1992-12-02December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
M.B. 43, Pg. 20
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 2, 1992, at 9:30 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at
9:38 a.m.), 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
Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg; and County Attorney, George R. St. John.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
9:30 A.M., by the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Bain.
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
PI/BLIC.
Ms. Martha Sites expressed concerns about the relocation of Route 678.
In 1985, she and her husband purchased property in Western Albemarle County.
The features that sold that property to them were the views, large back yard
and privacy of lot. After closing, they were informed that there were plans
for re-routing Route 678 along the perimeter of that property. This informa-
tion had not been disclosed to them by realtors, lawyers, nor was it on the
survey. Once informed, she and her husband were very upset and angry but did
not think there was anything that could be done. The plans to relocate Route
678 have changed dramatically over the last few years. Two years ago, the
house was put on the market. Potential buyers would not consider the property
once they saw the plans for Route 678. The property which was virtually
unmarketable two years ago will be even less marketable with the changes in
the plans that have come about. She is told that she will be paid for a 30
foot construction easement around the perimeter of her property which she
would be expected to maintain and it would also become her property to pay
taxes on. She does not like this idea. Her alternative drain field site is
in the right-of-way of this proposed road. She was told at the public hearing
that the County would probably waive the need for an alternate drain field
site and from her perspective that is absurd. Officials have told her that
the life of her expected drain field is 10 to 20 years. She has lived there
for eight years. She is concerned about the process. Private citizens should
be informed about what is going to happen on their property and should be
included in the process. She hopes that this Board, in its role as supervi-
sors, can use its influence to see that this happens in the future. (Mr.
Bowerman arrived at the meeting at 9:38 a.m.)
Ms. Site then asked for responses to the following questions. What is
the problem that the County is trying to fix with this proposed plan? She
realizes that most of the Board members were not in office when this plan was
conceived. The typical VDoT response has been that the plan has been on the
books for years. What data is there to support the problem? If it is a
safety concern, then where is the supporting data that shows where the problem
is? Is the proposed solution going to fix the problem? Does the proposed
solution warrant the cost? There are other areas in the County that have
substandard roads and this project will take the entire years allotment for
secondary roads in Albemarle County just to fix two-tenths of a mile.
Ms. Sites said she hopes that when the proposal to relocate Route 678 is
finally presented, this Board will review it carefully. She realizes that
roads must be built and that property is affected. If it is her property that
needs to be affected, and this is the solution that needs to happen, then she
hopes that she can protect her personal interests and investments. She is not
unrealistic or unreasonable about the need for progress and the need of having
good roads for transportation. She is concerned about the process of identi-
fying the need and the best solution.
Mr. Bain said he has talked with Ms. Sites and explained the process of
what will happen regarding this issue before it comes back to this Board, and
with what information. He will be meeting with VDoT and County staff before
the design plans are completed to look at the changes. He told Ms. Sites that
the Board would be addressing those issues. He also told her that the
neighbors and anyone who would be affected by the plans would be notified
before this came to the Board and they would be given a chance to express
their views.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve items 5.1 and 5.2, and to accept
the remaining items on the consent agenda as information.
.Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.43, Pg.21
(Page 2)
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Agricultural/Forestry Industry Committee, Nominations. The
following persons were approved as committee members by the above recorded
vote:
Committee Members
1. Agriculture Business
Jeff Clayton
John W. Clayton and
Son, Ivy Farm Supplies
2. Beef cattle Robert Bloch
President, Albemarle
Farm Bureau
C. Woodson
(Woody) Baker
3. Dairy cattle Paul Thomas
East Belmont Farm
Thomas Dairy Farm,
North Garden
4. Horses (race)
Patrick Nuesch
Braeburn Training
Center, Crozet
(pleasure) Rosemary (Posie)
Dent
Polaris Farm
Nursery/Greenhouse/
Truck Farming
Whitney Critzer
President, VA Direct
Marketing Association
6. Orchards Ruth Chiles Crown Orchard
7. Grapes Chris Hill
Farm Manager,
Glendower Vineyards
8. Sheep
9. Grain
10. Forestry
Jeff Hoffman
Michael Herring
R.A. (Dicky)
Yancey, Jr.
David or Vicky
Tice
Edgeworth Farm
Farmer, Crozet
R.A. Yancey/Lumber
Corp., Crozet
Consulting Forester
North American
Resources Management
11. Thomas Jefferson
Soil and Water
Conservation District
James Butler
Board Member
Ex-Officio Members
Walter Perkins, Board of Supervisors (Westvaco Corp.)
Phil Grimm, Chairman, Planning Commission (Virginia Department of
Forestry)
Staff
Department of Planning & Community Development: David Benish,
Chief of Community Development, Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner,
Rhonda Henderson, Intern
Cooperative Extension Service: Charles Goodman, Unit Director/
Horticulturist, David Vaden, Farm Management/Agent, Mark Reynolds,
Extension Agent/Agriculture
Virginia Department of Forestry: Nelson Shaw, Area Forester,
Albemarle County
Soil Conservation Service: Gordon Yager, District Conservationist
Item 5.2. Request for resolution to have roads in Branchlands PUD taken
into the State Secondary System of Highways. The following resolution was
adopted by the above recorded vote:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229,
the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby re-
quested to accept for maintenance, subject to final inspection and
approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in
Branchlands Boulevard and Hillsdale Drive:
December 2, ~ 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
M.B. 43, Pg. 22
Branchlands Boulevard:
Beginning at station 9 + 50 a point common with the pre-
existing edge of pavement of U.S. 29 and the centerline of
Branchlands Boulevard, thence in an easterly direction
731.72 feet to the intersection of Branchlands Boulevard and
Hillsdale Drive.
Hillsdale Drive:
Beginning at station 18 + 26.32 a point common with the
centerline of Hillsdale Drive and the end of previous dedi-
cation, thence in a southerly direction 3192.68 feet to
station 50 + 19 the edge of pavement of Greenbrier Drive.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the above roads have been substan-
tially completed and their plats are recorded in deed book 933,
page 562, deed book 1186, pages 105 and 106, and deed book 1216,
page 566A. Branchlands Boulevard has a 100 foot right-of-way
width, and Hillsdale Drive has a 60 foot right-of-way width.
Item 5.3. Letter dated November 10, 1992, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer, to Mr. Robert B. Brandenburger, Assistant County
Executive, re: VDoT Secondary Roads Right-of-Way Policy, was received for
information as follows:
"Reference is made to the Board of Supervisors' request from their
November 4 meeting and our telephone conversation of November 9
both concerning the Department's policy on obtaining right-of-way
along gravel roads.
For many years, my office assisted private citizens or groups in
obtaining right-of-way along gravel secondary roads in Albemarle
County. Basically, the process was for my office to stake out the
necessary right-of-way, give some instruction to the citizens or
group and supply them with VDoT omnibus deed forms for signature.
The citizen then contacted the various property owners along a
route and obtained the necessary signatures on the deed form.
Once all signatures were obtained, the Department recorded the
deed in the land records and I recommended to the Board that the
route be added to the gravel road construction priority list.
This procedure has existed in Albemarle County since the late
1970's. It was started by the Board and me, in response to numer-
ous requests for gravel road improvements. Over the years,
however, this has remained a process which is unique to Albemarle
and Greene counties.
Late last year the Department began a review of right-of-way
procedures used for secondary roads. After review of our proce-
dure, concern was raised by our Right-of-Way Division that use of
private citizens to negotiate right-of-way left the Department
subject to future claims of misrepresentation or failure to follow
proper procedures. I was directed to end this program in the
spring of this year.
The end of this program does not mean the Department is no longer
attempting to obtain donated right-of-way. What it does mean is
that Department employees will be the only ones in the future to
use Department deed forms and procedures to obtain this right-of-
way. My office and the District Right-of-Way Section, as neces-
sary, will work to obtain donated right-of-way as projects enter
the Six Year Plan. Because of manpower limitations on our need to
concentrate on projects in our various improvement plans, it will
not be feasible for Department employees to be obtaining right-of-'
way on projects not in the Six Year Plan.
I hope this explanation sufficiently answers the concern expressed
by the Board. If they have additional questions, I will be
available at the December Board meeting to discuss them."
