey said he does not have a new plan ready because the letter
stated it was the intention of Mr. Bain to get with staff to see if he, the
staff and the applicant could all get together and develop a plan. That is
why he was hoping the current application could be reconsidered. However, he
is willing to consider the idea that Mr. Bain suggested.
Mr. Bain said he has not been able to get with the applicant and staff,
but is willing to do so before next week's meeting. Mr. Yancey remarked that
in talking with Mr. Gloeckner, Mr. Gloeckner had thought staff was satisfied,
but maybe ~ome of the things said at the Board's meeting were taken out of
context. That is the reason for asking that the application be reheard. Mr.
Yancey said some of these meetings are very strange because some Board member
comments after Mr. Gloeckner spoke indicated they were unhappy about the lots
located along the roadside. He was unaware that this was going to be a major
problem because he thought staff was satisfied. In reconsidering the plan, he
has taken out all of the lots along the roadside. The revised plan does not
involve any entrances along Route 712, and flood plain boundaries have been
changed so there are no lots between the flood plain and Routes 712 and 760.
All of the lots on the hill are only using the theoretical rights that were
there anyway.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that Mr. Clark and Mr. Yancey get together with
staff and decide how to proceed. The Board members and the applicants have
equal concerns, but he feels he will be satisfied with whatever the applicants
bring back to the Board. Mr. Bain said this was acceptable to him. He said
that at the previous meeting the one and one-half acre lots were discussed in
detail. Three of the Board members had concerns with that portion of the
plan. The other three Board members had some concerns about the size of the
lots, but they were overridden by other concerns. He still feels lot size is
a major consideration for the project.
Mr. Yancey said he thinks reconsideration should address the concern
that the whole 102 acres would be usable, and there are 20 to 30 acres
reserved for utilities. He added that all lots will be at least two and
one-quarter acres each (by the time the 60,000 square feet is added), plus any
portion of the 30 acres of common land with utility easements. If water is
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
ooolom.
needed, it can be taken anywhere from the 30 acres of common land, and this is
in addition to the individual lot. He stated that this was another proffer
that was added for the reconsideration.
Mr. St. John said the Board has asked if reconsideration is possible in
this case. It is, but the Board must first vote to suspend its Rules of
Procedure. There must be a second motion for the Board to reconsider the
plan, and a third motion for the Board to vote on the merits of the plan' He
added that the Board will essentially be reconsidering the request that was
before it the first time. That is the essence of a reconsideration. If the
Board is to deal with something that is totally new, it is not a reconsidera-
tion, because it has not yet been considered. A new plan will not have been
to staff, and it has not been subject to a public hearing.
Mr. St. John said it seems to him that the only way this project can
proceed is with a PRD or by a rezoning to village residential, but with
different proffers than were before this Board with the first proceeding. He
said because of these differences, he has some questions about handling this
through the reconsideration procedure.
Mr. Bain agreed. He said he can meet with staff and applicants to
discuss whether or not a new application is needed, or whether the matter can
be handled as a reconsideration issue. Mr. St. John said this is an open
question, but he asked Board members not to commit to a reconsideration proce-
dure at this time.
Mrs. Humphris said she would like to comment on Mr. Gloeckner's letter
because she was the one he was talking about when he said that someone took
his words out of context from the minutes of the Planning Commission° She
said there certainly was no intention of wrongfully using his words° She
waited until the other discussion was finished because she thinks what she
will say relates not only to this application, but to the whole North Garden
area.
Mrs. Humphris recalled that when Mr. Gloeckner said that wells cannot be
depended upon to support a Village Residential community, his comments related
to a future Village Residential community in the North Garden area. She said
Mr. Gloeckner is now saying that he meant the future developed North Garden
Village Residential area and not any particular small lot subdivision. She
said a lot of her concerns had to do with the water supply in North Garden and
that concern was based on what the Board had previously found out about the
water supply. The Board has been told there is no place large enough for a
surface impoundment in that area, and that well water is in short supply.
Mrs. Humphris emphasized that Mr. Gloeckner is the professional and he
is talking about the future. She wondered if that is an implication that, as
subdivisions in the North Garden area are dealt with by this Board from now
on, the Board should be aware of were the water in the future is going to come
from. She remarked that she is sorry if she was incorrect in the application
of Mr. Gloeckner's statement. She asked if this Board is going to approve
more Village Residential areas in North Garden because of the plan, or will
the Board have to make sure the water is there first, and then allow the plan
to proceed.
Mr. Perkins said he wonders if surface water is needed. He said that
there are a lot of towns and communities in the State of Virginia, as well as
the res of the country which depend upon well water; that is their only water
source.
Mrs. Humphris said there are a lot of people in the North Garden area
who have had problems with their groundwater supplies. Mr. Perkins said there
is no question about that but this is something the Board cannot answer at
this time. He added that this is why the water study is needed, and he is
unsure if that will answer all of the questions. He does not think anybody
knows the answer, and he does not think anybody will ever know if there is
enough water until a well is actually drilled.
Mrs. Humphris commented that this Board needs to be aware of the
problems and this should be an ingredient in the Board's thinking processes as
long-range decisions are made.
Mr. Bain stated when subdivisions are planned in North Garden, the plats
should carry the words in bold print that "plans are approved for well water
usage only", with no commitment from the jurisdiction to extend water to those
subdivisions. He said he is not asking for comments from Mr. St. John today,
but he wondered when water should be extended to rural areas in the County.
He said this Board has been faced with this problem a number of times already.
Water service has been extended on a number of occasions, but he does not like
to keep doing that, and he doesn't think that it should be done in every case.
Mr. Marshall remarked that it is amazing in this country that groundwa-
ter or surface water is always depended upon, because there are areas in the
world where that is not the case. He mentioned that people in Bermuda get'
their drinking water by putting a limestone roof on their homes, and the water
filters through the limestone into the basement.
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~.02
(Page 21)
Mrs. Humphris said this is done in other areas besides Bermuda. Mr.
Marshall responded that what he is saying is that there are other ways to get
water besides using groundwater or surface water.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the Board will wait for a report from Mr.
Tucker and Mr. Bain.
Agenda Item No. 12a. Discussion: Request to reconsider SP-93-06,
Thomas Cato, Inc.
Mr. Bowerman said he (Mr. Bowerman) is asking this Board to suspend its
Rules of Procedure and vote to reconsider the request from Thomas-Cato, Inc.
This request was to allow food and alcohol sales at a billiard center located
on the north side of Greenbrier Drive just west of Route 29. Mr. Bowerman
said he is making this request because he had not talked to the applicant, to
any of his constituents, or anybody else about this request when the applica-
tion was heard by this Board a month ago. He was of the opinion that the
original application was for a family-oriented billiard parlor that was not
going to have beer or wine as part of its operation. He originally thought
the applicants had not asked for a beer and wine permit as part of the special
permit application because they felt they might not get an approval. He has
since had lengthy discussions with the two applicants, as well as constituents
who play billiards and pool at this establishment. They are definitely family
people who say that they are really not concerned with the sale of beer and
food at the establishment. These people have asked him to reconsider the
application and give the applicants a chance to talk to the members of the
Board about the necessity for having alcoholic beverages sales, in terms of
having a viable operation. The applicants will also discuss the family nature
of the business, as well as the parking issues. He agreed to support bringing
this request back to a public hearing, and he would appreciate it if the Board
members would suspend the rules and rehear this application.
At this time, Mr. Martin moved to suspend the Board's Rules of Procedure
in order to rehear SP-93-06, Thomas-Cato, Inc. Mr. Marshall seconded the
motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the applicants need a fair hearing, but
she is leery of combining family entertainment with alcohol in a public place.
At the time of the public hearing, she will want to know what the law is
regarding this matter. For some reason, she thought children under a certain
age were not allowed in places which served alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Bowerman agreed that Mrs. Humphris had brought up an excellent
point. Mr. Bain pointed out that alcoholic beverages are served at Kegler's
Bowling Alley all the time when children are present. Mr. St. John said there
is no law against serving alcoholic beverages on property when children are
present, but there could be some ABC regulations about what type of activities
can go on in a place where there are children. He is unfamiliar with all of
the ABC regulations, but if an ABC license is issued, the applicant would
certainly be subject to those regulations.
Mr. Bowerman said the burden of compliance clearly rests with the
applicant once the ABC license is granted. Mr. St. John explained that the
Board cannot suspend any application of the ABC license. Mrs. Humphris agreed
but said she wants to make sure the Board understands everything they are
reconsidering the application.
Mr. Tucker said a public hearing cannot be held before July because the
matter will have to be readvertised. He suggested that the public hearing be
held on July 14, 1993.
At this time, Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
readvertise SP-93-06, Thomas-Cato, Inc., for a public hearing on July 14,
1993.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
(Note: At 11:10 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:21 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 13a. Work Session: Personnel Policy Revisions.
This item will be found after the discussion of Agenda Item No. 15.)
(Note:
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
000103
Agenda Item No. 13b, Work Session: Housing Committee Report Recommen-
dations. This item was not discussed this date.
Agenda Item No. 13c. Work Session: Recycling Ordinance. This item was
not discussed this date.
Agenda Item No. 14a. Appropriation: FY 1993-94 Capital Improvements
Program.
Mr. Tucker stated that approval is needed for the Capital Improvements
Program Appropriation Ordinance in the amount of $14,042,320 for FY 1993-94.
Staff has provided the Board with expenditure accounts, as well as the
resources from which the $14,042,320 will come. He noted that the Five-Year
Plan has already been approved, and this motion will appropriate the funds.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin to adopt the
FY 1993-94 Capital Improvements Program Appropriation Ordinance, as set out in
full below.
Mr. Marshall noted that he does not agree with some of the items in the
CIP. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Marshall if he was really referring to the CIP,
because the Board has already examined the CIP and adopted the program of im-
provements. He believes the program was approved by a unanimous vote of this
Board. Mr. Marshall stated that he will support the motion, since it relates
only to the CIP.
Mr. Bain asked the amount of the actual contract for the new middle
school at Hollymead. Mr. Tucker answered that he can't recall the actual fig-
ures, but it was approximately $8.0 million. Mr. Bain asked if the amount for
the school was more than the amount budgeted. Mr. Perkins and Mr. Tucker both
indicated that the contract amount for the new Hollymead middle school was
under the budgeted amount.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1994
AN ORDINANCE making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expendi-
tures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1994; 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 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1994:
PARAGRAPH ONE - ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS
For the current expenses of the function of ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS
the sum of five hundred seventy-six thousand five hundred dollars and no cents
($576,500.00) is appropriated from the Capital Improvements Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. Albemarle County Ofc Bldg Renovations $
2. County Office Bldg - PBX System Upgrade
3. Comprehensive Assessment Administration System
4. Health Department - Clinic Wing
5. County Facility Maintenance
6. County Facility - ADA Compliance
7. County Computer Upgrade
100,000
20,000
50,000
264,250
52,250
75,000
15,000
PARAGRAPH TWO - EDUCATION
For the current expenses of the function of EDUCATION the sum of eleven
million eight hundred sixteen thousand nine hundred six dollars and no cents
($11,816,906.00) is appropriated from the Capital Improvements Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. PVCC - Humanities & Social Science Bldg
2. Albemarle High School - Bleacher Refurbishment
3. Broadus Wood Elementary - Expansion
14,016
17,000
797,800
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
4. Building Services - Bldg & Site Improvements
5. Various Schools - Carpet Replacement
6. Various Schools ~ Computer Network Cabling
7. Walton Middle Sch - Emergency Generator Installation
8. Albemarle High School - Exterior Doors & Hardware
9. Henley MS - Masonry Repair & HVAC Replacement
10. Yancey Elementary School - Handicapped Ramp
11. Jouett Middle School - HVAC
12. Murray High School - Renovation Roof Replacement
13. New Middle School - Hollymead
14. Stone Robinson Elem - Playfield Refurbishment
15. WAHS - Science Classroom Reconfiguration
16. WAHS - Tennis Court Replacement & Resurfacing
17. Albemarle High School - Track Resurfacing
18. WAHS - Football Bleacher Footboards Replacement
19. WAHS - PA & Master Clock System Replacement
20. WAHS - Press Box
21. Various Locations - Underground Storage Tanks
22. Ail Schools - Security Systems
23. Burley Middle School - Roof Replacement
24. Various Locations - Energy/Maintenance Mgmt System
25. Various Locations - ADA "Structural Changes"
26. CATEC - Underground Storage Tank Replacement
27. CATEC - Exterior Lighting Replacement
000 04
88,000
90,000
48,000
47,500
87,000
1,045,000
7,000
455,000
340,600
8,079,000
7,500
21,000
25,000
60,000
56,000
22,000
27,000
50,000
84,740
140,000
84,000
100,000
18,500
5,250
PARAGRAPH THREE - FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY
For the current expenses of the function of FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY the
sum of six hundred forty thousand five hundred eighty dollars and no cents
($640,580.00) is appropriated from the Capital Improvements Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. Enhanced 911 - Building/Locator System
2. Firefox-Software Mgmt System for Fire Depts
3. Satellite Receivers
4. Advance Allocation Fund
286,520
24,060
80,000
250,000
PARAGRAPH FOUR - HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
For the current expenses of the function of HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
the sum of two hundred seventy-six thousand seven hundred thirty-four dollars
and no cents ($276,734.00) is appropriated from the Capital Improvements Fund
to be apportioned as follows:
1. Revenue Sharing Road Projects
$ 276,734
PARAGRAPH FIVE - LIBRARIES
For the current expenses of the function of LIBRARIES the sum of eighty-
four thousand six hundred dollars and no cents ($84,600.00) is appropriated
from the Capital Improvements Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Northside Branch - Additional Shelving
2. Northside Branch - Books & Other Materials
$ 30,000
54,600
PARAGRAPH SIX- PARKS AND RECREATION
For the current expenses of the function of PARKS AND RECREATION the sum
of five hundred sixty-seven thousand four hundred dollars and no cents
($567,400.00) is appropriated from the Capital Improvements Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. ADA Compliance - Parks & Recreation Facilities $
2. Broadus Wood Elem - Outdoor Improvements
3. Crozet Park - Building & Grounds Improvements
4. Lane Baseball Field - Light Improvements
5. Scottsville Community Ctr - Outdoor Improvements
6. Scottsville Elem - Outdoor Recreation Improvements
7. Stone-Robinson Elem - Multi-purpose Field
8. WAHS - Tennis Court Resurfacing
9. Hollymead Middle Sch - Outdoor Recreation Facilities
10. Brownsville Elem - Outdoor Recreation Improvements
11. Woodbrook Elem - Outdoor Recreation Improvements
60.000
63.100
12.000
17.000
25.000
43.600
7.500
25,000
225,000
44,000
45,200
SUMMARY
Total CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for
Fiscal year ending June 30, 1994:
To be provided as follows:
General Fund Transfer
CIP Fund Balance
Fire/Rescue Payments
E-911 Centel Reimbursement
Sale - McIntire School
Borrowed Funds
Interest
$13,962,720
$ 1,280,400
187,000
23,000
286,520
55,000
11,930,800
200,000
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Total CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resg~rces available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1994
'O00:[05
$13,962,720
SECTION II - STORMWATER/UTILITIES FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for stormwater and utility improvement purposes herein specified for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1994:
PARAGRAPH ONE - STORMWATER/UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS
For the current expenses of the function of UTILITIES/STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENTS the sum of seventy-nine thousand six hundred dollars and no cents
($79,600.00) is appropriated from the Stormwater/Utilities Fund to be appor-
tioned as follows:
1. County Master Drainage Plan
2. Peyton Drive Detention Basin
3. Ricky Road Drainage
SUMMARY
60,000
11,000
8,600
Total STORMWATER/UTILITIES FUND appropriations for
Fiscal year ending June 30, 1994:
To be provided as follows:
General Fund Transfer
$ 79,600
$ 79,600
Total STORMWATER/UTILITIES FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1994 $
79,600
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I AND II IN THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1994:
RECAPITULATION
Section I Capital Improvements Fund $13,962,720
Section II Stormwater/Utilities Fund 79,600
GRAND TOTAL
$ 14,042,320
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 III
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in
Sections I and II 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 appro-
priations made out of the CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM and the STORMWATER/
UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, are declared to be maximum, conditional and
proportionate appropriations--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 appropriations 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 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 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 or make transfers between specific items of appropriation
without the consent of the Director of Finance being first obtained.