Item 5.4. Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority minutes for
September 17, 1992, was received for information.
Item 5.5. Certified Letter dated November 18, 1992, from the Albemarle
County Industrial Development Authority. Attached is a copy of Internal
Revenue Service Form 8038, filed in connection with the issuance by the
Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, of its
$20,440,000 Health Services bonds (The University of Virginia Health Services
Foundation), Series 1992, was received for information.
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 43, Pg. 23
(page 4)
Item 5.6. Letter dated November 18, 1992, from Ms. Amelia G. McCulley,
Zoning Administrator, to Mr. Kirk Jansen, re: Official Determination of
Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1; Tax Map 69, Parcel 39, was received for
information.
Item 5.7. Letter dated November 19, 1992, from Mr. C. Henry Hinnant,
III, President and Chief Executive Officer, Westminster Canterbury, to the
Honorable David P. Bowerman, requesting support to include an extension of
public bus service to the Pantops area to include Westminster-Canterbury of
the Blue Ridge facility, was received for information.
Item 5.8. Letter dated November 13, 1992 from Ms. Barbara Everitt
Bryant, Director, Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce,
providing an official statement of the revised 1990 census population and
housing unit count for Albemarle County, Virginia. The letter states that the
population is 68,172 and the number of housing units are 25,998. This was
received for information.
Item 5.9. Albemarle County 1993 Legislative Packet from the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission Legislative Package, was received for
information.
Item 5.10. Copy of letter dated November 25, 1992, from Mr. Robert
Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive, to the Honorable Forrest R.
Marshall and the Honorable Walter F. Perkins re: Blue Ridge Advisory Commit-
tee for Shenandoah National Park, was received for information.
Item 5.11. Letter dated November 13, 1992, from Senator Edward M.
Kennedy, U. S. Senate, re: Fair Labor Standards Act, was received for
information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: December 18, 1991 (Afternoon)
and January 22, 1992.
Mr. Bain read the minutes of December 18, 1991 and found them to be in
order.
Mr. Martin read the minutes of January 22, 1992, (pages 1-11) and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the minutes of
December 18, 1991 and January 22, 1992, (pages 1-11) . 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. 7b. Highway Matters: Appropriation of Funds for
Langford Subdivision, Pippin Lane and Montgomery Lane Improvements.
Mr. Tucker said in July, 1979, four roads in Langford Subdivision were
constructed. Two of the four roads were accepted in the state secondary
system. The other two roads, Pippin Lane and Montgomery Lane, were brought up
to the required standards in 1987, but were not accepted because there were
not three occupied dwellings, which is a requirement for acceptance of any
road into the secondary system. Three years later, the third occupied
dwelling requirement was met and in 1991 the Engineering Department required
that the developer bring the roads up to state standards. In September, 1991,
the bond was called due to the developer's refusal to do the necessary work.
Since Montgomery Lane was first constructed 12 years ago, the road width has
decreased by approximately two feet due to encroachment. This road requires
substantial upgrading and improvements.
The cost to complete the corrected work, including any pavement patching
is approximately $13,000 and the cost of pavement corrections for both roads
is approximately $8725. The total cost is $22,000 which exceeds the bond
amount by approximately $12,000. The County Attorney has indicated an attempt
to recover the $12,000 from the developer, but the certainty of that is not
known. Staff is requesting, that in order to get the roads completed before
winter, the Board appropriate $22,000 to complete the work.
Mr. Perkins asked if there are any vacant lots on that street. Mr.
Tucker said he does not know. Mr. Perkins said if there are vacant lots to be
sold, the County should have some way to collect the cost. Mr. Tucker said he
will find out and report back to the Board.
Mr. Bain asked how critical it is to vote on this issue today. Mr.
Tucker said the main purpose was that the issue be voted on soon because S. L.
Williams closes its asphalt plant around December 15th. Mr. Bain asked if
County staff is doing this work or if it will be contracted. Mr. Tucker said
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
M.B. 43, Pg. 24
there is a bid to contract the work. Mr. Bain said he has similar concerns as
Mr. Perkins. Mr. Tucker said he does not think the developer has any vacant
lots on the street, but staff will look into it and report back before the end
of the meeting.
Mr. Bowerman said it has been the Board's policy to split any additional
costs, beyond the bond, with the adjacent property owners. Mr. Tucker said
that is correct. Mr. St. John said assuming it is impossible to get anything
from the developer, then the County's policy has been to have the property
owners with lots fronting the road or served by the road to pay one-half the
cost and the County pay the other one-half of the cost. The incentive for
those people to do this is not a legal requirement and the County cannot make
the landowners pay either before or after the road improvements are complete.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks the Board should defer this item and make the
landowners aware of the options and the costs. Mr. Bain asked how many lots
are on Pippin Lane and Montgomery Lane. Mr. Tucker said there are four or
five lots on Pippin and approximately 10 lots on Montgomery Lane.
Mr. Bowerman asked what will happen if the work is not complete until
spring. Mr. Tucker said since the roads are not in the secondary system they
would not have snow removal. Mr. Bain said one of the problems is that the
cost for improvements could increase from $22,000 to $30,000.
Mr. Tucker said the money could be appropriated, but it would not be
spent unless the bond money is received, and the homeowners agree to pay one-
half of the cost of the improvements. Mr. Tucker said he feels this would be
an incentive to the property owners that this Board has done all it can do.
Mr. Bain asked if separate bids were received for Pippin Lane and
Montgomery Lane. Mr. Tucker said "yes."
At this time, Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt
the following Resolution of Appropriation in the amount of $22,000 to upgrade
Pippin Lane and Montgomery Lane in Langford Subdivision, Section 2, with the
condition that the homeowners contribute 50 percent of the cost; and the
County Attorney will endeavor to first recover $12,000 from the developer
(appropriation form is set out in minutes of March 3, 1993).
Mr. Martin said he feels that since the County will try to recover the
funds from the developer through legal procedures, the County should also try
to negotiate with the developer to "pitch in" and make it a three-way partner-
ship to do the additional upgrades. Mr. St. John said he believes that is the
intent of the motion. Mr. Martin said he feels the County should begin with
the idea of splitting the costs evenly three ways versus the County having to
pay 50 percent. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks this is a good idea if it is
possible to do so. Mr. Bain said he does not have a problem with trying to do
this, but if the homeowners are willing to pay 50 percent to get the work done
then it should proceed with the project. If the County recovers the funds
from the developer, it can repay the homeowners.
Mr. Marshall said he feels it is the developers obligation to pay for
these upgrades. Mrs. Humphris said she feels this situation is different from
other situations because the developer paid to bring the roads to state
standards twice already, and it is not as if the developer did not attempt to
comply. Each time the roads were not accepted because of the residency
requirements. Mr. Marshall said he feels it is the developers responsibility
no matter how long it takes and he does not feel that asking the tax payers to
fund any of this is a good thing to do. He feels there should be some legal
requirement that this Board could require the developer to be responsible for
bringing the road up to state standards.
Mr. St. John said the County Attorney's office is presently in the
process of drafting an in-house manual to set out step-by-step procedures to
keep this situation from happening. This is something that the County has not
had in the past. There has never been any written procedure for handling
bonds and keeping track of them so that when the due date arrives, the
situation would be reevaluated.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County can legally require that the bond be
increased until all work is completed. Mr. St. John said the bond can be in-
creased or called, and the work done before the cost increases.
Mr. Tucker said the Board needs to remember that the County has hundreds
of bonds that it holds. This has not happened too many times. Sometimes
bonds do "fall through the cracks." The County is being more aggressive than
it has been in the past to get these roads into the state system by calling
these bonds rather than carrying the bonds over.
There being no further discussion, 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.
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.43, Pg. 25
(Page 6)
Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Approval of Functional Classifi-
cation of State Roads in the County.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. The Inter-
modal surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) requires that the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) functionally reclassify roads within the
state system based on their current function. Each locality and Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) must approve the functional classification for
roads within their jurisdiction. VDoT ultimately must submit a revised
functional classification for the state road system to the Federal Highway
Administration.