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
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) O001~[~
(Page 25)
requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for
contractual services--such as communications, travel, freight, express--and
membership fees and subscriptions 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 and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing
Agent shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of
specifications furnished by the contracting 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 considered
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 rates.
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-three.
Agenda Item No. 14b. Appropriation: Annual Appropriation Ordinance.
Mr. Tucker informed Board members that the Annual Appropriation Ordi-
nance for Fiscal Year 1993-94 amounts to $96,710,332. He noted that this
amount is $37,682 over what was approved in April, but the reason is basically
due to salaries that the staff was unaware of from the State Compensation
Board, as well as additional State funds for a social services medicaid
position. He added, however, that all of these expenses are offset by State
funds, and there are no local funds needed to provide the additional funding.
He said staff recommends this Board's approval of the Annual Appropriation
Ordinance for the operating budget for FY 1993-94, as submitted.
Mr. Marshall said he is not sure when to bring up this matter, but he is
concerned about the lack of funding for a reading teacher at Walton Middle
School. This teacher is needed so that the grades can be elevated to where
they should be in that school, however, in order for the reading teacher to be
hired, the art and choir positions will be cut in half. He pointed out that
all of the other middle schools have the same positions, but just because
there is a lower socio-economic group of people in Southern Albemarle and
their needs are greater as far as reading is concerned, he cannot see depriv-
ing those children of the right to have choir and art in the same light as the
other middle schools. He said Walton Middle School has a very good principal,
and he (Mr. Marshall) agrees with his way of thinking.
Mr. Marshall said teaching needs to be to the student and the way the
budget is recommended should not have an effect. He said $35,000 in addition-
al funding is needed for that school, but he doesn't know how to go about
getting it. He wished he had known about this problem when the budget was
being discussed because he would have made it a priority at that time. He
still feels, as he has in the past, that this particular school is being
slighted. He said he could cite several other incidents which have taken
place, but instead will emphasize that there is a need in that area that this
Board is not addressing. He said that all he can do is ask.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Marshall what he is asking for. Mr. Bain stated
that he thinks this matter should be brought up at another time° Mro Marshall
said that the budget is being discussed now. Mr. Bowerman responded that the
Board cannot change the budget, because the tax rate has already been adopted°
He said the Board has already been through numerous budget discussions. Mr.
Marshall said he understands all of this, but he asked how he could get some
help with this matter. Mr. Bowerman referred Mr. Marshall to the School
Board.
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000107
(Page 26)
Mrs. Humphris agr~'~h'~tthe~Sch0ol'Board is the entity which should
handle such things, and this matter is its responsibility. Mr. Bowerman noted
that the School Board members have more than a $50,000,000 budget, so they
should be able to find the funds, if they identify the priority to which Mr.
Marshall referred.
Mr. Bain suggested that Mr. Marshall bring up this topic at the joint
meeting between the School Board and the Board of Supervisors this afternoon.
He said that the School Board members need to hear Mr. Marshall's concerns.
Mr. Marshall asked if the other Board members would support him in this
request. Mr. Martin stated that he is willing to listen to what the School
Board members have to say. Mrs. Humphris agreed. She added that the Board
does not know whether the School Board members have already considered this
matter or whether they have made a considered decision based on all the
information. Mr. Marshall commented that he has been told that certain
amounts of money are allowed to each school for a certain number of positions,
and that is it. Mr. Martin stated that a formula is used when money is
appropriated to the individual schools.
Mr. Tucker remarked that the School Board can probably give the Board
some answers to their questions this afternoon, but he emphasized that the
School Board will have to address the question. He said, however, that if the
School Board members request additional funding from this Board, then the
Board would get involved. He then told Mr. Martin that this motion will have
nothing to do with the problem to which he has referred. He informed Mr.
Marshall that he will not lose his opportunity for these funds by supporting
the Annual Appropriation Ordinance. Mr. Marshall emphasized that he had
previously asked when is the appropriate time for such a discussion.
Mr. Bain replied that it would be better to have this discussion with
School Board members present. He said that he is disappointed with some of
the actions the School Board has taken pursuant to the budgetary consider-
ations with the extra funds, and he would like to talk about this matter at
today's joint meeting. He noted that the School Board members took some of
the Board of Supervisors' suggestions and did things accordingly, but they
also did other things. He said that this Board does not control the School
Board budget, and he is not trying to do so, but he thinks the message from
this Board should be loud and clear.
Mr. Marshall said the only way he has of getting what he feels is
necessary for a school in his district is to oppose the budget. He asked if
this is not his only alternative. Mr. Tucker responded that the Annual
Appropriation Ordinance does not stop here. Staff has to start putting the
numbers in place so there is a budget ready to begin operations on July 1,
1993. He added that delaying approval of this Annual Appropriation Ordinance
will put staff in a very difficult position. He went on to say that if Mr.
Marshall had brought up this problem before this time, then perhaps something
could have been done.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Marshall can vote against the Annual Appropriation
Ordinance if he wants. Mr. Marshall stated that he will not do that. Mr.
Tucker remarked that he thinks Mr. Bowerman is right. Mr. Tucker said that
the School Board has close to a $60,000,000 budget, and $35,000 is not a very
high percentage of that amount of money. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Tucker is
suggesting that this will give him (Mr. Marshall) an opportunity not to
support the Annual Appropriation Ordinance next year.
Mr. Martin mentioned that he also has a question involving $20,000 in
the School Board budget, which involves a similar situation. He noted that
adding his amount to the amount that Mr. Marshall is questioning is still not
a significant amount of money, compared to the total School Board budget. Mr.
Marshall said what he needs to do is becoming clearer to him now.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the School Board members can shift some
priorities if Mr. Marshall can convince them to do so. Mr. Tucker pointed
out, too, that the Board has a $60,000 Contingency Fund, although he is not
encouraging this Board to use it for matters such as this. If the School
Board can convince this Board that they cannot find the funds relative to Mr.
Marshall's request, then the Contingency Fund is another alternative.
Mr. Marshall stated that he will ask for funds from the Contingency
Fund, if necessary, but he will go to the School Board first. Mr. Bowerman
commented that the Board needs to find out the School Board's reasons for
appropriating money the way they did. He thinks they will need a better
reason than just stating that money is provided to the schools according to a
formula, because the School Board is constantly changing funding around to
deal with needs.
At this time, Mr. Bain moved adoption of the Annual Appropriation Ordi-
nance for Fiscal Year 1993-94. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27 )
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE YEAR ENDINO JUNE 30, 1994
000108
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, 1994; 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 ~OVERNMENT
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1994:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, AND OTHER REFUNDS
the sum of sixty-six thousand eight hundred dollars and no cents ($66,800.00)
is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Refunds and Abatements
$ 66,800
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND
SUPPORT the sum of four million one hundred thirty-five thousand eight hundred
ninety-two dollars and no cents ($4,135,892.00) is appropriated from the
General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Board of Supervisors $ 277,494
2. County Executive 391,273
3. Elections 126,414
4. Finance 1,852,306
5. Information Services 1,032,803
6. Legal Services 269,302
7. Personnel 186,300
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the Function of JUDICIAL the sum of one
million three hundred thirty-four thousand six hundred twenty-seven dollars
and no cents ($1,334,627.00) is appropriated from the General Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. Circuit Court $ 64~999
2. Clerk of Circuit Court 421,509
3. Commonwealth's Attorney 293,288
4. General District Court 10,440
5. Juvenile Court 34,050
6. Magistrate 2,820
7. Sheriff 507~521
Paragraph Four
For the current expenses of the Function of PUBLIC SAFETY the sum of
seven million thirty-five thousand six hundred thirty-one dollars and no cents
($7,035,631.00) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
2.
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Ambulance, Rescue Squads
Community Attention Home
Correction and Detention (Jail)
Fire Department (City)
Fire/Rescue Administration
Forest Fire Extinction Service
Inspections
Emergency Operations Center (911)
Juvenile Detention Home
Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR)
Police Department
SPCA Contract
Volunteer Fire Departments (JCFRA)
Offender Aid and Restoration (Flow-thru Grants)
$ 141.300
53,000
163 105
570.890
214.281
13,595
583,433
420,990
60.060
35,090
4,210,910
13 500
418 577
136,900
Paragraph Five
For the current expenses of the Function of PUBLIC WORKS the sum of one
million seven hundred fifty-two thousand seventy-three dollars and no cents
($1,752,073.00) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
1. Engineering
2. Refuse (Landfills)
3. Staff Services
4. C~C3 Grant
Paragraph Six
000 109
632,875
260,880
851,818
6,500
For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN SERVICES the sum of
four million five hundred thousand three hundred seventy-four dollars and no
cents ($4,500,374.00) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned
as follows:
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Central Va Child Development Assoc (CVCDA)
Charlottesville Free Clinic
Region Ten Community Services
District Home
FOCUS - Teensight
Health Department
Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA)
Jefferson Area United Transportation (JAUNT)
Legal Aid Society (CALAS)
Madison House
Outreach Counseling
Piedmont Virginia Community'College (PVCC)
Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE)
Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA)
Department of Social Services
Employment Service Program
Energy Assistance Program
Medicaid/UVA Program
United Way Scholarship Program
Children & Youth Commission (CACY)
9.000
4.600
211.240
33~000
19,230
542.000
127.480
230,335
12 775
4,040
25 580
7,310
53.400
19 210
2,833 527
99 570
14 544
20O 528
31 200
21,805
Paragraph Seven
For the current expenses of the Function of PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE
the sum of two million five hundred ninety-six thousand eight hundred fifty-
three dollars and no cents ($2,596,853.00) is appropriated from the General
Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Library $ 1,442,120
2. Literacy Volunteers 9,860
3. Parks & Recreation 905,418
4. Piedmont Council of the Arts 7,210
5. Rivanna Park 100,272
6. Teen Center 19,328
7. Virginia Discovery Museum 21,000
8. Visitor's Bureau 91~645
Paragraph Eight
For the current expenses of the function of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT the
sum of one million eight hundred ninety-four thousand three hundred fourteen
dollars and no cents ($1,894,314.00) is appropriated from the General Fund to
be apportioned as follows:
1. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) $ 346,455
2. Extension Service 82,548
3. Community Action Agency (MACAA) 41,490
4. Housing 176,571
5. Planning and Community Development 739,945
6. Planning District Commission (TJPDC) 47,730
7. Route 29 Bus Service 31,565
8. Soil and Water Conservation 27,338
9. Watershed Management 45,150
10. Zoning 334,122
11. Gypsy Moth Program 21,400
Paragraph Nine
For the current expenses of the function of CONTINGENCY RESERVE the sum
of sixty thousand nine hundred sixty-one dollars and no cents ($60,961.00) is
appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Contingency Reserve
$ 60,961
Paragraph Ten
For the current expenses of the function of CAPITAL OUTLAYS the sum of
one million three hundred sixty thousand dollars and no cents ($1,360,000.00)
is appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to:
1. Capital Improvements Fund $ 1~360,000
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Paragraph Eleven
O00 .J.O
For the current expenses of the Annual Payment to the City of Charlot-
tesville pursuant to the REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT between the City and the
County dated February 17, 1982, payable in January, 1994, in the amount of
four million three hundred nineteen thousand two hundred thirty-six dollars
and no cents ($4,319,236.00) is appropriated from the General Fund as follows:
1. Revenue Sharing Agreement
$ 4,319,236
Paragraph Twelve
For the current expenses of OTHER USES OF FUNDS the sum of forty million
three hundred forty-five thousand five hundred seventy-one dollars and no
cents ($40,345,571.00) is appropriated from the General Fund and transferred
to:
1. School Fund $34,677,940
2. Debt Service Fund 5,667,631
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Revenue from General Fund Balance
Total GENERAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994
$69,402,332
$64,188,985
4,844,870
201,430
167,047
$69,402,332
SECTION II - REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for SCHOOL purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1994:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the REGULAR SCHOOL FUND the sum of fifty-six
million six hundred forty-eight thousand one hundred forty-two dollars and no
cents ($56,648,142.00) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned
as follows:
1. Instruction $43,661,673
2. Administration, Attendance & Health 2,070,048
3. Pupil Transportation Services 4,418,887
4. Facilities Operation/Maintenance 5,783,148
5. Facilities Construction/Modification 108,306
6. Other Uses of Funds 606,080
$56,648,142
SUMMARY
Total Regular School Funds for Fiscal
Year Ending June 30, 1994
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Local Revenues)
Revenue from Local Sources (School Fund Balance)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Miscellaneous Revenue
$56,648,142
$34,677,940
150,000
20,888,577
483,314
448,311
Total SCHOOL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
$56,648,142
SECTION III - OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1994:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the function of SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM the sum
of one million seven hundred ninety-two thousand fifty-one dollars and no
cents ($1,792,051.00) is appropriated from the Cafeteria Fund to be appor-
tioned as follows:
1. Maintenance & Operation of School Cafeterias $ 1,792,051
SUMMARY
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
O001 .l
Total CAFETERIA OPERATIONS approPriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994
$ 1,792,051
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from Refunds and Rebates
Revenue from the Federal Government
$ 1,308,687
34,000
5,550
443,814
Total CAFETERIA FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994
$ 1,792,051
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of ALBEMARLE FOOD SERVICE the
~um of three hundred three thousand three hundred ninety-one dollars and no
cents ($303,391.00) is appropriated from the Albemarle Food Service Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. Food Service $ 303,391
SUMMARY
Total ALBEMARLE FOOD SERVICE appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994
$ 303,391
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Sales)
Total ALBEMARLE FOOD SERVICE resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994 $
303,391
303,391
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS the sum of
three hundred twelve thousand dollars and no cents ($312,000.00) is appropri-
ated from the Textbook Rental Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Textbooks $ 312~000
SUMMARY
Total TEXTBOOK RENTALS appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994
$ 312,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (School Fund)
Revenue from Carry-Over Funds
Revenue from Other Sources (Interest)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
188,000
84,000
3,000
37,000
Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994 $
312,000
Paragraph Four
For the current expenses of the function of the McINTIRE TRUST FUND the
sum of ten thousand dollars and no cents ($10,000.00) is appropriated from the
Mclntire Trust Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Payment to County Schools
$ 10~000
SUMMARY
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994
$ 10,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from investments per trust
10,000
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30~ 1994
$ 10,000
Paragraph Five
For the current expenses of the PREP PROGRAM the sum of eight hundred
seventy-eight thousand six hundred sixty-two dollars and no cents
($878,622.00) is appropriated from the PREP Program Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. E.D. Program $ 455,002
2. C.B.I.P. Severe 423,620
SUMMARY
Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994 $ 878,622
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
000112
To be provided as~fo!!o~: .......
Revenue from Tuition and Fees
$ 878,622
Total PREP PROGRAM FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994
$ 878,622
Paragraph Six
For the current expenses of FEDERAL PROGRAMS the sum of eight hundred
ten thousand two hundred twenty-six dollars and no cents ($810,226.00) is
appropriated from the Federal Programs Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Chapter I $ 682,014
2. Chapter II 55,003
3. Migrant Education 73,209
SUMMARY
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994
$ 810,226
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government
$ 810,226
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994 $
810,226
Paragraph Seven
For the current expenses of COMMUNITY EDUCATION the sum of eight hundred
seventy-five thousand eight dollars and no cents ($875,008.00) is appropriated
from the Community Education Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Community Education $ 875,008
SUMMARY
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994
$ 875,008
To be provided as follows:
Revenues from Tuition and Fees
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994 $
Paragraph Eight
875,008
875,008
For the current expenses of SUMMER SCHOOL the sum of four hundred fifty-
six thousand five hundred dollars and no cents ($456,500.00) is appropriated
from the Summer School fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Summer School $ 456,500
SUMMARY
Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994
$ 456,500
To be provided as follows:
Revenues from Tuition
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from Fund Balance
Transfer from School Fund
292~500
24,000
40,000
100~000
Total SUMMER SCHOOL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994
$ 456t500
.SECTION IV - DEBT SERVICE FUND
For the current expenses of the function of DEBT SERVICE the sum of six
million one hundred ninety-four thousand eight hundred forty-eight dollars and
no cents ($6,194,848) is appropriated from the Debt Service Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. Debt Service Payments $ 5,698,768
2. Lease/Purchase Payments-Capital Equipment 496,080
SUMMARY
Total DEBT SERVICE appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1994
$ 6t194,848
To be provided as follows:
Revenue From Local Sources (Trans from Gen Fd)
Revenue From Local Sources (Trans from Sch Fd)
Revenue from State Sources (Literary Fund)
5,667,631
496,080
31,137
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Total DEBT SERVICE resources available
For Fiscal year Ending June 30, 1994
oooa. a.a
$ 6,194,848
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I THROUGH IV IN THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1994:
Recapitulation
Section I
Section II
Section III
Section IV
General Fund
School Fund
Other School Funds
Debt Service Fund
TOTAL
$69,402,332
56,648,142
5,437,798
6,194,848
$137,683,120
Less Inter-Fund Transfers:
General Fund to School Fund
General Fund to Debt Service Fund
School Fund to Debt Service Fund
School Fund to Summer School Fund
State Literary Fund to Debt Service Fund
GRAND TOTAL
$34,677,940
5,667,631
496,080
100,000
31,137
$96,710~332
BE IT FURTNER 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 through III 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 appro-
priations made out of the General Fund, the School Fund, the Cafeteria Fund,
the McIntire Trust Fund, the Textbook Rental Fund, the Debt Service Fund, Prep
Program Fund, Federal Programs Fund, Community Education Fund and Summer
School Fund are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appro-
priations--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 re~nue 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 Board of Public Welfare 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
Board of Public Welfare 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 or make transfers
between specific items of appropriation without the consent of the Director of
Finance being first obtained.
Paragraph Three
Ail balances of appropriations payable out of the General Fund of the
County treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of June,
1994, except as otherwise provided for, 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, 1994. However, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed
to be applicable to the School Fund, Capital Improvements Fund, Cafeteria
Fund, Albemarle Food Service Fund, Textbook Rental Fund, McIntire Trust Fund,
Debt Service Fund, Prep Program Fund, Federal Programs Fund, Community
Education Fund or Summer School Fund, but any balance available in these funds
shall be used in financing the proposed expenditures of these funds for the
fiscal year beginning July 1, 1994.
Paragraph Four
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual
services for any purpose may be incurred by any departments 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
contractual services--such as communications, travel, freight, express--and
000114
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
membership fees and subscriptions 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 and the Purchasing Agent, who 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 obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures pre-
scribed in the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall not be considered
obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any
warrants in payment of such obligations.
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-three.
Agenda Item No. 14c. Appropriation: Courthouse Maintenance Fund.
Mr. Tucker stated that a request has been made to transfer $17,000 from
the Courthouse Maintenance Fund to the CIP for purchase of replacement phone
equipment at the Courthouse complex. He noted that the reliability of the
current phone system at the Courthouse is very poor, the equipment is old, and
it is impossible to get parts and service for the equipment. He pointed out
that the new phone system will be similar to the telephone equipment in the
County Office Building.
Mr. Perkins offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation (the transfer of $17,000 from the Court-
house Maintenance Fund to the CIP for purchase of replacement phone equipment
for the Courthouse Complex).
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93
NUMBER: 920077
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: IMPROVEMENTS TO COURTHOUSE PHONE SYSTEM
AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND TO CIP
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1900043100800301
1100093010930004
COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT
TRANSFER TO CIP
TOTAL
$17,000.00
17,000.00
$34,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900051000512004 TRANSFER FROM GEN'L FUND
2100051000510105 APPROP FROM RESTRICTED FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$17,000.00
17,000.00
$34,000.00
Agenda Item No. 14d. Appropriation: Virginia Public School Authority
(VPSA) Interest Payment.
Mr. Tucker requested an additional appropriation for interest and
attorney fees related to the 1992 VPSA bonds. He said this additional
appropriation request is basically because of the Broadus Wood Elementary
000'1 .5
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
School improvements. He said this project was moved forward so that the
improvements could be made in one year instead of over a two-year period.
This required that the process begin several months earlier, but it allowed a
better bid climate and bond market, and the economics gained by combining the
two projects encouraged this request. Ne added that by moving this project
forward, it requires an additional appropriation in the amount of $33,914.49.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt
the following resolution of appropriation (an additional amount of $33,914.49
for interest and attorneys fees related to the 1992 VPSA bonds).
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93
NUMBER: 920075
FUND: DEBT SERVICE
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL AMOUNT TO COVER INTEREST
EXPENSE AND ATTORNEY FEES RESULTING
FROM 1992 VPSA BONDS ISSUED
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1100093010930003
1990068000310000
1990068000920032
GENERAL FUND TRANSFER TO DEBT SERV
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
VPSA BOND 1992-B
TOTAL
$33,914.49
5,503.66
28,410.83
$67,828.98
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2990051000512004
2100051000510100
TRANSFER FR~B~'/~UND
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
33,914.49
$67,828.98
Agenda Item No. 14e. Appropriation: Lease Purchase - Computer Upgrade.
Mr. Tucker reminded Board members that a planned upgrade of the County's
computer will require the purchase of $117,525 in equipment in order to
improve system response time for the teller windows in the Finance Department
and other applications, as well as to increase the file storage capacity.
These upgrades were included in prior year's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
planning processes.
Mr. Tucker said a lease/purchase of this equipment over a three-year
period was anticipated in the 1993-94 operating budget with the first annual
payment being in July, 1993. It is currently anticipated that this equipment
will be installed in June, 1993. In order to accomplish this, an appropria-
tion for the full amount of $117,525 is needed. Funding for the purchase will
be provided by a third party leasing company. Currently, the proposed
interest rate on this lease is 6.9 percent with three annual payments of
$41,816. Total interest cost for the three-year period will be $7923. Also,
the Board needs to adopt a resolution authorizing the lease. This approval of
the lease/purchase is now required by all of the leasing companies and the
requirement to show the full appropriation at the time the lease is entered
into is a new audit requirement.
Mr. Perkins asked if the County would not be better off to purchase the
equipment rather than lease it. Mr. Tucker said if the equipment is bought,
the County would have to have the total amount of money available immediately.
He said the appropriation for the total amount of money can be done now, but
the total amount of money does not have to be available this year because it
will not all be spent in this year. Another issue with leasing equipment is
whether or not there will be upgrades of the equipment while it is being
leased. Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Tucker is implying that this is a benefit
of a lease/purchase arrangement. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively° Mr.
Perkins inquired if the funding for this equipment should be in the Capital
Improvements Program budget. Mr. Tucker responded that the amount for one
year was already funded in the prior year's CIP, but because of the leasing
agreement, the total amount has to be appropriated at the beginning of the
lease. He explained that this is a new requirement to which the County has to
adhere in any leasing arrangement.
At this time, Mr. Martin made mo%ion to adopt the following resolution
of appropriation relating to the lease purchase of computer equipment for the
Finance Department. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion.
Mr. Bain asked if this issue had been discussed in detail during the CIP
planning process. Mr. Tucker said he was not sure if the matter was discussed
in detail at that time, however, Mr. Kruger had developed a report~ and the
matter was discussed at that time. He reiterated that he did not think the
funding issue was discussed in detail as to the issue of the lease/purchase
arrangement. Mr. Bowerman said is not as concerned about the interest or the
leasing issue, as to whether or not the County is getting recent equipment,
with all of the technology changes. Mr. Bain agreed.
000'1 !6
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Roll was called on the foregoing motion, which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93
NUMBER: 920076
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR PLANNED UPGRADE OF COMPUTER
SYSTEM BY LEASE/PURCHASE
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100012200800700 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
TOTAL
$117,525.00
$117,525.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100018000185010 LEASE/PURCHASE FUNDING
TOTAL
$117,525~00
$117,525.00
Agenda Item No. 15. Adoption of Resolution authorizing the Execution
and Delivery of Municipal Lease and Option Agreement for the acquisition of
equipment.
Mr. Marshall asked if this agreement is for leasing the equipment
instead of a lease purchase. Mr. Tucker replied that this is a lease/purchase
agreement. Mr. Marshall asked if the agreement is clear that it is a
lease/purchase arrangement. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the option agreement
relates to the option to purchase the equipment. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes,"
to both questions. He said that the County does not have to purchase the
equipment.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman stated that a motion was needed for adoption
of the resolution authorizing the agreement. Mr. Martin made a motion to
adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF
THE ATTACHED MUNICIPAL LEASE
AND OPTION AGREEMENT
RESOLVED, whereas the governing body of the County of
Albemarle has determined that a true and very real need exists for
the acquisition of the Equipment described in the Municipal Lease
and Option Agreement.
WHEREAS, the governing body of the County of Albemarle has
taken the necessary steps, including any legal bidding require-
ments, under applicable law to arrange for the acquisition of such
equipment.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the governing body of the County of
Albemarle that the terms of said Municipal Lease and Option
Agreement are in the best interest of the County of Albemarle for
the acquisition of such equipment, and the governing body of the
County of Albemarle designates and confirms the following persons
to execute and deliver, and to witness, respectively, the Munici-
pal Lease and Option Agreement and any related documents necessary
to the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the
Municipal Lease and Option Agreement.
Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance
Calvin S. Jones, Purchasing Agent
The undersigned further certifies that the above resolution
has not been repealed or amended and remains in full force and
effect.
Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Tucker said if Board members are concerned about continuing these
types of lease purchase arrangements, the staff members need to know this
before they start making plans for such agreements. He knows the School Board
has had long discussions about this same thing. He thinks computer equipment
is the only thing involved in lease/purchase arrangements. He said he is not
asking for an answer from the Board today.
000117
(Page 36)
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Tucker to provide a listing of the pros and cons
of lease/purchase arrangements. Mr. Marshall said he thinks it is a good
business decision to involve the County with lease purchases, because technol-
ogy is changing so rapidly.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that if the County does get the benefit of
changes in technology with a lease/purchase agreement, that would most likely
outweigh the interest costs. She feels the Board needs to know that. Mr.
Perkins felt it would depend on the type of equipment involved and the
interest rate. Mr. Bain and Mr. Martin felt the decision would depend on the
use involved.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments, Discussion of. This item was not
discussed this date.
Agenda Item No. 13a. Work Session: Personnel Policy Revisions.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board members have been furnished a copy of the
revised Personnel policies and Dr. Hastings is present to discuss them. Mr.
Tucker suggested that Dr. Hastings answer questions, to save time, rather than
going through each policy. The Board has other agenda items which need to be
finished at today's meeting.
Mr. Bain said he does not want to rush to approve these policies. Mr.
Tucker said if the Board members plan on spending a lot of time on the
policies, he will ask other staff members to leave since they are present at
this meeting for other items. Mr. Bain said the agenda listed three work
sessions and he doesn't think spending just five minutes on each work session
is sufficient.
Mr. Bowerman suggested the Board conduct the other work sessions after
the joint meeting with the School Board. Mrs. Humphris agreed. She also does
not think the Board can deal with all of the issues that will be involved with
these work sessions today. She expects discussion of the Housing Committee
recommendations to take some time, and she suggested that another work session
be scheduled for that item. Mr. Bowerman said the Board can go through the
work sessions at a pace which is comfortable, and if they don't finish, then
the item will be moved to another meeting.
Dr. Hastings remarked that the Personnel Policies for Albemarle County
General Government, basically went into effect in 1984, with a major revision
being done in 1989. The document before the Board today shows the latest
revisions being recommended, hopefully to go into effect on July 1, 1993.
Dr. Hastings said these changes came about because the School Board
entered into a contract with the Virginia School Boards Association (VSBA) o
Mr. Bain interrupted Dr. Hastings to ask the reason that the School Board
entered into such a contract. He also wondered if bids were taken. Dr.
Hastings said the VSBA has a policy service which it sells to school divisions
to keep them updated on policies. The personnel section is the only section
which has had a lot of work done on it and which has continued to be updated
over the last several years. Most of the School Board's other policies dated
from 1974 and had not been changed at all during that time. The personnel
policies have been handled by a staff committee. Rather than having all of
those staff committees do all of the different sections, such as instruction,
community relations, etc., the School Board chose to take advantage of the
VSBA service. She said the recommendations of the VSBA were then reviewed
with the staff committees.
Mr. Bain asked if this service is offered by any other organization.
Dr. Hastings answered that she is not sure. She stated that she is only
dealing with the personnel section of the policy manual. Mr. Martin recalled
that when he was a member of the School Board, cost estimates were received
from several different organizations for this service. Mr. Bain said he is
biased against the VSBA, and he has a lot of reasons for his feelings. He is
looking for some history on this Association's involvement with Albemarle
County.