The functional classification of a road is most important in (1)
identifying the function, or primary purpose of the road; and (2) the stan-
dards for road design/construction. The functional classification does not
affect the availability or distribution of funding to the locality.
Staff has reviewed this proposed functional classification with VDoT and
the MPO Technical Committee and recommends approval of the proposed classifi-
cation.
Mr. Bain asked if the map before the Board is the total study and
urbanized areas. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes." Mr. Cilimberg said VDoT has final
approval on the system. Staff brought to the Board today the results of the
last meeting held by the Technical Committee on the functional classification
system. Staff understands today that VDoT may not be able to accept the
classification of Route 20 outside of the study area which was listed as a
minor arterial. %7DOT may have to classify this road as a major collector
going north. Staff has asked for the minor arterial category because of the
type of trips that this road serves and VDoT is saying that the road may have
to be a major collector.
Mr. Bain asked that staff or Mr. Roosevelt explain the difference and
what it means as to what is being voted on by this Board. Mr. Cilimberg said
he would like Mr. Roosevelt to explain that, but more than anything, it has
some implications for road design. Mr. Cilimberg said associated with this,
staff had also recommended that if Route 20 were upgraded to minor arterial, a
section of Route 250 west that parallels Interstate 64 (I-64) from the
interchange west, out of the County, be classified as a major collector rather
than a minor arterial because 1-64 is essentially serving the arterial purpose
there. VDoT is saying that if Route 20 has to be downgraded to a major
collector that Route 250 west will change to a minor arterial. This also has
a primary design implication if the road were ever approved.
Mr. Roosevelt said the standard that would be used for reconstruction of
Route 20 would be the difference between the minor arterial and major collec-
tors if it were ever reconstructed, i.e., different grades, curvature,
pavement width and shoulder width. Some of these may vary between the
arterial road standards and collector road standards. There is also a break
and, he believes, it is between the collector standards and minor collector
standards as to whether the classification of the road determines whether it
is eligible for certain federal funding. The arterial roads are eligible for
federal funding, the local roads are not, and some place in between there is a
break and those above that break are eligible for federal funding and those
below the break are not. At the local level, the County will not see a
difference in the funds distributed through the primary or secondary budgets.
This will not make a difference on whether the project gets built or not, just
whether federal funds are used in the construction. He thinks from a local
standpoint, the only real difference is which roadway standard is used.
Mr. Bain asked if there is a significance between the width of pavement
in a minor arterial and major collector and also, the horizontal/vertical
alignment. Mr. Roosevelt said the major differences between the two are in
alignment, curvature, grades and shoulder widths. The pavement widths are
almost the same for all standard roads and are either 11 or 12 feet in width.
Whether there are two or four lanes depends upon traffic and not the classifi-
cation of the road. The shoulder widths do vary considerably between the
standards, i.e. six feet or eleven feet, for the same types of volumes.
Mr. Roosevelt said he does not feel VDoT's hesitance to accept staff's
recommendation on Route 20 is just VDoT generated. This whole process is
required by the federal funding laws. At the federal level, the FHA has,
determined that each state will have a certain mileage in the Federal Aids
System and classification determines whether roads are in the system. The
maximums are being dealt with and if something in Albemarle County is added,
something somewhere else will have to be reduced. This is why staff is
receiving hesitance from VDoT.
Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Cilimberg stated that what has been presented to
the Board today was dealt with and approved by the MPO Technical Committee.
She asked how this was left when the MPO Policy Board dealt with it. Nine
differences were dealt with between VDoT's recommendation of the functional
classification and the County/staff recommendation. She asked what the "up-
shot" of these differences were. She remembers that %/DOT had listed Route
649, as an urban collector and staff listed it as an urban minor arterial.
Mr. Bill Jeffery, a representative of VDoT, said they would defer to the
County on that road. Mrs. Humphris asked if this recommendation shows a
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
M.B. 43, Pg. 26
change. Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said this shows
Route 649 as an urban minor arterial. Staff was just informed that VDoT
agreed with all of staff's recommendation except for Route 20 and Route 250
west.
Mr. Bowerman asked, if this resolution is adopted, what would it cover.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board could make the resolution apply to the entire
County and whatever the MPO approves would be another layer of what the Board
approves. The question is whether the Board wants to change staff recommenda-
tions to reflect VDoT's position or leave it "as is" and let the MPO address
it. Mr. Bain said the MPO will not address Route 250 west because that is not
in the urbanized area. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct and added that
Route 20 is outside of the urban area and will not be addressed by the MPO
either.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt a Resolution
concurring with the "1995 Highway Functional Classification" for Albemarle
County as updated by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Mr. Martin said the Board is making the two changes so that the County
is in compliance with what VDoT wants it to do and asked if the feeling of
this Board and staff is that the changes make sense. Mr. Bowerman said he
thinks the Board is saying that the changes are reasonable in reflection to
VDoT's thinking and there is no material difference in terms of the design
which would affect Albemarle County in the future. Mr. Martin asked if the
width of the road or the straightening of the shoulder will affect the County
in the future. Mr. Bain said this will only occur when, and, if it gets
approved, and then where the funding will come from will be reviewed. He has
concerns which is why he asked those questions of Mr. Roosevelt. He is not as
concerned with Route 250 west of 1-64. Something is more likely to happen on
Route 20 given its proximity to the urban area. Mr. Bowerman said as the
traffic count changes on Route 20 he suspects this Board would have an
opportunity to look at it differently.
Mr. Cilimberg said at any time, the Board can request a change in the
classifications. There are no improvement projects in the County's Six Year
Plan for Route 20 north.
Mr. Martin said he sees this as having the potential of being more than
it appears upfront. This Board is presently arguing with VDoT as to why dirt
and gravel roads cannot be paved at their existing levels. It seems that the
County is approving something that, in the future, it will have to battle VDoT
as to the road conditions. Mr. Bowerman said this is a lower standard,
specifically for Route 20, and this Board would have to ask that the standard
be raised. Mr. Martin said he is looking at the whole concept and not just
Route 20.
Mr. Bain said a lot of this is going along with the federal guidelines.
The roads that are going to be improved are roads with high traffic volumes.
That is why he is not as concerned.
There being no further discussion, 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.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) of 1991, Section 1006, required that the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) functionally reclassify the
roads and streets in the Commonwealth by December 31, 1992, based
on their current and anticipated functional usage; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has
previously functionally classified the State Highways in accor-
dance with guidelines presented in the "Highway Functional Classi-
fication Manual" (Volume 26, Appendix 12, Hiqhway Planninq Manu-
al); and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has
updated the functional classification in accordance with the
"Highway Functional Classification Manual" (Revised, March 1989)
and aforementioned ISTEA of 1991;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors concurs with the "1995 Highway Functional
Classification" for Albemarle County as updated by the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Other Highway Matters.
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
M.B. 43, Pg. 27
Mr. Roosevelt distributed his monthly progress report on projects under
construction in the County. (Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 10:31 a.m.)
Mr. Bain asked if Route 631 had been contracted. Mr. Roosevelt said
"yes," the contract was awarded to Faulconer Construction. A preconstruction
conference is scheduled for next Monday at which time VDoT will receive a date
as to when work will begin. Faulconer Construction requested an early
preconstruction conference so he gathers that they are ready to begin. Mr.
Bain asked if the construction time was basically 18 months. Mr. Roosevelt
said he thinks construction time is one year.
Mr. Roosevelt said last month the Board asked VDoT to look at the
traffic movement at the Routes 20 south/53 Intersection to see what improve-
ments can be done to alleviate traffic congestion. Although he does not have
a final report, he has looked at this situation with the traffic engineer and
is suggesting two widening proposals that could be done within the existing
right-of-way. He intends to pursue those to see whether VDoT will allow the
County to reduce the shoulder width at that location and if he can get fund-
ing. He also has asked the traffic engineer to do a traffic signal study at
that intersection. He feels this is a problem that exists only during an hour
or two in the morning and the rest of the day traffic functions fairly well.
He is not sure a traffic signal is the solution, but feels it does need to be
studied before it is dismissed.
Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Roosevelt when the transcripts of the Route 678
hearing will be available. Mr. Roosevelt said the ten day comment period
closed Monday and he has not had an opportunity to go through all of those
comments, but his intent is to send something to the Board in sufficient time
for it to consider the project at its January meeting. Mr. Roosevelt said he
will also request a resolution from the Board. He can also give the Board a
copy of the transcript if it wishes. Mr. Bain suggested the project be
discussed at the Board's February 3, 1993 meeting.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Roosevelt if he had an estimate of the damage to
roads caused by the flood on November 22nd. Mr. Roosevelt said the damage was
not as extensive at it first appeared. The flood did wash out some of the
gravel roads. He thinks VDoT will have the gravel roads in the same condition
as they were before the flood this week. To his knowledge there was no major,
permanent damage. VDoT is not planning to request any special funding because
of the flood and it is not expected that the extra work will exceed $75,000
which is the minimum limit for special funding. Mr. Roosevelt said if the
Board knows of any problems that VDoT has overlooked, they should be contact-
ed.
Mr. Martin asked if VDoT did something differently on Route 29 North in
front of Wal-Mart. The morning traffic flowed a lot better than it has in the
past. Mr. Roosevelt said the traffic engineer observed the signal for the
first month, as is done with all new traffic signals, and has tried to fine-
tune the signals so that the maximum amount of traffic is being moved through.
Mr. Bain asked when a cost estimate will be received for finishing the
road behind Berkmar Drive. Mr. Tucker said funding is in the CIP, but is in
the forth or fifth year. Staff is looking at trying to push this forward.
Staff is also considering negotiating with VDoT to get additional funding in
an attempt to move the project forward. Mr. Bowerman said this could be a
temporary improvement to Route 29 North during construction. Mr. Tucker said
this road improvement is tied to the urban transmission water line and staff
is trying to obtain right-of-way for the water line and the road. Mr.
Cilimberg said notification was received this week from Mr. Tom Farley,
Culpeper District Administrator, that the state will accept all of the section
of Hilton Heights Road back to the Berkmar Drive Intersection into the state
secondary system.
Mr. Bowerman asked when Berkmar Drive will be dedicated and opened for
traffic. Mr. Tucker said all the pavement has been completed, but there is
still some clean-up and final review to be done.
Mr. Bowerman said now that Hillsdale Drive is in the state secondary
system, he would like to encourage VDoT to yellow line it as soon as possible.
He feels that this is a necessary safety improvement to that roadway, due to
the traffic volume.
Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Tom Farley, Culpeper District Administrator, met
with some County staff and other citizens regarding Georgetown Road. Mr.
Farley brought a design engineer and a planning engineer with him, and they
walked the road and there was lots of traffic and use of the asphalt path.
Mr. Farley's staff is going to draw up a plan and present it to the citizens
group and anyone else who is interested. She is grateful to Mr. Farley and
Mr. Roosevelt's offices for cooperating and taking time to look into the
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
M.B. 43, Pg. 28
safety concerns of Georgetown Road, and the intersection concerns of Hydraulic
and Georgetown Road.
Agenda Item No. 8. Report: Children and Youth Commission Needs
Assessment and Five Year Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. John Dawson, Chairman of the Children and Youth Commission (CACY),
said the purpose of this report is to discuss the needs assessment and the
Comprehensive Plan done on services provided by CACY. This will be used as a
guideline for CACY, County staff and City staff for funding programs and
services. Surveys, a questionnaire and public hearings were held to gather
information. The information was compiled into this report.
Mr. Dawson said the number one need determined was a safe place for teen
socialization and recreation which is the purpose of the Teen Center. Other
issues that CACY found to be problems were: alcohol use, affordable day care,
coordination, employment opportunity for teens and enrichment support for the
family. Teen sexuality was not mentioned, but CACY is developing a forum to
address this issue.
CACY's four major goals are to: (1) insuring a safe and healthy
childhood for the communities children; (2) preparing community teens for
positive adulthood; (3) supporting and strengthening families; and (4)
enhancement of CACY's services and delivery system. CACY then developed
strategies to accomplish each of those goals: teen center; substance abuse;
prevention and intervention (911 for substance abuse); provide positive
childcare situations; approve coordination and accountability of service to
liberty system; and juvenile delinquency prevention and intervention.
Mr. Dawson said as part of the report, CACY interviewed a teen center
located in New England. The center is approximately 75 percent self-support-
ing and one of its programs is a teen employment program where a percentage of
the money that youths earn goes back into the center to provide support. This
is a possibility for the proposed center.
Mrs. Humphris said she thought the report was excellent. The report was
well documented and helpful and showed clearly where the statistics came from
and how the conclusions were reached. She was concerned about some of the
results, particularly that 42 surveys were sent to agencies and only 21 were
returned. She wonders why the percentage was not significantly higher since
these agencies deal with CACY. Secondly, she was concerned that 15,000
surveys were distributed to the schools, but some of the schools did not
distribute them surveys. Of the 15,000 sent out, 152 were completed which is
only about one percent. There were five well advertised town meetings and a
total of 50 people were in attendance at all the meetings. She is disappoint.-
ed in these results. Mr. Dawson said he shares Mrs. Humphris' concern. The
schools are an on-going problem and they cannot be forced to participate. He
was also disappointed at the turn-outs of the town meetings; only one of the
meetings was well attended.
Mrs. Humphris said she noticed that one of the responses that drew
attention on the questionnaire was the lack of quantity in the visual and
performing arts. It seems to her that CACY could work with sponsoring
organizations and when they know there will be empty seats at an event, those
seats be made available to young people.
Mr. Martin said the report was thorough. The same thing that Mrs.
Humphris mentioned with the visual and performing arts is true with substance
abuse. There are a number of services in the community, but a lot of people
do not know about them or do not want the services.
Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Dawson if he had any idea as to the cost of the
teen center. Mr. Dawson said the Parks and Recreation Department has prepared
a detailed budget which will be distributed next week. The idea now is to get
a director who can begin coordination.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Dawson if he feels progress is being made by CACY or
does he feel there is too much "spinning of the wheels." Mr. Dawson said it
took approximately a year for CACY to get its feet on the ground. He feels
CACY is enhancing the delivery system and is doing a good job of identifying
gaps.
Mr. Bowerman asked if CACY has an indefinite term span. Mr. Tucker said
the committee is basically indefinite, and he does not think it was set up
just to develop a report, but as an on-going commission that will oversee the
children and youth agencies.
At this time, Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt
the Five Year Comprehensive Plan and recognize that it is the working document
for the Children and Youth Commission.
Mr. Bain asked if the work program which the Board received separately
was incorporated into the Five Year Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Dawson said
"yes;" that is CACY's working plan.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
M.B. 43, Pg. 29
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Request from the Ridge Restaurant to increase size
of sewage pump force main.
Mr. Bain disqualified himself from this discussion due to a conflict of
interest and left the room at 11:20 a.m. (Mr. Martin and Mr. Tucker left the
room at 11:20 a.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. The Board of
Supervisors, at its meeting on October 7, 1992, approved the request to amend
the Albemarle County Service Authority service area boundaries for "sewer
service" to Tax Map 57, Parcel 3lA, for a two-inch sewer line to existing
structure, existing use and existing capacity only, contingent on the appli-
cant getting the required easements and doing the necessary work to make the
connection by March 12, 1993. The Ridge Restaurant is requesting a change in
the allowance from a two inch sewer line (force main) to a three inch sewer
line (force main) due to the higher friction head, and pumping requirements of
a two inch versus a three inch. The applicants justification is a savings in
energy and avoidance of three-phase power.
The Engineering Department has reviewed this request and agree with the
applicant and noted that "limiting the diameter will not be effective and will
only make the design and operation more costly..." Engineering suggests
limiting the rate of discharge for the pump station "would provide more
effective and practical control on the use of the proposed force main." As
the diameter change of the line will not affect its capacity, it appears that
this request will not change the intent of the service area allowance. Staff
recommends approval.
Mrs. Humphris said staff recommendation did not acknowledge the Engi-
neering Department's statement that placing a limit or moratorium on the rate
of discharge, based on the state's criteria, would provide more effective and
practical control on the use of the proposed force main. She asked why, if
changing from a two to three inch line, the recommendation did not say that
the rate of discharge should be limited to whatever the state determines for
this use. Mr. Cilimberg said that could be included and was not purposely
left out. The language could be substituted, but the applicant should be
aware of this and be able to comment on that. He does not think the applicant
would want to specify the pump site because it is not presently known. Mrs.