Dr. Hastings commented that the Joint Personnel Policy Committee has
been successful with its recommended personnel policies since 1984. The VSBA
took the County's current personnel policies and put them into the appropriate
sections, but staff committees still examined the policies just to make sure
that revisions were not needed to keep them current. She noted that she has
provided the Board members with a summary of the major changes being recom-
mended. These changes have been reviewed by School Division staff, and the
School Board has had a first reading of them. The Joint Personnel Policy
Committee made revisions after that occurred, and those revisions are before
this Board today. After the Board of Supervisors makes its decision on these
policies, she will take any further revisions back to the School Board. She
suggested going over the summary which was provided to this Board, and then
Board members can discuss specific policies. She also mentioned that Deputy
County Attorney, Jim Bowling, has reviewed the entire document.
Mr. Bain asked if P-12, Fitness for Duty, is a new policy. Dr. Hastings
said "yes". Mr. Bain asked if a Procedure for Compliance accompanies the
0001 .$
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Fitness for Duty policy. Dr. Hastings answered that new policies are accompa-
nied by procedures as to how to put them in place.
Mr. Bain called attention to P-09, Third Party Complaints Against
Employees, and asked why this policy is needed. Dr. Hastings replied that
this recommendation came from the VSBA. It is to establish a means for
parents to be able to file a complaint against a teacher or other employee of
the School Division. Such a procedure was not already in place. She is going
to look at the issue from both sides to see if this type of policy could be
used for local government also. The Joint Personnel Policy Committee felt
that it would be good to have a procedure of this nature so there would be a
process established for such complaints.
Mr. Bain asked if other jurisdictions were contacted to see if they had
a similar procedure, and whether or not there is a need for it. Dr. Hastings
said she did not contact any other localities because it was the VSBA's recom-
mendation that such a policy was necessary. Mr. Bain said he is not only
interested in finding out if other school systems have this policy, but if
other local governments have a similar procedure. Dr. Hastings said she
doubts that other governments have this type of procedure. She reiterated
that the Personnel Policy Committee felt there should be a procedure in place.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the County would just be asking for complaints with
this type of policy. He would like to hear from the Personnel Policy Commit-
tee, and he asked who represents the Board of Supervisors on this Committee.
Dr. Hastings said no Board member serves on this committee. Mr. Bain said he
has not had time to go through the entire personnel policy revision package,
but this is one of his basic concerns.
Mr. Bain asked what purpose the policy entitled "Third Party Complaints
Against Employees" served. He noted that people already have the ability to
do something if they have problems with County employees. The public can file
warrants. Dr. Hastings explained that sometimes there are complaints against
employees, and now they are handled in a variety of different ways by differ-
ent school principals and department heads. There is not a uniform process
for handling the complaints. That is why the VSBA made the recommendation.
She said the Personnel Policy Committee is simply bringing this recommendation
forward with its own contingencies. Mr. Marshall said he gets complaints
about County employees. He thinks it would be nice to have a referral point.
Mr. St. John informed the Board that Mr. Bowling of his staff reviewed
this document while it was being developed, and Mr. Bowling is the real
expert. Mr. St. John said the third party complaint procedure apparently sets
forth the individual to whom the complaint should be made or who may be
specifically designated to handle complaints. This person will hold a
conference, etc., and then tell the complainant what action has been taken.
He asked if Dr. Hastings envisions the establishment of an ombudsman to handle
these complaints. Dr. Hastings replied, "no." Either the school principal or
the department head would handle such complaints. Mr. St. John said it should
be clear that this will take place within the established chain of command.
Mr. Tucker said this policy just standardizes something that is now done
differently by different people. Mr. St. John said in that sense, he, the
staff and the Personnel Policy Committee agree that this is a good and proper
policy. Mr. Bain said he will not vote for this policy.
Next, Mrs. Humphris called attention to the Board Staff Communications
Policy, P-11. She read the last paragraph of this policy which states that
the County Executive is to develop regulations for establishing a system of
two-way communications between employees, the Board of Supervisors and its
administrative staff. She asked if this is a new policy. Mr. Tucker replied
that this policy relates to the commonality issue in the School Board Policy
Manual. It allows teachers and administrators to bring forward items to the
School Board. Dr. Hastings stated that the VSBA made a recommendation to
adopt this policy. School Board policies already in existence were put in
different sections of the manual, but some of them fell within the personnel
section. Because of the commonality between the two divisions, this School
Board policy was examined to see if it was applicable to local government.
The Joint Personnel Policy Committee felt it could be applicable to local
government.
Mrs. Humphris indicated that she is aware that there have been different
problems in the past with this policy as it relates to the School Board. She
personally would hate to think any employee of the County would feel he or she
is restricted in any way from contacting her at anytime. She has never
thought there was a problem with this in General government. She has always
felt the Board handled such things with great sensitivity, referring the
employee to the County Executive or the proper person whenever necessary. She
is not at all sure such a regulation is needed. Mr. Tucker said he is unaware
of any problems Local Government has had with this matter. This policy simply
relates to the commonality issue. Dr. Hastings said if the Board members have
concerns about certain policies and do not want to adopt them, then the School
Board will be given a recommendation that these policies be deleted from the
School Board section in order to maintain commonality. Mrs. Humphris empha-
sized that she objects to P-11, the policy on Board/Staff Communications.
Mrs. Humphris then called attention to P-12, Fitness for Duty. She has
a question which is not addressed in this document, and it relates to ADA
regulations. She asked what would happen if an employee were unable to
fulfill the requirements of a job because of a new physical disability, and
ooo 9
(Page 38)
there is no other job to which he or she can be transferred. Dr. Hastings
replied that this policy is not reflective of ADA because there is a whole,
separate ADA plan. Usually, in the type of situation to which Mrs. Humphris
referred, if there is a vacancy and the employee has the necessary skills to
do the job, that person would be put into the vacant position. If there is no
vacancy for which the employee qualifies, then that person's employment is
terminated.
Mr. Bain referred to P-08, Commonality in Personnel Practices. He asked
who recommended this policy. Dr. Hastings replied that P-08 is not a VSBA
recommendation. She wrote a draft of this policy to try to capture a common
ground between the school system and local government. She said she has been
trying to deal with the commonality issue for ten years.
Mr. Bain said this document formalizes a lot of detail, and he would
like to hear further comments about the issue. Mr. Bowerman remarked that the
document is only formalizing policies the County already has in place. Mr.
Bain said he thinks the document could be doing more than that. Mr. Tucker
said it has been the general consensus to try and provide commonality between
the school system and local government employees, but it has never been set
down as a written policy. He thinks this document will do that.
Dr. Hastings said there is always confusion as to what commonality
means, and there are hard feelings when one division does something that the
other one doesn't do. People then ask about commonality. This is an attempt
to put something in writing.
Mr. Bowerman said this issue came up previously when this Board recom-
mended that the School Board drop from 1.3 to one percent for across-the-board
increases. The comment which came back to him was that the School Board might
not want to do that. He said commonality indicated that what was done in the
General Government budget also be done by the School Board, otherwise employ-
ees are treated differently. He said there is nothing requiring the School
Board to make such a change. Dr. Hastings reminded Mr. Bowerman that a
resolution was adopted by both boards in 1984 which indicated that the two
systems would not do different things in regard to salaries, benefits and
personnel policies. Although there has never been an actual policy, commonal-
ity has been considered during the budget processes.
Mr. Marshall stated that he would personally like to see the commonality
policy get adopted. Mr. St. John informed the Board members that it is a
good thing to have the personnel policies in writing because if an action is
challenged on the grounds that employees were not informed as to what was
expected of them or they were not informed about the procedures, decisions can
be overturned in court. He went on to say that if employees know the rules in
the beginning, County administration is in a much better position.
Mr. Bain remarked that he does not disagree with Mr. St. John's opinion.
He said it is possible to overdo personnel policies. Sometimes such documents
can contain irrelevant information.
Mr. Marshall said he thinks the recommended document is broad. Dr.
Hastings stated that the Personnel Policy Committee was trying to replicate
the County's practices which are already taking place. Mr. Bowerman asked if
Dr. Hastings would be available to discuss this issue after the afternoon
School Board meeting. Dr. Hastings informed Mr. Bowerman that she will be
unable to do this because the School Board is going to continue to meet
relative to the high school feasibility study after the joint meeting this
afternoon.
Mr. Tucker said another meeting will need to be scheduled for this month
because he is hoping to have these personnel policies in effect by July 1,
1993. Mr. Marshall remarked that he likes the revisions to the County
personnel policies. He added that he has known Dr. Hastings for a long time,
and he trusts her judgment. He said he does not think another meeting is
necessary.
Mr. Bowerman suggested the work session on personnel policies continue
at 3:00 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
Mr. Bowerman asked for a motion for the Board to go into executive
session. Mr. Tucker said that Mr. St. John would need to outline all of the
topics to be discussed during the executive session.
Mr. St. John explained that the Board will need to discuss all of the
cases involving pending litigation, and he named each one as follows: Knight
vs. Albemarle County; Graham vs. Albemarle County; Claytor and other police
officers vs. Albemarle County; Payne vs. certain Albemarle County police
officers and others; Robinson vs. the Chief of the Police Department and
others; and Sylvia Hammill vs. Albemarle County. He said that the purpose of
the executive session is to update the Board members on the status of each
case.
At 12:10 p.m., Mr. Bain made motion for the Board to go into executive
session to discuss legal matters involving all of the cases mentioned by Mr.
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
000 0
St. John and for personnel matters relating to appointments and interviews, as
well as the County Attorney update and the County Executive's update and
evaluation. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. 18. 1:30 P.M. - Reconvene in Meeting Room 5/6. At 1:36
p.m., the Board reconvened into open session.
Agenda Item No. 19. Certify Executive Session.
Mr. Bain made a motion to adopt the following certification of executive
session. Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma-
tive recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The
Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that
such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia
law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each
member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were
discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification
resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as
were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were
heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr.
Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
ABSTAIN DURING VOTE: None.
'Agenda Item No. 20. Commission for Population and Growth - Kat Imhoff.
Ms. Kat Imhoff thanked the Board members for allowing her to speak about
what the Commission for Population and Growth has been doing. She said the
Board has been given a packet of material which includes articles that were
also sent to the Commission members. She called attention to House Document
72, which was the Commission's annual report to the General Assembly, plus a
three-page summary of the legislation. She has tried to spread the word about
the work of the Commission, because she is hopeful that local governments will
take a chance to comment on the draft legislation. The Commission will be
meeting again in August, so Commission members are trying to get as many
comments as possible before that time.
Ms. Imhoff said the Commission is a legislative study commission. She
was new to State government with this job, and did not realize how things were
done at the State level. If there is a complicated problem at the state
level, a study commission is assigned, and then a recommendation (or solution)
is made. In 1989, Virginia established the Commission on Population Growth
and Development, and it had 19 members. The Commission was increased to 33
members in 1990 so as to include more citizen members. The Commission now has
23 citizen members representing a wide range of interests, such as local
government, realtors, farmers and businessmen, plus ten legislative members.
She noted that the Chairman is Delegate Tayloe Murphy, and the Vice Chairman
is Senator Joe Gartland. She emphasized that it has been, to a large degree,
a citizen volunteer effort, and, in a lot of ways, the Commission has func-
tioned as a State Planning Commission.
Ms. Imhoff said the Growth Commission was given six legislative charges,
but their main duty was to look at the State planning process. When the
Commission started in 1989, Virginia was just finishing a strong growth
period. From 1980 to 1990, Virginia was the fifth fastest growing State in
the U.S. She said the average rate was 16 percent state-wide. Growth was
uneven because there were some parts of the State, such as the Town of
Manassas, with a 70 percent growth rate. There were other areas which
actually lost growth and were stagnating. The Commission was faced with the
challenge that it was not just looking at high growth rate areas, but there
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
also had to be a strategy that would address low and slow growth areas. She
said the Commission has its roots, to some extent, in the Chesapeake Bay Act.
When Virginia representatives signed the Bay Act with Pennsylvania, Washing-
ton, D.C. and Maryland officials, one of the things to which they all agreed
was that all three states, because of the population growth rate and the
development patterns, would begin a state planning process. She noted that
Maryland has now passed some strategic planning legislation, Virginia is in
the process, and Pennsylvania is approximately a year behind Virginia. She
honestly thinks Virginia would be having this discussion whether or not there
had been a Chesapeake Bay Act, partly because of the rapid growth rate during
that ten-year period, and also because historically there have been other
groups having this discussion.
Ms. Imhoff said three or four things have driven the Commission more
strongly than others. The beginning of House Document 72 goes through a lot
of facts, but there are some which the Commission seems to come back to time
and time again. For example, while the State's growth rate was 16 percent,
the miles traveled around the State increased 50 percent. There has been an
enormous increase in the use of some of the State's infrastructure, water,
sewer and roads. Some areas lost population. Particularly notable is what
has happened in some of the central cities such as Richmond. Richmond has not
only had a population increase, but it has three times the poverty rate of the
surrounding suburbs. Norfolk has similar numbers. She indicated the Commis-
sion has been very aware of fiscal concerns, and while it has talked a lot
about the environment, initially it talked more about fiscal problems. She
said the important thing about these fiscal issues is that there is not much
control over a lot of them, since many expenditures are set by federal
mandates, such as Medicaid. She added that the Commission cannot just
consider the environment, economic development, transportation or public
health and safety. There has to be a process which integrates all of the
different governmental activities because the State has seen such a dramatic
increase in some of these areas.
Ms. Imhoff then asked if there were questions about the background of
the Growth Commission and no one responded. She went on to say that the
Commission is not a permanent group, and the members would like very much to
be finished with their job by 1994. She said that the Commission's statutory
life will last until 1995, but the plan is to push forward and draft legisla-
tion in the 1994 session. At that point, she feels the Commission may decide
to retire a year early or stay together on a temporary basis. She noted that
citizen advisors develop the legislative program, and the legislation sets
forth a legislative intent which is different from what has been the practice
in recent years. It has been important to the Commission that this strategic
planning process be about economic development, resource protection, orderly
development and efficient expenditure of public funds. The legislation goes
on to say that 16 State general planning goals should drive this process, as
well as planning coordination, affordable housing and a variety of other
things. She noted that the 16 planning goals depict rules and regulations and
a vision for the Commonwealth. They are similar to the general goals that
Albemarle County has in its Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Imhoff said that up to this point she has talked about the State
planning process, but the legislation clearly has three parts, and the role of
the regions, planning district commissions and local governments is also
included. She said this is the document which will help achieve the goals and
promote planning between the different levels of government. It will also
provide guidance to citizens and check the State's progress as far as what is
being achieved. There is nothing at this time in Virginia State government,
other than the budget, which has any way to measure the progress of the State°
Certain agencies have plans, such as VDOT's 20-year plan, or an agricultural
plan in the State Agriculture Department, but there is little coordination at
the State level.
Ms. Imhoff further described the legislation and how it will affect
local governments. She noted that one of the questions is posed to the
Commission is who is going to help do some of this work at the State level.