Humphris said that if the applicant states that "based upon the state criteria
for this use," it would suit her. She thinks this Board should follow the
Engineering Department's recommendation on that.
Mr. Forbes Reback, representing the applicant, said he does not know
what the state criteria means. Mrs. Humphris said what is important to this
Board and the County is the rate of discharge from the system, not what the
pipe carries, but what effluent is going out. The way to do this is not to
limit the size of the pipe which is causing a problem, but to limit the rate
of discharge according to what the state's criteria would be. She understands
that the state has these criteria, she is just asking that it be set out in
the conditions of approval. Mr. Cilimberg said if he understands, Mrs.
Humphris is suggesting the approval be "to amend the service area boundaries
for a sewer line and associated pump station whose discharge shall be based on
the state's criteria to serve the existing structure, existing use and
existing capacity only." Mrs. Humphris said this is correct. (Mr. Tucker
returned to the room at 11:23 a.m.)
Mr. Bowerman said he does not have a problem with including that
language, but he suspects that the discharge will not be measured. The state
is going to look at the size of the pipe and pump. Mr. Cilimberg said the
applicant has to size the pump to meet the flow that will be discharged from
the business. Mr. Bowerman asked if the actual discharge is where it goes
into the sanitary sewer measured as a function of what the applicant is
billed. Mr. Reback responded "no," the applicant is billed by the water
usage. Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant uses public water. Mr. Reback
said a meter is installed on the well. Mr. Bowerman then said the discharge
would be based upon water flow and there is a mechanism to measure it. (Mr.
Martin returned to the room at 11:25 a.m.)
At this time, Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
approve the request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority Service
area boundaries for "sewer service" to Tax Map 57, Parcel 31A, for a sewer
line and associated pump station whose discharge shall be based on the State's
criteria to serve the existing structure, existing use and existing capacity
only. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bain.
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
M.B. 43, Pg. 30
(Mr. Bain returned to the room at 11:30 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Branchlands Wetland Marsh Area; request approval
for subdivision of parcel to dedicate the wet basin portion (approximately 1.1
acres) to the County.
(Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Perkins left the room at 10:31 a.m.)
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"BACKGROUlqD: The PUD agreement for the development of Branchlands
provides for a wetlands marsh area to be established within a
temporary easement to serve as a wetland research project in
conjunction with University of Virginia. The majority of this
area is located on Tax Map/Parcel 61Z-03-11A with a very small
portion located on 61Z-03-11. The easement was to remain for as
long as the wetland served as a water quality facility. Clause B.2
in the PUD agreement states that if at some future time the County
Engineering Department determines that the wetlands is no longer
serving its intended purpose of water quality management, the
project will be terminated and the easement vacated. A reasonable
assumption (although no documentation was found) is that upon
completion of the UVA research project, the wetland was to remain
natural or unmaintained until natural sedimentation rendered the
wetland area useless. At that time, the owner could request that
the County abandon the easement and submit a site plan for removal
of the wetland. If this assumption is accurate, then the intent
of the PUD agreement was to establish a temporary easement with a
useful life span and no maximum time limit.
DISCUSSION: Over the past four years site plans were approved
within the PUD recognizing this wetland area as the only quality
and partial quantity control for the developed area. This wetland
area, along with another minor detention area, provides the only
detention for the entire PUD. In addition, this wetland area is
the only quality control facility for the entire PUD. If the
wetland area is taken out of service, any pollutants being removed
from current or future development would be discharged directly
into the stream.
At present, the routine maintenance of the spillway and downstream
channel are done by the owner. If the function is to become
permanent, future long term maintenance would entail repairs to
the embankment and emergency spillway and periodic removal of the
sediments from the wetland area.
Clause B.2 of the PUD agreement creates a 'temporary' easement
with no finite conclusion. At the same time, the PUD agreement
states that parcel llA, where the majority of the wetlands marsh
is located, has development use as 'commercial/service'
There are two issues needing resolution: (1) the marsh/wetland is
providing a permanent, not temporary, water quality and quantity
function, and (2) once made permanent the ownership and responsi-
bility for long term maintenance. Staff, in conjunction with
respective property owners, proposes the following concept plan to
resolve Clause B.2:
Owner subdivide and dedicate the 1.1 acre wetland basin to
the County;
Release 2.2 acres back to the owner;
Permanent drainage easements where necessary.
RECO~E~-DATION: Board to take action to accept this concept as
being consistent with Clause B.2 of the Branchlands PUD agreement.
This will allow processing of the subdivision plat."
(Mr. Bowerman returned to the room at 11:34 a.m.)
Mr. Bain asked what it would cost the County annually to assume respon-
sibility for this area. Mr. Tucker said the County Engineer felt the cost
would be fairly minimal. The County would require the developer to make some
improvements and dredging before the County assumes the responsibility. There
would be on-going maintenance improvements, but staff does not feel this would
have a major impact.
(Mr. Perkins returned to the room at 11:36 a.m.)
Mrs. Humphris asked if County staff would provide the maintenance. Mr.
Tucker said maintenance may have to be contracted out. The Berkmar Drive
basin is County maintained and this would work similarly. Mr. Cilimberg said
this would continue to exist as a wetlands type area and would not be a dry
basin.
Mr. Bowerman said the basin would still function as some sort of water
control with well water quality. He then asked if the basin would be replant-
ed after it was dredged. Mr. Tucker said in order to maintain the basin as a
wetlands, the vegetation is important and he imagines, some of that same type
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
M.B. 43, Pg. 31
of wetlands vegetation would have to be replanted. Mr. Cilimberg said he
believes that if the County takes over maintenance of the facility, it takes
the responsibility of ensuring that this continues to function as a wetlands.
Mr. Bain asked if the County can make sure that gets done before this property
gets put into use. Mr. Tucker said "yes," if that is necessary.
Mr. Bowerman said the major issue that he is looking at is there is no
on-site detention or anything for any of the businesses in that area. He
asked if the remaining ponds would fulfill the calculated storm water storage
areas. Mr. Tucker said according to the County Engineer this area will
accommodate what is left there. There is really only one major site left.
Mr. Bowerman said he is mindful of the amount of runoff that comes from that
site which is combined with what is coming off of Commonwealth Drive, the
whole drainage area, what it does to Meadow Creek and how it impacts that
subdivision. Mr. Bowerman said he believes this Board should go ahead with
what is before it today, but he wants to make sure that there is a mechanism
in place where if it is determined that the storage capacity has been reduced
below that which was originally calculated, the capacity can be recaptured on
another undeveloped site and would be a requirement.
Mrs. Humphris said she needs staff to explain to her County policy on
the issue of what factors determine who is responsible for on-site containment
as in areas such as Fashion Square, and when does it become a County responsi-
bility as the Board is preparing to do here. She asked when the County began
taking on and maintaining drainage basins. Mr. Tucker said the Berkmar Drive
detention basin was the first one that the County initiated in terms of
building a basin with developer fees. The developer was willing to continue
to maintain the basin, but it is hard to get in contact with him when there is
a hea%~; rain. Therefore, staff felt it was best that the County assume
responsibility for this area. The basin in Four Seasons is another example
with the same situation; it serves a basin beyond the development and serves
other properties. This is where it becomes a public basin, because it serves
a regional function off-site. Mrs. Humphris asked why this situation was not
anticipated. Mr. Tucker said the basin at Four Seasons was built as an
aesthetic item on that plan.
Mr. Bowerman said Branchlands was part of the Regional Stormwater
Management Plan which included detention basins all the way to Whitewood Road
initially. The Berkmar basin was constructed to provide a wider control plan
for that whole urban area.
Mr. Tucker said it may be helpful for the Board to discuss the issue of
stormwater drainage and how the County got into basins rather than underground
drainage structures. The issue goes back to the mid-to-late 1970's. It was
costly to install underground drainage structures. This was a better mecha-
nism from a cost standpoint, however, through time staff has learned that some
of these basins, if serving a regional perspective, should be maintained by
the locality. Mr. Tucker said quantity is going to be the next big issue for
urban areas. The County is not required to do that yet, but communities of
200,000 and greater are required to begin meeting quantity demands.
Mr. Bowerman asked who is responsible for maintenance of Lickinghole
Creek. Mr. Tucker responded the County. Mr. Bowerman said it seems to him
that the County is getting more and more into a public works situation, as it
relates to run-off control facilities. Mr. St. John said the County is
getting involved in stormwater management.
Mr. Bowerman said he can accept the modifications to the Branchlands
PUD. He was particularly concerned about the quantity of run-off and it being
maintained after this change. He has been assured that this was taken into
account and would not be changed. Mr. Bain said given all of the discussion
he, too, is willing to accept the modifications.
Mr. Bain then made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to accept the
concept, as outlined in the Executive Summary, received November 25, 1992,
from Mr. Richard E. Huff, II, for the Branchlands Wetland Marsh Area, as being
consistent with Clause B.2 of the Branchlands PUD agreement.
Mr. Bain then requested information on the annual cost to maintain the
basin.
There being no further discussion, 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. 11. Public Access Cable Television Studio, Request for
Funds.
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"BACKGROUI~D: As part of the recent negotiations with Adelphia
Cable Company, the City has agreed to equip a television studio
capable of providing access to the general public for locally
originated programming. The County, as you know, does not have a
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
M.B. 43, Pg. 32
franchise agreement with the cable company and, as such, has no
understanding with the cable company to provide County residents
this same access. The City has offered to share this facility
with County residents in exchange for a contribution of $2,000
towards equipment for this project. Total project cost is expect-
ed to be approximately $50,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve an
expenditure of $2,000 from the Board's Contingency Account in
order to provide County residents with this service."
Mrs. Humphris asked if this is a one time expense. Mr. Tucker said
"yes."
Mr. Bowerman said it is only four percent of the capital cost to offer
cable access and it seems that if it gives County citizens an opportunity to
use this facility, which he is not sure they could be excluded from using, he
thinks at least four percent of the viewership would be composed of urban
County citizens. Mrs. Humphris asked if there would be data to show that
County citizens use it. Mr. Tucker said he will check on this.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the follow-
ing Resolution of Appropriation (set out below) to appropriate $2000 from the
Board's contingency fund for the public access cable television studio. Roll
was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FI/ND:
PURPOSE:
1992/93
920025
General
TO PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO CABLE TELEVISION STUDIO
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1100079000567305
1100011010999999
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
CABLE TV-PUBLIC ACCESS
BOS-CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
$ 2,000.00
(2,000.00)
$ 0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
TOTAL $ 0.00
Agenda Item No. 12. Appropriation: Information Services.
Mr. Tucker said this appropriation is regarding the shifting of Instruc-
tional Technology Services from the school division to the local government's
Information Services Department to manage. The request is that the budget
items that were included in the school division's budget for this program be
shifted to the General Fund in the amount of $113,164.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the follow-
ing Resolution of Appropriation to transfer funds from the school division's
budget to the General Fund due to the shift in management of the Instructional
Technology Services Department (set out below). 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.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
1992/93
920022
School/General
TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR INFORMATION SERVICES PERSONNEL
FROM EDUCATION TO INFORMATION SERVICES.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1211161311111400
1211161311210000
1211161311221000
1211161311231000
1211161311232000
1211161311241000
1211461320114300
1211461320210000
1211461320221000
1211461320231000
1211461320232000
1211461320241000
1100012200110000
1100012200210000
1100012200221000
1100012200231000
SALARIES- OTHER MANAGEMENT
FICA
VRS
HEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL I NSLIR3LNCE
VRS LIFE INSURANCE
SALARIES - TECHNICAL
FICA
VRS
HEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
VRS LIFE INSURANCE
SALARIES -REGULAR
F1CA
VRS
HEALTH INSURANCE
($63,576 00)
(4,864 00)
(8,061 00)
(2,420 00)
(120 00)
(598 00)
(26,596 00)
(2, O35 00)
(3,372 00)
(1,210 00)
(6o 00)
(252 00)
90,172 00
6,899.00
11,433.00
3,630.00
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
M.B. 43, Pg. 33
1100012200232000
1100012200241000
DENTAL INSURANCE
VRS LIFE INSURANCE
180.00
850.00
1100093010930001
GENERAL-TRANSFER SCHOOL FI/N]D (113,164.00/
TOTAL ($113,164.00)
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200051000512001 SCHOOL-TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND ($113,164.00)
TOTAL ($113,164.00)
Agenda Item No. 12a. CIP Update - Debt Service on Additional School
Projects.
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"BACKGROUND: The Board received a sheet on the additional debt
service costs for previously unfunded school projects in the FY
1993/94 CIP.
The information is divided into three major sections. The first
shows the additional costs of all the school recreational projects
including Brownsville. Although this project was initially
requested by the School Division for 1994/95, the Brownsville PTO
is strongly desirous of having the improvements completed in
1993/94. You will also note that the tennis court resurfacing at
Western Albemarle High School has been deferred at the request of
the School Division, because the intended location may be used for
expansion. The second section provides the additional debt
service costs for other unfunded school projects, with the aster-
isks denoting high priority projects of the School Division.
The final section shows the additional debt service if all unfund-
ed projects were added to the Fall '93 Bond issue, $24,750 for FY
93/94 and $84,890 for FY 94/95. This would raise the total debt
service in FY 93/94 to $5.6 million and in FY 94/95 to $6.7
million. Debt service for the current FY 92/93 budget is $5.2
million."
Mr. Bain said he thought the Board was going to look at the recreational
projects only. Mr. Tucker said that was included in the first part of the
report. Subsequently, staff learned that there were a number of other
projects that were discussed by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bain said he considered those additional projects as minor and that
they could all be combined.
Mr. Bowerman said he did not expect to see the Murray High School roof
replacement on this list because of its size. He considered that project to
be a long-term expenditure.
Mr. Tucker commented that the public hearing on the CIP is scheduled for
December 16, 1992. Mr. Bain asked in what year of the CIP was the Murray roof
replacement included. Mr. Tucker said it has been shifted out one year.
Mr. Bain asked why the expansion of the tennis resurfacing was deferred.
Mr. Tucker said that project was deferred because of the possible expansion of
the high school. Mr. Bain asked when the expansion of the high school would
be studied. Mr. Tucker said this was scheduled to be funded in the CIP for
next year. Dr. Paskel thinks this study will be completed within the next six
months.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like for the recreational project to be
included on the list of CIP projects for the current year. Mr. Bain said he
concurs. The reason he is questioning the tennis resurfacing is that if the
study is going to be done and data will be received, he does not want this to
have to wait.
Mr. Tucker said the Board can take action on the recreational projects,
including Western Albemarle's tennis track resurfacing and wait to discuss the
Murray High School roof replacement item with the School Board. The Board can
then take action on the roof replacement after meeting with the School Board.
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the recre-
ational projects ($207,800) and cost figure of Western Albemarle High School's
tennis track resurfacing be funded in the Capital Improvements Program for FY
1993/94. 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.
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
At 12:10 p.m., the Board adjourned to go to lunch.
M.B. 43, Pg. 34
Agenda Item No. 13. Lunch with Virginia Cooperative Extension Services.
At 12:45 p.m., the entire Board reconvened in the Extension Service Offices.
Also present were: Delegate Mitchell Van Yahres, Senator Edgar Robb, and
Delegate Peter Way.
After lunch, the Board listened to presentations from several persons
involved with Extension work. Ms. Ann Webb, President of the 4-H Leader
Association, said she has been associated with the club for seven years. They
have 40 members ages eight to 16. The club teaches the participating children
self-esteem and gives them a choice of activities from computers to farming.
There was a shortfall in the budget, but they had a 4-H Agent who worked with
the children and as a result, more children joined. She saw in the newspaper
that there is interest in starting more clubs, but she does think they are
needed. Her son had been a member of 4-H for seven years and had the opportu-
nity to attend a week long conference on citizenship in Maryland this summer.
That type of opportunity will be lost if they do not get their budget. These
are the types of things which will make future leaders.