It is obviously going to require additional staffing. The Commission is very
sensitive to the fact that it does not want to create a huge State bureaucra-
cy, and that is not the point behind this. Commission members want to build
on the existing State Department of Planning budget. The Commission also
hopes to develop a comprehensive network on which data can be built. She
urged the Board members to look at the back of House Document 72 where there
are four tax proposals listed. She noted that these proposals have not been
endorsed by the Commission, but they are shown because the Commission wants
people to start talking about what the proposals would cost. The Commission
wants people to be interested enough to make sure there is enough money to let
these proposals happen.
Ms. Imhoff said she would be glad to answer questions, or come back to
speak to this Board at another time. She encouraged the Board to submit
written comments by mid-July so the Commission will have these comments when
it meets on August 5 and 6.
Mr. Bowerman thanked Ms. Imhoff for her presentation, and said it was an
excellent introduction to the Commission for Population and Growth. He asked
if he was correct in thinking that the Board has until mid-July to get a
response to the Commission, if they choose to do so. Ms. Imhoff answered
affirmatively. She went on to say that the Commission members would welcome
O00 .: Z
Meeting)
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day "
(Page 41)
comments at any time, but if the comments could be sent to them by mid-July,
they can be shared with the Commission members when they meet as a body on
August 5 and 6. She reminded Board members that in 1991, the Growth Commis-
sion held a series of public meetings called, "Virginians Respond," and there
was a wonderful quote by Ed Bain about Albemarle County whiCh came out of one
of these meetings.
Agenda Item No. 21. General discussion with Congressmen L. F. Payne and
Thomas Bliley.
Mr. Bowerman introduced himself to the Congressmen, and then asked the
Clerk, County Executive and other B~ard members to introduce themselves. Mr.
Bowerman noted that recently he, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Bain met with Mr. Payne
and discussed some possible revenue sources for the Meadow Creek Parkway. He
is not sure they arrived at any specific ideas, but it was brought out the
fact that Congressman Bliley needed to be included in the discussion. Mr.
Bowerman asked Mr. Bain if he had any comments. Mr. Bain responded that he
thinks Mr. Bowerman has covered the situation. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Payne was
to see if Secretary of Transportation Milliken had any information regarding
the use of ISTEA funds for the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Payne thanked the Board for inviting him and Mr. Bliley to this
meeting. Both are pleased to represent Albemarle County and they look forward
to working together in matters of importance to the County. He noted that the
question asked of him at the previous meeting had to do with the whole issue
of what funding might be available for projects such as the Route 29 corridor,
and specifically, the Meadow Creek Parkway which is basically the road that
leaves Route 29 North in Albemarle County before entering the City of Char-
lottesville, and goes to the east of Route 29 and ends up at the Route 250
Bypass near McIntire Park. He said part of that road's funding has been
determined, and the remaining part of the road, from Rio Road to Route 29, is
the part in question. He noted that funding of roads is generally something
which happens at the State level, but the ISTEA legislation does permit funds
to be passed along to the State, and the State has some latitude as to how it
chooses to utilize those funds.
Mr. Payne said he spoke to Secretary Milliken this week about that
project specifically, and reiterated that if it should become a primary road,
then the State does have the ability, should it be deemed to be a competitive
project, to provide funding. He pointed out that some of that funding would
have to come through the Federal government to the State. Mr. Payne said
Secretary Milliken reiterated that there is an existing agreement between this
Board, Charlottesville City Council, the University of Virginia and the
Commonwealth, and if there are any reasons that it should be changed, it would
involve all of the parties getting together to discuss the change.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Secretary Milliken was referring to a change of
deSignation for the Meadow Creek Parkway from a secondary road to a primary
road. He also wondered what Secretary Milliken meant in terms of changing the
agreement. Mr. Payne answered that he is not familiar with the agreement, but
he assumes the agreement sets forth in some detail how the Route 29 corridor
is to be phased, and who is responsible for certain portions of it. He added
that, based on a short telephone conversation, Secretary Milliken had indicat-
ed that the State would entertain any suggestion all of the parties to the
agreement might feel appropriate. Mr. Payne noted that this is not an issue
in which he or Mr. Bliley have any involvement in terms of the Federal
government's responsibility.
Mr. Payne said he indicated in the previous meeting with Mr. Bowerman
that he was on the Public Works Committee last year, and had an opportunity to
work with Secretary Milliken. He also mentioned that because of the ISTEA
legislation, issues such as this were given some attention, and that he would
follow up with Secretary Milliken about where Albemarle County stands relative
to the bill that Congress passed last year. He said the main question he
asked and which Secretary Milliken answered is that it is possible to get
funding through the ISTEA bill for this purpose, if the road were to be
designated a primary road. This would involve looking at the total agreement.
Mr. Bliley asked if Secretary Milliken had indicated he was willing to
recommend to the Federal government that the Meadow Creek Parkway be upgraded
to a primary road. Mr. Payne answered that Secretary Milliken did not
indicate that, but Mr. Payne said he said did not have the specifics so could
not talk about this particular road.
Mr. Bliley said he thinks what Secretary Milliken told Mr. Payne is
important. He added that if this Board wants to be successful in doing
something about Route 29 North, he thinks the City, County, and University
are going to have to work together. There are a lot of other places in the
State which would like to get money, and if these places can get their plans
together, and this area doesn't, the money will go to them. He commented that
he and Mr. Payne can help, as legislators, in the endeavor to get the Meadow
Creek Parkway upgraded if it is what the parties to the original agreement
want. He said he and Mr. Payne can sign letters, as well as Peter Way and
other delegates to the General Assembly, and if everybody works together,
there is a chance that the upgrading of this road can happen.
(Page 42 )
000'123
Mr. Bowerman concurred that this needs to be discussed with the City and
the University. He does not know how City officials view this issue in terms
of a primary highway which would terminate, basically, at the City limits. If
the City and the County have mutual discussions about this issue, then maybe
there is something which can be done. He said Secretary Milliken is right in
that if this Board is going to do anything it needs to consult with the other
partners in the agreement.
Mr. Bliley said he and Mr. Payne will help the Board in any way that
they can. He then pointed out Ms. Liza Beck who helps him with transportation
issues. Mr. Payne mentioned that Mr. Greg Kelly was at the meeting last week,
and he is available to work on this matter or any others.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Payne if he would talk to the Board about the
concept of ISTEA funds. She said a problem developed and the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) voted to exclude the proposed Alternative 10
bypass from the National Highway System (NHS) based on unanswered questions
about timing and design. She said this Board decided that unless they knew
more about who was going to control the timing and design, they would prefer
to have the road excluded. She said that VDOT administrative officials,
without going to the Commonwealth Transportation Board, approved the bypass.
She said it was the Board's understanding from reading the legislation that a
decision such as that is supposed to be made after consultation and after a
consensus is reached between the MPO and VDOT. Now that the decision has been
made by VDOT officials, this Board has not even been able to get an answer as
to how this decision was made. She said Mr. Tucker wrote a letter, but no
answer has been received.
Mr. Payne replied that, ultimately, Congress will make a determination
about the National Highway System, and what roads will actually be a part of
the NHS. He does not remember the date when such a determination will be
made, but he thinks it will be sometime next year. In the meantime, because
funding is coming to the states, the states can, in conjunction with their
MPOs and the legislative body, engage in whatever process should be used. He
noted that the states have been given broad authority with the ISTEA legisla-
tion, except where several regions have to work together to determine what
should be done. He is not sure exactly where that line is drawn between the
state's authority and the MPO's authority.
Mr. Marshall mentioned the proposed interchange at Avon Street Extended
and Interstate 64. He said he has approached the State on this matter several
times, and has gotten no where. He said a decision has to come from the
Federal level to help Albemarle County with this interchange if it is ever to
get built. He said he would appreciate any help that could be given to have
this interchange constructed. Mr. Payne responded that he is not familiar
with the proposed interchange issue, and he asked Mr. Marshall to let him know
more about it. Mr. Perkins commented that it is the Board's understanding
that because an interstate highway is involved, the decision has to come from
the Federal Highway Administration. Instead of the process working its way to
the federal level, he thinks the process has to start there and come down. He
said this issue has been discussed for at least five and one-half years, with
no help from VDOT. He called attention to the fact that the County has
proposed a connector road be built between Avon Street and Route 20 that would
cost millions of dollars. There is also a plan for a connector road from
Route 20 to Fifth Street.
Mr. Perkins said if the interchange were built, there would be no need
for the connector roads and the taxpayers would be saved a lot of money. Mr.
Bain noted that VDOT officials have indicated that one of the reasons they
have not tried to help is because this community already has four connectors
to the interstate, and they don't think this community needs any more.
Mr. Payne said he and Mr. Bliley will get information about this issue.
He mentioned that he and Mr. Bliley have both worked on the radar project for
the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport. It is his understanding that the
schedule has been fixed, and the radar will actually be in place in September,
1993, and will be commissioned in October of next year. This is something
which he thinks will help the safety and operation of the Airport consider-
ably. He said he will keep County officials apprised of the schedule. Mr.
Bowerman asked if this will allow local control of traffic coming into the
Airport, versus control out of Richmond and Washington, D.C. Mr. Payne
answered affirmatively.
Mr. Bliley thanked the Board members for the opportunity to attend this
meeting, and said he looks forward to working with them. He is not an expert
on the ISTEA legislation, but he will have something equally contentious to
consider, and that is health care reform. The health care reform bill will be
in his committee for policy, and it will go to Mr. Payne's committee for
funding. The health care reform issue is going to be time-consuming, but once
his committee gets the President's recommendations, he will look forward to
hearing the Board's comments.
Mr. Marshall said that he was going to give Mr. Bliley some comments
about health care reform, because he would like to be in business a year from
now, and he is not so sure, at this point, that he will still be in business.
Mr. Bliley asked the nature of Mr. Marshall's business. Mr. Marshall replied
that he is a pharmacist and he has two drug stores in Charlottesville. Mr.
June 2, 1993 (Regular DaY Meeting)
(Page 43)
000 24
Marshall recalled that Mr. Payne spoke to the Board last week about the tax
bill. That is not going to help his business either.
Mr. Bliley said he looks forward to working with Mr. Marshall. He said
the Chairman of his subcommittee and the Chairman of his full committee have
indicated that this is going to be a deliberative process, and that it will
not move fast. He said if things go as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Ways and Means, as well as the Chairman of the Health Subcommittee and the
Chairman of the full committee have all indicated, Mr. Marshall might well be
without a business, because they all favor a single payer, which would be
socialized medicine. He said he asked them if they thought they could run
this program with any more efficiency than the post office or any more compas-
sion than the IRS.
Mr. Marshall said he would appreciate the opportunity to show Mr. Bliley
some of the problems he has. Mr. Bliley stated that the name of his health
care representative is Mr. Brent Del Monte. Mr. Bowerman thanked the COn-
gressmen for attending this meeting.
Agenda Item No. 22. Joint Meeting with School Board.
Present at this time were School Board members: Messrs. William W.
Finley, Clifford W, Haury, George L. Landrith, III, Michael J. Marshall, Mrs.
Patricia L. Moore and Mrs. Karen L. Powell.
Absent: Mrs. Sharon Wood.
Also present were Dr. Robert Paskel, Superintendent, and Assistant
Superintendent, Dr. Carole Hastings.
Mrs. Patricia Moore, Chair, called the School Board meeting to order.
Item 22a. Discussion: High School Feasibility Study°
Dr. Hastings introduced Mr. Jim Copeland and Mr. Jim McCallum, who are
the architects responsible for the Western Albemarle High School (WAHS) Feasi-
bility Study. She said they represent the Moseley-McClintock group which is
responsible for the renovation at Albemarle High School.
Mr. Copeland said two questions were considered in the study. One
relates to whether or not it is feasible to put an addition onto WAHS in order
to increase its capacity to 1500 students. If the answer to that question is
yes, then the next question relates to the cost. The answer to the first
question is that it is feasible, but it is not practical. The high school has
departmental areas, and the departments would have to be increased if the
number of students increased. The only way to do that would be to shuffle
people internally to keep the departmental lay-out. This would be difficult
to do because when an addition is divided into different locations, it becomes
an expensive proposition. He mentioned that the site at WAHS also has a lot
of steep terrain, and this influences the cost of making improvements. WAHS
has a successful after-school athletic program, and there is a high demand for
use of that facility. He noted that there are a number of students who cross
the road from Henley Middle School to utilize the playing fields. These are
the things that caused the realization that any addition to WAHS would be
complicated and costly.
Mr. Copeland said projections show that in 1997, 100 more high school
students are expected in the school system than Albemarle High School (AHS)
and WAHS, even with additions, can handle. He said it was decided that it
would be best to utilize money to build another high school. There is a
unanimous desire among the students, teachers and parents to maintain the
current teacher/pupil ratio, and no one was in favor of making the school
larger. The study group talked to the principal, assistant principal and all
of the department heads, the parent-teacher organization, and the executive
council of the SCA, so there were a lot of people involved in formulating this
position.
Mr. Copeland said there were three options studies, and Option Three is
being recommended. This option calls for minimal improvements at WAHS at an
approximate cost of $2.383 million.
Mr. Copeland said now that that decision has been reached, planning for
an additional high school in the County can begin. He described the choices
involved with building a new high school and the costs involved. Mr. Bain
referred to the core areas for 1000 students versus 1500 students, and asked
how this relates to future expansion and State requirements. Mr. Copeland
replied that State requirements are now minimal, and all of the core areas
have more space than necessary to accommodate 1500 students°
Mrs. Moore stated that when WAHS was built, 16 credits were required for
graduation, but now 23 credits are required. That makes a tremendous change
in the need for instructional areas within that school. Mr. Bowerman said
since there are inefficiencies in adding the space for core areas at WAHS,
will the design of the new high school be such that if 400 or 500 children
have to be added at a later date, it would still be efficient. Mr. Copeland
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
000:[25
answered that the new high school will be sized to accommodate 1500 students.
Mr. Bowerman asked if all that would have to be added would be interior
space. Mr. Perkins said only classrooms would have to be added because the
gym and cafeteria could handle the increase in students. Mr. Bowerman asked
if the shell would be in place for the extra 500 students. Several people
answered that only the classrooms would have to be added. Mr. Bowerman next
inquired if extra classrooms could be added efficiently and if the design of
the school would be different from WAHS from the beginning. Mr. Copeland
replied, "yes."
Mr. Forrest Marshall stated that he is disappointed in the study. He
said the recommendation reduces enrollment at WAHS by only 178 students and
costs Albemarle County $2.883 million. That sounds ridiculous. Mr. Haury
remarked that the Oversight Committee for the Long Range Plan received this
study in April and it was reviewed with the architects. He then called
attention to his memo dated June 2, 1993, addressed to the Supervisors and the
School Board. The third line of the memo indicates that the Oversight Commit-
tee could not support the expenditure of funds to downsize WAHS in combination
with the construction of a new high school. He said this Committee has been
working since 1988, and the problem has been that there are too many children
everywhere. Although there is concern that the academic program fit the
building, he thinks there are a couple of good reasons that downsizing should
not be considered, not the least of which is the expenditure of taxpayers'
money.