Ms. Fran Bonniti, a member of the Master Gardner's Association, said she
has volunteered 1000 hours in the last two years for this project. She gave a
number of examples of their work.
Mrs. Dawn Badgely, Nutritionist with the City schools, said they got a
grant on sanitation in cooperation with the Extension Service. All employees
in the City school system (21 city schools) and employees from 17 schools in
the County took this course. Charlottesville City has the only school system
in the state which has trained all its personnel in sanitation. Mrs. Badgely
invited all in attendance to come and enjoy lunches in the city system. She
mentioned that the city system also has put recycling into practice.
Mr. Tony Zincraft said he is a farm manager and has been a farmer for
eight years. He has used the Extension Service over the past years. He noted
that a lot of people educated in college are moving into farming at least on a
part-time basis. Extension provides a place to get advise. The small farmer
concept is coming in the future. He does not think there will be large or
family farms, but people farming on a part-time basis and Extension is needed
to help create that type of environment.
The next person speaking said it is a long and complicated process to
get beef on restaurant table. Heretofore, beef has been federally inspected,
and that is a problem. There is research taking place at the present to get
the slaughtering, inspecting, etc., all done within the state.
Mr. Woody Baker, a farm manager, said he and Tony come from a non-
agricultural background. He has concerns and asked how the Supervisors see
the future of agriculture. Does it have a place in this County? Agriculture
needs to be nurtured. For the part-time farmers, there is much they need to
know in this field. Extension is an outstanding resource. They network and
put people together. His hat is off to this office for putting them in touch
with the needed information. Mr. Baker said Mr. Kluge has something going for
beef with Ukrops, but the little guy needs help.
Mr. John Ratty said he is a gypsy moth volunteer. He is a realtor who
has property in northwest Albemarle. He got involved out of personal interest
and volunteered to send up balloons early in the morning in spray areas. He
thinks of this program as a job and saving money.
Mr. Robb said after his experience as a General Assembly member last
year, he thinks it is important for Extension to get the message out as to
what it does in the urban area. Last year, after it was found that the
Extension Services budget was being attacked, thousands wrote in about that.
He advised that this be done again. Mr. Robb said he was a 4-Her for six
years and does not think he would have become an FBI agent without the 4-H
experience. He will support their budget request.
Mr. Van Yahres said it not so much rural versus urban, but it is rural
and urban versus suburban. The cities are losing strength, but 4-H and
Extension have a lot to do with the inner-city. Small farming appears to be
the trend. He talked to Dr. Clinton Turner and Mr. Allen at Virginia Tech and
they are moving in the direction of keeping the Extension Department competi-
tive. Extension has to fight for its budget. Extension has a good product to
sell, but they have not had good public relations in the past.
Mr. Bowerman said that in the last update of the County's Comprehensive
Plan a recommendation concerning creation of an Agricultural/Forestal Commit-
tee was included. That committee was appointed today. There are 12 to 14
members from different activities in the County. This can be used as a
resource for the Extension Service. The idea is to encourage the agricultur-
al/forestry industry in the County as a viable on-going enterprise, no matter
the size of the farm.
Mr. Tucker said that in addition to the Agricultural/Forestal Committee
there will be work on a fairgrounds area.
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
M.B. 43, Pg. 35
Mr. Van Yahres said the Extension Service should not forget about
nontraditional things such as turf grass management. Mr. Charley Goodman,
Unit Director, Extension Services, said they are conducting turf grass
research at the Rivanna Park. It is one of only 30 such projects in the
country.
Mr. Steven Meeks, Gypsy Moth Coordinator, said in the future a gypsy
moth GIS system will be developed. They will be better able to monitor the
spread of the gypsy moth. There is also work in the way of education program-
ming to deal with the presence of the southern pine bark beetle.
Mr. Allen Thompson, Gypsy Moth naturalist, was also present.
Ms. Lovedy Papproth, Extension Agent, said they have been helping
families deal with problems of the recession. They have public service
announcements on Channel 29 and on local radio stations. They will have
workshops in January in many areas of the County on items such as, finances
and how to eat better on less money. They have put out 15 new publications.
Mr. Macio Hill, 4-H Agent, said he is enthusiastic about what has been
done in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. Youth development is important,
and with education budgets being cut, it is important to get to youth outside
of school to develop those things which last for a life time. The 4-H club
has served over 1400 since last February.
Mr. Mark Reynolds, Extension Agent, said he would like to reemphasize
what has been said about the importance of agriculture in Albemarle. He then
gave various statistics concerning production of various items in the County
and said Albemarle is in the top one-third of the state in production.
Mr. Bowerman asked if anyone knew the value of the agricultural industry
for one year. Mr. Dave Baden said he has been working with the Planning
District on that and would guess that between $25.0 and $40.0 million was
generated. Mr. Baden said he is one of nine farm agents in the area; there
used to be 20 farm agents. The thrust this year is to computerize the system
to make it easy to use and keep it fairly inexpensive. Farm record and
records management will be computerized soon.
Mr. Goodman said the Extension Service has research going on in the
county at all times. They deal with agriculture as a major priority, but also
deal with the environment, and the profitability of agriculture. They help
the homeowner. They are people dedicated to change and are not upset about
change, but look forward to it. America is one of the few places where less
than twenty percent of a person's income goes for food. America has been able
to do this by keeping people in touch with current research. Mr. Goodman
mentioned that during the height of the General Assembly session they get as
many as 150 calls a day. He thanked all who had attended the meeting today.
Agenda Item No. 14. 1:30 P.M. Reconvene in Room 5/6 for Meeting with
State Legislators. Present were: Delegate Mitchell Van Yahres, Senator Edgar
Robb and Delegate Peter T. Way.
Mr. Bowerman introduced Ms. Patsy Moore, Chairman of the Albemarle
County School Board. If anyone has any questions in the legislative packet of
the school system, Ms. Moore or Mr. L.A. Reaser, Director of Building Servic-
es, can respond.
Mr. Bowerman said the purpose of this meeting is to discuss Albemarle
County's legislative programs before the General Assembly convenes. A lot of
these legislative programs are part of the Virginia Association of Counties
program.
Mr. Tucker then began summarizing the County's major requests. The
first item is to allow Albemarle County's Police Department to ticket parked
vehicles not displaying a County decal.
Mr. Robb said this legislation was carried over to the 1993 General
Assembly session and he will be addressing it on December 10th at a sub-
committee meeting that will be held by the House of Courts. Albemarle County
can be included with a number of other counties that already have the capabil-
ity of doing this, or a state law could be passed to cover the entire state,
which would allow Albemarle and all other counties this authority. Hopefully,
this legislation will be passed in the next session. He will know more after
the meeting on December 10, 1992.
Mr. Bain asked the legislators for their opinions on Albemarle's major
legislative requests (equal taxing/borrowing, state lottery, state mandates
and growth management).
Mr. Way said the Dillon Rule Commission has completed its report. He
does not have any idea as to how much of that will be dealt with in this
session. He attended one of the Commission meetings and the things that
surprised him were that a vast majority of the Commission was composed of
members of the legislature who were not re-elected, and there was primarily
local government representation and very little business representation. He
thinks that the findings of the Commission will generally be to Albemarle
County's liking.
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
M.B. 43, Pg. 36
Mr. Van Yahres said he gets the feeling that there is beginning to be
more sympathy towards the equal taxing powers. This same question has been
raised for many years. There are more legislators being elected who have
experience in local government, i.e. retired mayors, supervisors and school
board members. These members understand local problems and are sympathetic.
He does not know whether this is the year of equality and equity, but it is
building up its own momentum.
Mrs. Humphris said she attended a session of the Dillon Rule Commission
at VACo's annual meeting and they expressed a guarded optimism. The partici-
pants felt there was a better chance this year than ever before. They feel
this might be the year, but said it would require everyone's support.
Mr. Robb said he just received the report of the Advisory Commission on
the Dillon Rule in local government. There are certain recommendations that
he feels will be passed and there are some that will not. He thinks the
recommendations concerning equal taxing and borrowing powers will be denied.