Mr. Haury said the Oversight Committee members agreed that they find
Option Three less desirable. There is a second side to this issue. He stated
that if a high school is downsized, it restricts high school attendance zones,
and children would have to be redistricted out of zones at a time when it is
hard to keep seats vacant in Albemarle High School. To downsize the school
would be ridiculous considering the fact that if nothing is done, redistrict-
ing will have to be considered to get students from AHS to WAHS. He empha-
sized that downsizing would hurt the County, unless there is a high school
already being designed, and planning money is available. The Oversight
Committee members talked about this issue, but they have not considered this
as a viable option in terms of the use of money to fit children. The Over-
sight Committee members have looked at building seats to fit children and not
redesigning to exclude people from a district.
Mr. Forrest Marshall asked Mr. Haury for his Committee's recommendation.
Mr. Haury stated that the Supervisors have been given a list of items from the
Committee, because a lot of things have been discussed, and part of the plan
involves a discussion with the School Board and the Supervisors on the most
feasible way to proceed. A new high school costs a lot of money, and addi-
tions at WAHS are also going to cost a lot of money. The Committee felt that
in the time allotted and with the feasibility study in hand, there was time to
thoroughly consider the options. Some of the ideas involve land and space
that is not the County's.
Mr. Bowerman asked total high school enrollment the first year a new
high school is built. Mr. Haury replied that he is using percentages from two
years ago, but it appears that each high school could have approximately 1200
students. The high school which would be used for students on the southern
and eastern side of the County would probably have closer to 1000 students.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Haury is indicating that the proposed new school
will have a 1000 student capacity or a 1500 student capacity. Mr. Haury
answered that the Committee did not look at that as part of the issue. He
said that if the County is divided into elementary feeder zones, the section
of the County which starts with Stony Point and goes to Red Hill and Yancey
has approximately 30 percent of that enrollment. Based on that figure, Mr.
Haury said that 30 percent of the current attendance would go to that high
school. He said that is the easy job, but the big job is to figure out what
to do and how to get the needed funds to build a new high school.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he has been wondering about the efficiency
of adding a new high school in terms of constructing a 1000 student capacity
school and taking students out of the other two schools so the student enroll-
ment would be lowered in the other two schools such that those schools would
become inefficient. He wondered how this plan will work for additional
students coming into the system in the future, and he asked the result five or
six years later for all three high schools.
Mr. Haury replied that the majority of students in the district now go
to AHS, so the reduction in enrollment at AHS would be greater than the reduc-
tion in enrollment at WAHS. He said that Cale Elementary School is currently
the only elementary school zone in the southeastern part of the County where
the children will go to WAHS. The ratio will be approximately three children
out of Albemarle for every one child out of Western Albemarle. This is why
the distribution would be close to one-third for all three schools. The
figures will have to be redone based on elementary projections, but they won't
be very far from the one-third figure. There will be enough seats for 1000
students at the new school, so it will have to be decided if Option Five is
the most feasible option. If two high schools have 1250 students each, and
one high school has 1000 students, it will cover the number of students
projected for 1998.
June 2, 1993 (Regular
(Page 45)
000 .26
Mr. Forrest Marshall said it seems to him that a new high school is
going to have to be built in either the southern or eastern part of the
County. He asked if the County owns enough land at Walton Middle School so
that the new high school could be built there. He believes this would reduce
the $18.0 million figure shown in the report for a new high school. Mr. Haury
responded that building a new high school at Walton Middle School has been
considered, but he does not remember if the acreage is adequate. He said when
sites are examined, access in terms of transportation has to be considered.
He said that construction somewhere near the 1-64, either at Route 20 or Avon
Street was discussed, because it would be too costly to transport Students
from the northern portion of the County (Stony Point), to the Walton site. He
said sites are considered in terms of economy, so it is desirable to have a
high school at the center of the transportation hub. He feels a mistake was
made with the placement of one high school in the County. He said there were
also discussions about converting Walton Middle School to a high school, but
some children would have to travel quite a distance to get there.
Mrs. Moore said she thinks it would be helpful for the Supervisors to
have the list of items the Oversight Committee spent hours, weeks and months
developing. At some point, the two Boards can give some direction to the
Committee.
Mr. Bain asked if the School Board has discussed any of the options.
Mrs. Moore replied that the School Board has given a commitment to Murray High
School, so consideration was given to possibly incorporating Murray High
School into one of the wings of a new high school. She said the CATEC
property is also a possibility and there were discussions about the amount of
land there, and possibly enlarging CATEC and making it a comprehensive high
school. She mentioned that the Piedmont Virginia Community College situation
is self-explanatory. The School Board knows that at some point Murray High
School has to have renovations.
Mr. Haury stated that the School Board members have not had a full
discussion of these options because the high school feasibility study was just
recently finished. He noted that the School Board discussed keeping schools
open all year, and that was the only option taken off of the list.
Mr. Martin said that even if all four of the other options were done,
the County would still have to build a new high school. He said it makes
sense to him to go with Option Five and look at Murray High School as becoming
part of that option. He also said ~hat the ideas relating to the PVCC proper-
ty are worth pursuing.
Mr. Bain said he does not see enrollment numbers increasing very much
from 1998 to 2002. Mr. Bowerman concurred. He suggested that something could
be done to CATEC to absorb the students. He then asked about the projections
for Charlottesville High School during those years.
Mr. Bain said that this Board was told a year and a half ago that there
is no growth projected at Charlottesville High School during the years to
which he had just referred. Mrs. Moore noted that during February of 1991,
Dr. McGeheen wrote the Oversight Committee that there was space for approxi-
mately 400 students at Charlottesville High School at the time. Mr. Bain said
at that time the school systems would not do anything without the governing
bodies talking about the situation.
Mr. Haury said before Dr. McGeheen wrote the letter, he had stated that
this matter would have to be considered by City Council and the Board of
Supervisors. He mentioned that Dr. McGeehen had also said the two School
Boards would have to discuss this idea, as well as the school staff. Mr.
Haury mentioned that it is a question of sizing for Charlottesville High
School in the Virginia High School League which would mean traveling to far
places and increased money needed for athletics, etc. At that time, Mr. Haury
said McGeheen was told that the County was only interested in the seats. He
said this is an attendant concern if those seats are used for County students
because this would upsize Charlottesville High School to the next division.
Mr. Bain said that he likes Murray School, but until it is decided what
will be done with Murray School, he has a difficult time spending $25.0
million for a new 1500 student high school. He said local dollars will have
to be used to pay for the school, which probably means a bond issue.
Mr. Forrest Marshall noted that Option Five has been recommended at
$18.0 million for a new high school for 1000 students, with core areas
designed for 1500 students. Mr. Bain said if five years later, classrooms for
500 more students have to be added, he thinks it might as well be done at one
time. That is why he used the $25.0 million figure. Even the $18.0 million
figure is more than double what is being paid for one middle school at the
present time. He said he realizes that his suggestion is not a permanent
solution, but it will take the County to the year 2002 and maybe beyond
without any significant difficulty.
Mrs. Moore said the School Board has not discussed this idea, and she is
not on the Oversight Committee, but students do not go into neat little
packages as far as making sure that a permanent site is provided for Murray
High School. She said there is no way of knowing how many students will be at
Murray based on the application process which is in effect now. The same
thing is true for CATEC because students have not taken advantage of the
0001. 7
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) ·
(Page 46)
programs offered there. Ail of these issues need to be considered. She asked
how the County students would get to Charlottesville High School and which 400
students would go there. Would it require a redistricting?
Mr. Bain said that at least that many students go by Charlottesville
High School each day on their way to AHS. He does not think the community can
be sold on spending that much money for a new high school without exhausting
all other possibilities.
Mrs. Moore asked if there were more comments about the issue of the new
high school, and there were none.
Mrs. Moore said she recently attended a meeting at one of the elementary
schools on redistricting. People asked why an addition was not put on Henley
Middle School. She wondered if this same question will arise with the
community if an addition is not constructed at WAHS. How many students will
not be able to go to WAHS who want to go there? Are County officials going to
find themselves in the same predicament with WAHS since people have chosen the
place they want to live because of where they want their children to go to
school.
Mr. Martin commented that the County is growing and schools are being
added almost every year. District lines change or schools would be built and
no one would attend them. Mr. Bain concurred. He said this is a growing
community. High school district lines are the last ones to change because
there are more students in them than in the elementary and middle schools, but
eventually it is going to happen. Mr. Martin said he knows the district lines
will be drawn logically, and that is all that matters. Mr. Bain stated that
none of these are easy choices. These are tough issues that constantly have
to be addressed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it is possible to evaluate two alternatives at the
same time when the different options are considered. He wondered if different
groups of solutions would fit together. Mr. Haury replied that a couple of
the alternatives are out of the School Board's hands. For instance, the
Supervisors would have to work with City Council before the Charlottesville
High School situation would be considered. Basically, this is a political
question. The Oversight Committee does not want to do any work unless it is
totally authorized to do so from the start. The addition at WAHS is the sort
of option that the Oversight Committee could examine, and the Committee could
give its best recommendation to the School Board. He said that some of the
options which are listed cannot be investigated by the Oversight Committee.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Haury if what he is really saying is that the
Oversight Committee will only investigate building a new high school. Mr.
Haury responded, "no." The Oversight Committee would not investigate using
400 seats at Charlottesville High School unless City Council and County
officials work together on this matter. Otherwise, Mr. Haury said the
Oversight Committee is confined to the list of five options, although he is
not saying that the recommendation will be to build a new high school. He
pointed out that the Oversight Committee has always been a recommending
agency, having two School Board members on it, and the School Board decides
what the Oversight Committee does. He said that of the options listed,
several of them are out Of the Committee members' hands. The Committee cannot
investigate the CATEC option because that operation is covered by an agreement
between the City and the Board of Supervisors. The Charlottesville High
School matter cannot be considered until City Council becomes involved. There
is no sense in the Committee spending hours making up a plan and drawing a
district if it is not going to be approved by the governing bodies. He said
the Committee members are being practical because there are a lot of meetings
and nights out for all of them, and they do not want to add to the list, if
there is no chance of the political bodies approving the plan.
Mrs. Moore mentioned the agreement between the Board of Supervisors and
City Council relating to CATEC and she pointed out that there is also a
governing Board at CATEC. If it appears that the CATEC idea has potential
there would still be a lot of different groups who would have to be involved
in the discussions. Mr. Bain stated that CATEC has limited acreage and unless
it is considered as a specialty school, there is not a lot of land, and the
land in that area is probably the most expensive land in the County, on a
square footage basis.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bain if he is saying that in his opinion, CATEC
is not a viable alternative. Mr. Bain responded that he does not think CATEC
would be the place for a regular high school to be built. It might work as a
limited "magnet" high school for approximately 300 students. Mrs. Moore said
she believes there are 20 acres of land at CATEC. Mr. Bain said the property
is limited and when the Meadow Creek Parkway and the interchange are built it
will affect this property.
Mr. Perkins brought up the idea of a magnet school at Piedmont Virginia
Community College (PVCC) or buying land from PVCC to build a high school. He
said PVCC used to have plans which showed buildings over the whole site. He
asked if this is still something that is being examined. Mr. Haury said
PVCC's master plan has a science technology building on the drawing board. He
has talked with the President about having a magnet school at the college and
was told that if it were a serious proposition, she would ask that the matter
be brought to her attention as soon as possible. He noted that the State
June 2, 1993 (Regular DaY Meeti'~)~ ~ ~ ~'~'~ ·
(Page 47)
000 28
encourages partnerships'~nd~Sh~indi~~!~hat this is the way she would
treat it. Mr. Haury added that PVCC does have the ability to enter into an
agreement in a long-term lease arrangement. Leases can be 59 or 99 years in
length. A Committee member asked what would happen if a new high school is
built and the birth rate starts to decline. What would happen to the build-
ing? He added that a magnet school at a site where ~he space could be
used,would totally eliminate that possibility. The worse thing that could
happen is that the College would use the building for its own purposes.
Mr. Bain asked if the Committee looked at magnet schools. He wondered
what is involved with such schools. Mr. Haury replied that the Committee did
not examine the use of magnet schools in great detail.
Mr. Marshall stated that the University is going to grow by 2000 or more
students during the next seven years. This will cause the population of the
community to grow. He recalled Blake Hurt's figures which indicated that for
every student who comes to the University, the population will increase by
four people. He added that he cannot believe there will be a decrease in the
County school system's enrollment.
Mr. Bowerman said, based on realistic options, the only things the Over-
sight Committee can consider are the improvements at WAHS, or the building of
a new high school, unless the Committee gets some directions from the School
Board or the Supervisors.
Mr. Finley asked if the 1500 figure for WAHS was based on it being
physically impossible to have a larger addition at WAHS. He said it is
possible to build a larger school, if necessary, and the topography permits.
Mr. Copeland said that a 1500 student school would be the limit for that site,
and it would be a burden there. He noted that the safety issue also has to be
considered, and he mentioned, again, that children are already crossing the
road from Henley Middle School.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that there is land in back of that site which
could possibly be purchased. He said it might be hard to tie the building
into that location. He then asked about the possibility of having ninth
graders in a separate building in a separate location. He suggested the ninth
grade be put into what is currently a middle school. He recalled that this
was done a number of years ago when the ninth graders went to Jack Jouett
School.
Mr. Marshall wondered if transportation would be a problem if the ninth
graders were located separately. Mr. Perkins responded that it depends on
where the ninth graders were located. He thinks every option has to be
considered because County officials are talking about borrowing as much as
$25.0 million without the issue going to the voters. He said mobile class-
rooms may have to be used for five or ten years.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the School Board would consider Mr. Perkins'
ideas, or if these ideas have already been discussed. He wondered if a
determination could be made as to why these ideas might or might not work.
Mrs. Moore replied that School Board members have not considered these ideas,
but they could do so. She inquired if the Oversight Committee has discussed
these things.
Mr. Haury responded that when AHS was renovated, it was 23 years old,
and there were a lot of parity improvements that had to be done to get the
electrical and mechanical systems up to standard. These were not growth
costs, but, parity costs. He said that this was a considerable amount of
money for AHS. He stated that the rating capacity for WAHS, as it currently
exists, is 1300 students. This is the figure which has been used since 1968~
so 200 additional seats are needed to upsize WAHS to 1500. What further
complicates the matter is that WAHS needs about $3.0 million in parity
improvements irrespective of whether or not seats are added. He explained
that science laboratories, ADA compliance, etc., all have to be considered.
He emphasized that there are two different things which make up the costs at
WAHS, and they are compliance and parity items, as well as the additional
seats. When he looked at the costs for AHS for the first time, it looked as
if it was a lot of money to get the 200 extra seats, but it was because of the
other costs involved. WAHS is getting to the same point. If it is upsized,
there are a lot of other things such as electrical and mechanical systems that
will need to be done at the same time. He noted, too, that when a school is
upsized, the gym, library and other support facilities have to also be
upsized.
Mr. Tucker suggested that perhaps the Oversight Committee could consider
the CATEC site and the feasibility of Mr. Perkins' suggestions. He noted that
the School Board, with the Oversight Committee, could look at the PVCC site
with Dr. DiCroce, and ask if this is a feasible option. Mr. Bowerman said the
PVCC property could be examined to see if it is a possible location for a new
high school.
Mr. Bain suggested that the PVCC property also be considered for a
magnet school. He said that the problem will been taken care of if 300
children are pulled into a magnet school. Mr. Perkins commented that the PVCC
property is an excellent location if an interchange is approved at the
intersection of 1-64 and Avon Street Extended.
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000 29
(Page 48)
Mr. Tucker remarked that if the tw6'Boards at this meeting are interest-
ed in considering the possible Charlottesville High School seats, there may be
a way to do that. He said a subcommittee could be appointed by each Board.
Mr. Marshall asked for an explanation of the Charlottesville High School
option. Mr. Perkins responded that the County would pay the City tuition to
send a certain number of County students to Charlottesville High School. Mr.
Marshall indicated that he was not very receptive to this idea. Mr. Bain said
that he was willing to look at all possibilities. He said when he considers
the difference in the costs of sending some students to Charlottesville High
School and building a new high school, he wonders what the voters are going to
say.
Mr. Marshall stated that an $18.0 million bond issue could be put before
the public and the public decide. Mr. Bain agreed that this is what he is
saying. He will not try to sell the public on a bond issue until he has
investigated all possibilities. Mr. Marshall concurred. Mr. Tucker stated
that he is not advocating sending County students to Charlottesville High
School. He was just explaining the correct process if the Boards choose to
consider this option.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that everything else be investigated before the
Charlottesville High option. Mr. Tucker referred to his previous statement of
having a subcommittee of the two Boards in the County meet with a subcommittee
of the Council and the City School Board, if the Supervisors and School Board
members want to deal with this particular issue. He said if the full Boards
of the County and City are involved there will be too many people trying to
make a decision.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she needs to know a lot more about the
concept of the Charlottesville High School plan, such as how will it work,
what are the benefits, and which students would be chosen to go there. She is
interested in knowing more than just that there are a certain number of seats
available. She wants to know all of the brainstorming that will come from the
discussions of the 400 empty seats at Charlottesville High School. Mr. Tucker
reiterated that he is just suggesting the process to follow if the two Boards
are interested in this option. He is not sure the County will even get to
that process. He went on to say that the CATEC site, or a magnet school on
the PVCC property, might be two options which the Oversight Committee could
examine, as well as a separate school for ninth graders.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Oversight Committee can take a pencil and
paper and fully examine the ninth grade option and how the different grades
can be separated. A lot of funds do not need to be spent for this evaluation.
However, a decision has to be made on the question of parity at WAHS.
Mr. Bain commented that in 2002, it is estimated that there will be 1100
ninth graders, and that is a high school enrollment. Mr. Bowerman responded
that the numbers might discount the ninth grade option, but he thinks it
should be examined. He emphasized that County officials owe it to the parents
and taxpayers to look at all the options before a final decision is made.
Item 22b. Discussion: Early Retirees Health Insurance.
Mr. Tucker stated that health insurance for early retirees was discussed
several months ago. He and Dr. Paskel have asked Ms. Tracy Holt to draft a
memorandum regarding this matter.
Ms. Holt explained that the General Assembly passed legislation re-
quiring local governments to offer retirees the option of continuing their
health insurance until they reach the age of 65. She then summarized how the
County's health insurance program is funded and structured. The County has a
self-insured program and the rates are based strictly on three components.
The County's past experience drives the rates. Staff's recommendation to meet
the requirements of the legislation is that Albemarle County allow its
retirees, regardless of the number of years of experience they have with the
County, to continue their health insurance until the age of 65. Staff also
recommends that the retiree premium rates be based on the risk and anticipated
claims from the retiree group, basically because the County is self-insured.
Ms. Holt said the law gives the County the ability to rate the retirees
on their risk and also on their age. The State has shown that its retirees
generate approximately three times as many claims dollars as its current
employees. Blue Cross/Blue Shield representatives also believe that retirees
will generate more claims than active employees. If the retirees are included
in the County's current health insurance plan with active employees, Blue
Cross/Blue Shield representatives estimate that the rates for active employees
would increase by approximately ten percent.
Ms. Holt said that given the County's current deficit situation with its
health care program and the increase in rates anticipated for the next fiscal
year, staff is recommending that the retirees be rated separately. Staff does
not feel the County's active employees could sustain a ten percent increase in
their rates in order to accommodate the retirees and sustain an additional 20
percent increase to cover the deficit, as well as increase the cost of the
health care program as a whole. Staff also recommends that if an employee had
their spouse or other dependents covered~ that they would be allowed to
000:1.30
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting).
(Page 49)
continue that coverage after they retire. However, a spouse or dependent
could not be added after retirement occurred. The retiree would continue with
their same benefits plan or a plan of lesser benefits, but staff recommends
that the retiree not be allowed to opt into a program carrying a higher dollar
benefit than they carry as an active employee.
Ms. Holt said the program staff is recommending will give the retirees
of Albemarle County a better option than they currently have in the market
place. Staff checked to see what might be available in the market for
retirees and the main problem is the waiting period (which could be as long as
a year) associated with pre-existing conditions. One plan Blue Cross/Blue
Shield offers would have a one year waiting period for pre-existing condi-
tions, a $750 deductible for hospital admission, with a maximum out-of-pocket
deductible of $2,500. The rate for a single person for one month would be
$355. This program has lesser benefits than the program the County is
currently offering because the rate recommended for the County's program is
$195 for a retiree. A conversion plan without a waiting period for any
pre-existing conditions would be $447 a month. Although the County's rates
based on claims experience may seem high, if the marketplace is considered,
the County's retirees would get an advantage because there would not be any
waiting period for pre-existing conditions. The retirees would be allowed to
opt into the program and receive full benefits right away.
Mr. Perkins asked if the experience rates for the retirees would be kept
separate from the whole group so there would be information on the retirees
from year to year. Ms. Holt said this is staff's intent. She added that the
rates submitted to the Board are for July 1, 1993, through the end of Septem-
ber, 1993. The County's plan year goes from October to the end of September,
so those rates will be adjusted beginning October 1, 1993.
Mrs. Powell said Ms. Holt had referred to coverage for spouses. She
said the County does not offer such coverage. Ms. Holt concurred. She said
that spouses are covered only under the family program. Mrs. Powell suggested
that the resolution refer to employees and family coverage rather than employ-
ees and spouse coverage.
Mr. Marshall asked if an employee will have the option of including a
spouse in the County's health plan. Ms. Holt replied that the staff's recom-
mendation is that if a spouse is not covered prior to retirement then that
spouse could not be included after retirement.
Mr. Marshall then inquired if a person who is currently working for the
County and has family coverage would be able to maintain this coverage at a
higher rate after he or she retires. Ms. Holt answered that this is correct.
Mr. Bain quoted from the "Discussion" section of the Executive Summary
that "any deficit that our self-insured plan would develop as a result of this
action would be the entire group's responsibility and the decision to recoup
that particular deficit from the retirees may be one that is difficult to
quantify and attach specifically to that group." He asked Ms. Holt to explain
this sentence. Ms. HOlt answered that under a self-insured program all of the
claims are put into one pool, however, staff would keep track of the retiree
group separately. Staff's concern is that retirees may opt into the program
initially but drop out if rates increase significantly, and then the active
employees would have to deal with the deficit incurred by those retirees. She
said rate of active employees would have to increase to accommodate that
deficit.
Mr. Bain asked if Ms. Holt is implying that any deficit caused by the
retirees would not be adjusted annually. Ms. Holt said it is the intent to
base the retiree rates on their claims experience. If there is a very healthy
group of .retirees, and their claims experience is good, then their rates could
actually decrease.
Mr. Bain said he will not support something that will cause the active
employees to have to accommodate a deficit, whether or not it is after the
fact. He explained his comment by saying that if a number of retirees opt out
of the program in one year, then the active members will have to accommodate
the deficit, and he will not support it. Ms. Holt responded that if this hap-
pened, it would be easy to come back to the Board and address that issue. She
said the program is set up in this manner, and that is why the information was
passed along to the Board.
Mrs. Powell wondered what would happen if the retirees are rated
separately and after a year the experience on the retirees is not at all
similar to the information which has been given to these two Boards. Ms. Holt
answered that the Boards approve the health care rates on an annual basis, so
if staff becomes aware that the retirees had a good year as far as claims are
concerned, it could be recommended that the rates be adjusted. She noted that
these rates are not fixed nor is the methodology for determining them° She
reiterated that the two Boards will review them on an annual basis°
Mr. Martin inquired if the rate could be doubled the first year and then
decrease the second year. He noted that the surplus could be used for part of
the deficit if there were one. Ms. Holt replied that this could be consid-
ered, but she pointed out that the rates are fairly significant now for
retirees and this would mean that their rates would be increased even more.
000 .8 .
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Marshall asked if the employees have been polled to see how they
feel about the insurance program. It may be that the employees, in order to
have insurance after they retire, would be willing to pay an additional
premium to be assured that they have insurance after retirement. Ms. Holt
responded that the employees were not actually polled, however, a small group
of them discussed the issue. All of the employees were recently polled about
adding the employee/spouse option to the health care program, and only 25
percent of the surveys were returned. Of those, the majority indicated that
they would not be willing to increase their premiums to add the employee/
spouse coverage.
Mr. Marshall referred to his previous question and said that is an
entirely different issue. He mentioned that employees, no matter what
position they hold, will be looking at a time when they are going to retire.
He thinks those employees may be willing to pay more now while they are
working rather than paying more after they are retired and on a fixed income.
Ms. Holt replied that staff thought that eventually many employees would be
able to take advantage of the employee/spouse option, and it could carry over
into retirement.
Mr. Marshall suggested that employees be polled again. He said this is
an option they may prefer because they could pay a little more at the present
time instead of a lot more in their retirement years when they have less
money. Ms. Holt emphasized that there will be significant increases in
insurance costs beginning October 1, but Mr. Marshall's suggestion relative to
polling the employees can be followed.
Mr. Tucker referred to Mr. Bain's earlier comment about retirees opting
out of the program and leaving a deficit. He said this can happen today with
existing employees, because if they find better coverage they can opt out of
the County's program. He said this sometimes happens because a spouse might
have better coverage elsewhere. He pointed out that retirees are going to opt
out, but there will have to be another alternative to which they will go. He
said Ms. Holt has discovered that there are not many alternatives which are
better than what the County can provide. While it is theoretically possible
that retirees will opt out of the County's program, he is not sure it will
happen often.
Mr. Bain commented that he does not like the idea of the active employ-
ees having to pay for a deficit. He added, however, that he might be in favor
of a plan where the County could pay for the deficit separately from the
active employees. Mr. Tucker responded that another option which has not yet
been explored is that the retirees' premium could be slightly higher than the
active employees, so that a reserve could built up in the event of a deficit.
Mr. Marshall said he thinks the idea of a reserve fund is a good idea.
He asked if he is correct to assume that anybody beyond the age of 65 will not
be considered for this plan because they will be able to take advantage of
Medicare, etc. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively.
Mrs. Powell asked if there is a minimum number of years employees will
have to work for the County before they can purchase insurance on this plan.
Ms. Holt replied that the State's guidelines were such that a person should
have 15 years of experience in a work place before they would be allowed to
participate in the plan. However, staff's recommendation is to include
everybody who retires, with no restrictions, because if the employees are
rated based on experience, a bigger pool of individuals should positively
affect the rates set for the retirees.
Mrs. Powell replied that she can understand that logic. She said if
employees are leaving the County after a year they are probably moving to
another job. She wonders how much of an impact this will have on the pool.
Ms. Holt stated that she is referring to people who are retiring, and not
people who are leaving the County to take another job.
Mrs. Powell said she thought early retirement required tenure. She
asked for an explanation of this situation. Dr. Hastings replied that one
question this policy has raised is whether or not an employee could work in
Albemarle County for one year and then retire. She said this could happen
because the employee could have worked in another school division and have the
required number of years of service under Virginia State Retirement. In that
case, the proposed health insurance plan would allow the employee to opt into
the retirees' group. The key is that the employee would actually have to
retire versus resign.
Mrs. Powell asked if retirees have always been rated separately. Dr.
Hastings said retirees have not been allowed to stay on the County's health
insurance plan since 1984. Retirees are treated the same as any employee
resigning in that they are allowed to remain as a member of the group for 18
months. Until 1984, retirees were a part of the active group. At that point,
the Board voted to give them the same benefit as any employee who resigns.
This would be the first time that the retirees would be allowed to remain in
the group until age 65.
Mr. Finley inquired as to the County's average retirement age. Dr.
Hastings replied that under the County's early retirement plan, a significant
number of people chose to retire between the ages of 55 and 60. This plan
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
would give these employees five years of being in a group insurance plan
before they are eligible for Medicare.
Mrs. Powell inquired if the County will seek bids from other insurance
carriers based on the information received regarding the deficit. She
wondered if the self-insured program is still the best type of program. Ms.
Holt responded that this has been discussed, but the only way that cost
savings could be considered, is to look at the administrative fees. She said
that rates are based on claims so approximately $13 per employee per month is
paid to Blue Cross/Blue Shield to administer the County's program. This is
the only variable that can be controlled. Last year other options were
considered for health care insurance, and bids were taken, but Blue Cross/Blue
Shield and the current self-insured program was still selected.
Mrs. Powell asked if offering the employees another option to stay
within that plan would be a good reason to consider other insurance carriers.
Mr. Tucker said timing would make it difficult to shop for other insurance
carriers this year. Mrs. Powell said if this service is offered to retirees,
she would like to make it as competitive as possible for them.
Mr. Marshall noted that this insurance plan may encourage early retire-
ment for some people, which is to the County's advantage. He explained that
some individuals would retire at 55 years of age if they could get health
insurance through the County's plan. He knows employees in this County who
are keeping their jobs because they are concerned that they won't have
insurance if they retire. Individuals who are on the high end of the pay
scale leave the system and employees come into the County at a lower pay
scale, that saves money.
Mrs. Powell asked how this plan compares with other school divisions.
Ms. Holt replied that Fairfax County has always included retirees in its
health insurance plan, but she noted that this is not a requirement for school
divisions. The City of Charlottesville also has the retirees included in its
program, but she is uncertain about the City school system.
Mr. Marshall noted that the schools in the City of Charlottesville have
a separate insurance program. Mr. Bowerman asked if the retirees in the
Charlottesville school system are separate from the health benefits of the
current teachers. Ms. Holt answered that City school retirees are not allowed
to purchase health insurance along with the current employees.
Mr. Landrith said there are two separate health plans in the City, as
far as schools and general government are concerned. These plans are rated
separately and do not commingle in any way. He noted that the City school
system does not include its retirees, but the local government in the City
does include its retirees.
Mrs. Powell said the County is not providing any funds to the retirees.
She said the retirees are paying for themselves, and they are rated separate-
ly. She wondered how the County compares, as far as what other divisions are
doing. Ms. Holt replied that if someone retires under the County's early
retirement plan, they do receive the County's contribution toward health care
in dollars for a maximum of five years~
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Marshall if he is saying that he cannot support
this health plan until there is a pool of potential retirees~ or if he would
like to have such a pool, at some point. Mr. Marshall replied that he thinks
this is an important issue for County employees. He believes such a health
plan should be provided, and he thinks the Federal government will eventually
have a plan. He thinks all of the County's employees should be polled. He
added that, from his point of view, if he was a teacher and he had been
working in Albemarle County for five or six years, he would rather take a
percentage increase now in his health insurance premium than have to face it
when he was 55. He would rather know that it was there waiting for him when
he retires.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if Mr. Marshall would want this separate from the
rest of the health benefits. Mr. Marshall answered, "no." He repeated that
he thinks the employees should be polled to see what they want and, if he was
a County employee, he would prefer to pay a slightly higher rate now than to
have to pay a huge sum of money when he is 55.
Mr. Bain wondered how an employee would get back his money if that
person left the County after he had paid the higher insurance rate. Mr.
Marshall said that, hopefully, this would give employees an incentive to stay
in the County system.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that Mr. Marshall understands the system, and he
knows much more about it than the average person because he was a member of
the School Board at one time. She said it would be difficult to explain to
all the employees the potential benefit of the increased premium and to have
them buy into the plan for an increased rate now. Mr. Marshall said if it is
explained to the employees it would be simple for them to understand.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Perkins has an opinion on this matter° Mr.
Perkins responded that he is in favor of the plan that is being recommended.
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Mr. Bain said he is not interested in the plan that is being recommended
because the active group of employees is still liable for the deficit. Mrs.
Humphris concurred with Mr. Bain's statement.
Mr. Bowerman asked to which group Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris are refer-
ring. Mr. Bain explained that the active group of employees would be respon-
sible for the deficit of the retirees' group. Mr. Bowerman agreed that this
should not be.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that the experience factor would have something
to do with this, and the deficit would have to be made up the following year.
Tucker agreed.
Mr. Bain said if this information is not accurate, that is fine, but
that is what the memo indicated, and that is what he is trying to address.
Mrs. Humphris said the sentence to which Mr. Bain referred is clear.
She then read from the "Discussion" section of the Executive Summary which
stated that it is the staff's recommendation that the retirees be rated
separately and that any deficit that the plan would develop as a result of
this action would be the entire group's responsibility.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the retirees should be a self-insured group,
and they should be responsible for their own claims and deficit.
Mr. Marshall emphasized that employees should be polled. He said that
this plan is for the County's employees, and he thinks they should have input.
Mrs. Powell said she thought about the same thing, because she has
talked to a lot of people who have indicated that they want to pay now for
their future. She said future Boards can change this decision because it is
not law. A future Board could decide not to provide retirees the opportunity
to stay on the group plan. She said this is the one problem she sees in Mr.
Marshall's suggestion. Mr. Marshall agreed that Mrs. Powell has made a good
point. Ms. Holt said the law states that retirees have to be allowed the
option to continue their health care coverage until age 65. Mrs. Powell
responded that the law does not guarantee that everybody would be involved in
this coverage. She noted that the retirees would be rated separately.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it is clear that nothing can be approved for
this health plan today. He asked staff to consider the concerns that Mr. Bain
and Mr. Marshall have mentioned, as soon as possible, so the Boards can have
better information on which to base their decisions. Ms. Holt reminded Board
members that the law requires the health insurance plan to go into effect on
July 1, 1993.
Dr. Hastings said staff has to go through quite a process, and rates
will have to be revisited for the October 1 contract. She suggested that the
Board authorize the staff to proceed with the recommended plan, and in the
interim months before the staff comes back to the Board with rates, polling of
employees could be done. This way, employees can make their feelings known by
the October 1 renewal date. She said this would allow the County to comply
with the law.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board is committing to anything if approval is
given for this health care plan before all of the information is known. Dr.
Hastings responded that approval of this plan now would comply with the law,
and it will not hurt the active employees because they are rated separately.
She went on to say that if on October 1 it is found that active employees are
willing to pay ten percent more to keep the retirees in the group, this infor-
mation will be brought back to the Boards. This plan could then be amended.
Mr. Bowerman then inquired about the deficit question. Dr. Hastings
answered that the deficit question is very important, however, Ms. Holt's memo
is absolutely accurate if the retirees decide to leave the County's plan. She
next agreed with Mr. Tucker's earlier comment that this is highly unlikely
because it is a good plan for them. If they all decided to leave the plan,
there would be no choice but to have the active group pick up the deficit or
the Board would have to fund it. She said there is no way of self-funding the
retirees plan.
At this time, Mr. Martin made a motion to adopt the resolution regarding
retiree health insurance, as outlined, with a review on October 1, 1993, rela-
tive to indications of an employee poll, and that the staff look at ways of
setting up a contingency fund to cover any deficit that might develop.
Mr. Bowerman said approval has to be for the whole plan, or it is the
General Government's liability. Mr. Martin said this is not what he under-
stood. Dr. Hastings explained that she had said that if the retirees are
rated separately and the plan develops a deficit and then they all decide to
leave the plan, the remaining active employees would be responsible for that
deficit. She added that the Boards could also pay the deficit if they so
choose. Mr. Tucker suggested that the idea of a reserve be considered.
Mr. Bain reiterated that there is not a chance that he will support this
plan if the active employees have to pay any deficit.
June 2, 1993 (Regular DaY Meeting)
(Page 53)
000 1. 34
Mr. Bowerman wondered where the money will come from for a reserve fund.
Mr. Tucker responded that the retirees' premium would be a little higher in
order to start building a reserve.
Mr. Martin said he would like to move forward with the plan, keeping in
mind that the staff will be presenting the Boards with other possibilities.
Mr. Bain emphasized that unless Mr. Martin's motion clearly states that the
active employees of General Government and the School System will not be
responsible for the deficit, he will not support it. Mr. Martin stated that
his motion could indicate that the retirees rate could be adjusted no matter
if they are School System or General Government employees. Mr. Bain agreed
that he will support the motion only if it states that the retirees will be
responsible for their own deficit. Mr. Martin suggested that the retirees
could pay $10 more a month for the first year to build a reserve. He then
said that he would like to add a stipulation to his motion that if there is a
deficit the active employees will not have to pay for it.
At this point, Mr. Marshall seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman clarified Mr. Martin's motion by saying that the motion is
for the Board of Supervisors to adopt the resolution on retirees health
insurance, as outlined, with a review by October 1, 1993, of a poll done with
the active employees as to whether or not they would be willing to have the
potential of paying a higher premium in the beginning. Mr. Martin said that
the staff understands the points that the poll needs to cover. His motion
should indicate that any deficit in the future will be taken care of by the
School System, General Government or the retirees themselves.
Mrs. Moore said that the motion needed to be amended in a couple of
places, but she is not on the Board of Supervisors so she is not supposed to
be discussing this. Mr. Bowerman asked to which points Mrs. Moore was refer-
ring.
Mrs. Moore called attention to Number Four of the health insurance plan
where it stated that the premiums for retirees will be based on the claims
experience of the retiree pool, administration fees, miscellaneous reinsurance
fees and state premium taxes of the retirees participating in the plano She
said that the premiums are not based just on the claims. Mr. Bain said that
the Supervisors could still vote on the motion that was made. Mr. Tucker ex-
plained that the resolution can be adjusted.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
At this time, Mrs. Moore asked if any of the School Board members
objected to the retirees health insurance plan that the Board of Supervisors
just adopted. She then explained Mr. Martin's motion.
Mr. Finley made a motion to adopt the retireeS health insurance plan
with the adjusted resolution, and with the idea that a plan will be brought
back to both Boards by October 1, 1993, describing the employees' feelings as
to how to handle the deficit. Mr. Haur¥ seconded the motion. All School
Board members present voted in favor of the motion.
(The resolution, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND
SCHOOL BOARD
On this the second day of June 1993, we, the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, and we, the Albemarle
County School Board, do hereby approve the following policy on
health insurance for the retirees of Albemarle County and the
Albemarle County Schools:
Ail retirees of the County and the School Board, regardless
of the number of years of employment experience, will be
eligible to participate in the County's health insurance
programs within the following guidelines:
1. The retiree can continue his/her coverage until he/she
reaches age 65.
2. The retiree can continue to cover his/her spouse
and/or dependent child in the same plan he/she had
before retirement or a plan of lesser benefit.
3. The retiree cannot add a dependent or spouse to his/
her benefit plan after he/she retires.
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
4e
The premiums for retirees will be based on the claims
experience of the retiree pool, administration fees,
miscellaneous reinsurance fees and state premium taxes
of the retirees participating in the plan, and in no
case will any deficit be borne by any active employ-
ees.
During open enrollment, retirees will be able to
change benefit plans to a policy of equal benefit or
of lesser benefit°
Agenda Item No. 22c. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there were any other matters which the Supervisors
and School Board members would like to discuss.
Mr. Perkins stated that he would like to make a comment about the
meeting at Virginia L. Murray Elementary School involving computers. He said
that word got back to him that members of School staff were not invited to
this meeting. He said this invitation did not come from him. He only invited
the people who he was told to invite, and that was the members of the School
Board and the Board of Supervisors. He does not know where this matter will
go from here, but he thinks it was a very good meeting. This is an issue
which needs to be better understood, and computers need to be put into the
classrooms so the children can get involved with them. He said that is better
than having a computer lab which may never be used. This program will involve
training teachers, etc., so that they can instruct the students. He empha-
sized that what he saw at this meeting was very encouraging, and if other
School Board members or Supervisors are interested in seeing such a program,
it can certainly be set up for them.
Dr. Paskel commented that he had met with the gentleman who made the
arrangements for this meeting. Dr. Paskel said he understands that it wasn't
Mr. Perkins' or any of the other Supervisors' intent to exclude anyone from
this meeting. He said that the School System staff has been very receptive to
the IBM representative's ideas. Other sites will be visited where such
programs are in place, and representatives from Virginia L. Murray School will
also be involved. Visits to other sites will probably occur during the month
of June.
Mr. Marshall informed the School Board members that this morning he had
brought up a question which concerns him. At Walton Middle School there is a
need for an additional reading teacher, and the cost for this reading teacher
will be approximately $35,000. This is a justifiable need, in his opinion,
because this money will either be paid now, or it will be paid later in the
form of welfare, etc. The only way the principal at Walton can get the
teacher he needs is by changing the choir director position to half time and
the art teacher position to half time. This would leave Walton Middle School
behind all of the other middle schools.
Mr. Marshall said that although his district is not quite as well off
socially or economically as some of the other districts, there are people in
his district who are well off, and they have children who are going to suffer
if the art teacher and choir director are cut back to half time, because a
reading teacher needs to be hired to bring the other children's grades up to
the level of the other schools. He reiterated that this is a justifiable
need, and he thinks it is fair to ask for it. He thinks schools should be
staffed according to need and not according to a ratio. He understands there
is a ratio which involves the placement of a certain number of teachers at a
school according to the number of students. He realizes that he is asking for
a lot, but it is something that he feels is necessary because Walton's
children need to be able to have the same opportunity as the other children in
the County. He asked the School Board for support of his request and find the
necessary $35,000 for this position. He believes the other Supervisors also
find this request to be justifiable.
Mr. Bowerman clarified Mr. Marshall's remarks by saying that the
Supervisors though it was justifiable enough that Mr. Marshall should pass
this concern along to the School Board.
Mrs. Moore commented that it might be helpful to give some history about
the Chapter I program in the County Schools. Mr. Landrith noted that the
reading position was lost at Walton Middle School because of cuts in the
Chapter I Program. The need for a reading teacher exists at Walton regardless
of whether Federal money provides for it. Mrs. Moore explained that Walton
was the only middle school involved with the Chapter I program, so due to the
decrease in Chapter I funds, a reading teacher was lost there. That choice
was made, and the remedial reading teacher position is very important, so
other things had to be reduced to offset this position.
Mr. Marshall responded that he doesn't deny that this is correct, but
other children are being deprived by reducing the choir director and the art
teacher positions to half time. He added that he has two letters in his
packet from members of this community who are very upset because their
children are being moved from the Henley Middle School district to the Jack
Jouett Middle School district. He stated that it is unbelievable what these
O001 G
June 2, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
people would say if they thought these students would be transferred to Walton
Middle School. He does not think that a private school, country club type
atmosphere is being provided for the people in Albemarle County, but there is
a legitimate need for all of the County's children to receive the same
education. He will not let Walton Middle School's children go without the
same privileges that people are asking for in the other middle schools. He
said this is actually happening.
Mrs. Moore said the School Board, at its next meeting, will be consid-
ering the staffing allocations of the schools. The problem to which Mr.
Marshall referred will certainly be an issue which will be discussed. She
added, however, that when federal cutbacks come at the same time that the
budget is being considered, there will always be potential problems.
Mr. Marshall said he hopes the School Board finds there is a legitimate
need, because there are people in his district who don't want to or can't
afford to move to other districts. He said that they, nevertheless, have
children who are just as intelligent as children in other districts, and he
would like to see these children receive the same education that children are
getting in the other schools in the County.
Mr. Martin commented that he had heard something which is probably a
rumor, but he asked if there have been discussions about cutting funds for
Murray School by a couple of thousand dollars, while increasing its popula-
tion. He asked the School Board not to do that. Mrs. Moore replied that this
has never been discussed, and she has never heard the rumor.
Dr. Paskel mentioned that there has been a committee for two years
composed of parents, teachers and principals who make recommendations to the
Superintendent, who will then formulate a recommendation to the School Board,
on how to distribute the funds which are allocated to the school-based
accounts. This committee has recommended an application which would decrease
the appropriation for Murray School by $9000. He has met with the faculty of
Murray School, and he has heard its feelings, but he has yet to formulate a
recommendation to the School Board. This issue will be on the agenda at the
June 14, 1993, meeting. Mr. Martin repeated that if this is more than a
rumor, he is asking that it not be done.
(Note: At 4:41 p.m., the School Board and the Board of Supervisors
recessed. At 4:49 p.m., the Board of Supervisors reconvened in Meeting Room
7.).
Agenda Item No. 23. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that the Recycling Ordinance work session be
rescheduled for June 9, 1993, since that will be a fairly short meeting.
Mrs. Humphris inquired as to when the Board will consider the Housing
Committee recommendations. Mr. Bowerman answered that the Board can discuss
that report on July 7.
Mr. Bain said if the Board members have questions about the proposed
personnel policies, he feels they should contact with Mr. Tucker or Dr.
Hastings. That would be a lot better use of time than discussing something
now when the Board members have not even had a chance to study the recommenda-
tions.
Mr. Bowerman noted that Mrs. Humphris will not be present at the July 21
meeting.
Mr. Marshall stated that he will be out of town from July 8, 1993, until
the following Tuesday.
Not Docketed: At 4:53 p.m., Mr. Bain moved that the Board adjourn into
executive session for discussion of personnel matters. Mrs. Humphris seconded
the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
At 5:17 p.m., the reconvened into open session.
adopt the following certification of executive session.
seconded the motion.
Mr. Bain made motion to
Mrs. Humphris