If any part of this report on the Dillon Rule is adopted, he thinks it will be
the "first bite out of the apple" and the beginning of the erosion of the
Dillon Rule. The problem, as he understands it, is that if the Dillon Rule
was relaxed, it would set a precedent and then some other rulings would have
to be changed.
Mr. St. John asked how the legislature is intermingling the relaxation
of the Dillon Rule with equal taxing and borrowing powers. If his memory is
correct, the Dillon Rule cannot be found anywhere. The Rule is not in the
Virginia Constitution nor any statute. It is simply a traditional rule that
the Virginia Supreme Court adopted, but the equal taxation powers would
require an amendment to the Virginia Constitution because this is where the
limitation on county taxing powers is found. Relaxing Dillon's Rule would not
give equal taxing power.
Ms. Andrea Trank, Legislative Liaison, said the Commission made a number
of recommendations. The Commission was appointed by the Governor which means
that it does not carry any legislative weight unless the legislative commit-
tees, counties, cities and towns decides they agree with the recommendations.
There are a couple of items that are non-controversial and there are some big
items that broadly construe the powers of local government.
Mr. Bain said equal taxing and borrowing powers would mean dollars in
the community from tourism and visitors. Mr. Van Yahres said the resistance
is that voters spoke in opposition to the lodging tax.
Mr. Marshall asked how each legislator anticipates voting on the issue
of equal taxing and borrowing powers. Mr. Van Yahres said he would vote for
it. Mr. Way and Mr. Robb said they would vote against it. Mr. Marshall asked
Mr. Way and Mr. Robb why they would vote against it. Mr. Way said it depends
on how the issue comes about. He served on the Board of Supervisors long
enough to know that if there are additional sums of money, ways will be found
to spend it. He does not think the property and real estate taxes would be
reduced, but feels additional taxes would be added.
Mr. Van Yahres said he would vote for it because he thinks this is a
local issue and if the locality does not like what its Board of Supervisors'
is doing, the residents can vote the members out. He feels each Board member
will have to make a good case for the tax and does not feel the case will be
to add more revenue to the locality because it feels this is what it should
have. Bringing issues of the locality close to the residents where they can
be discussed is the kind of government that has to be developed. He feels the
localities closer to the citizens need more power to answer to the people. He
trusts the localities to do the things that are right for the community.
Mr. Robb said he does not disagree with Mr. Van Yahres' position because
the members of the Board will answer for what they do, but feels the issue
should be looked at according to the services the City has to provide compared
to the County. The City has sidewalks, street lights, fire safety and various
other services that the County does not provide. It costs the City more money
per citizen to function than it does the County.
Mr. Tucker said Albemarle County is providing those same services,
except it does not provide sidewalks. Mr. Bowerman said Albemarle County's
tax rate is $0.74/$100 and the City of Charlottesville's tax rate is $1.12/
$100. The difference is that the City taxes fixed assets, personal property
and real estate in order to pay for what it feels are necessities. Mr. Robb
said he does not think as much money is needed to run a county per citizen as
what a city needs. Mr. Perkins said Mr. Robb is probably correct, but it is
getting closer all the time. The county citizen is demanding more and more
services. Mr. Robb said as the county citizens demand more services, they
should have to decide whether they want higher taxes. Mr. Bain said the
county needs the power to make decisions at the local level. Mr. Robb asked
if Albemarle County has any other taxing capabilities other than property
taxes. Mr. Bain said "no."
Mr. Bowerman said the Board of Supervisors does not want to raise
property taxes because it falls, in many cases, on those least able to pay
because the real estate costs. Mr. Perkins said there are probably more
people who live in Albemarle County who will not live in the City's urban
ring, but are demanding the same services be provided to them as the City
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
M.B. 43, Pg. 37
residents receive. Mr. Bowerman said there is no current legislation that
allows this locality to receive back from the state income tax or would allow
the County to levy in addition to the state income tax funds in a more
progressive way which is based more on one's ability to pay. The County has
only the personal property and real estate taxes to rely on. The meals tax
was grimly debated and defeated in the County. This was one attempt the
County planned to use to pay for capital items which was less aggressive. He
does not know, if this Board had the authority, whether it would choose to
enact the meals tax.
Mr. Robb asked Mr. Bowerman if the County were granted the same taxing
and borrowing power and authority that the City has, would Albemarle County's
taxes be raised in the next six months. Mr. Bowerman said the specific need
would have to first be identified. Mr. Robb said it seems the need has been
identified. Mr. Bain said he, as a Board member, would incorporate the
lodging tax and cut personal property taxes. He feels this is critical. The
meals tax was delineated specifically as to where it would go and it would
have been for debt reduction. Mr. Robb said he feels, at this point, he could
not support, still coming out of the recession and given the political climate
of a new presidency, a tax increase and therefore, would not support any
legislation for equal taxing powers, whether it be a state tax increase or
local tax increase. He would not want to be part of facilitating or agreeing
with a tax increase and he feels that this is what Albemarle County wants to
do. Until every drop of efficiency is "squeezed" out of the government,
whether state, federal or local, he cannot support any type of tax increase.
His legislative position may be different in 1994.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board of Supervisors has pushed for equal taxing
and borrowing power and has always said, if granted, it would provide property
tax relief. This Board has always had the intention of being able to provide
relief because this local body realizes the tremendous burden that having to
rely on the property tax so heavily places on people across-the-board, but
most particularly people in the lower income bracket. This Board involves
itself in the Albemarle Housing Improvements Program (AHIP), where people go
out and make improvements on a home, increases its livability and safety and
immediately the County accessors have to reassess the property and the people
who live there have to pay higher property taxes. The Board is faced with
many problems like this. She appreciates what Mr. Van Yahres has said. The
six people who are elected as representatives to the Board are the ones who
have to face the consequences of the decisions they make. This Board is
expected to provide both what the citizens of the County want, and deal with
the fall-out if they disagree with what the members do. She feels this is why
there is so much value in serving in local government. The Board does not
want the power to rush out and raise taxes, but only to provide alternatives
and give property tax relief.
Mr. Bowerman said Albemarle County does have a tax increase every two
years even though the rate is kept the same with property going up so that the
proportion of the regression seems to grow every year. The Board has no way
to deal with it other than through property real estate tax increases and rate
adjustments if it finds the community wants certain items funded. That is the
only mechanism this Board has.
Mr. Perkins said all of this ties into the mandates that are coming from
the state. The state gives the localities mandates that must be followed but
will not give the locality any money to pay for them. Mr. Way said he agrees
with Mr. Perkins comments, but philosophically, what is happening is the state
says these bigger things have to be built so, therefore, the locality has more
authority to tax and more money gets spent. The point is that the mandate
from the state is wrong and the way to solve the problem is not by taxing the
people more to pay for things that they do not need in the first place. He
understands this Board's frustration.
Mr. Bain said a factual point that Mr. Robb made was that cities provide
more, but when schools are looked at, the City has approximately 30 school
buses, but Albemarle County has 250 school buses at $50,000 each. The County
has new students each year, additional buses have to be purchased and there is
a 10 to 12 year replacement cycle. Mr. Van Yahres asked if there is a mandate
on the school buses. Mr. Tucker said "yes." Mr. Van Yahres said this should
be a management decision.
Mr. Robb said if the state is going to mandate things it should be able
to provide a way to pay for those things. He does not agree with all of the
state mandates. He, personally, has an intern who is looking into these state
mandates to try and identify those that are not needed. Mr. Van Yahres said
he thinks it should be done on a local level so the officials of the locali-
ties can "take the heat" and remember that the federal government does and
will make the mandates. It would be far better to have mandates on the state
level than the federal level, but there will still be complaints when the
state makes the mandates. There will always be arguments about what is the
"right" and "wrong" mandate. State mandating takes the burden off of the
localities.
Mr. Marshall said after the meals tax failed, some members of this Board
were looking for a way to pass it. If given the power, he as a Board member,
would not vote for any tax increase.
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
M.B. 43, Pg. 38
Mr. Martin said, if given the authority to raise taxes on lodging, he
does not know if he would support it. He would be 100 percent opposed to
enacting the meals tax if that power were given to the localities because the
citizens have already denied the request twice. When this is coupled with Mr.
Van Yahres comments that if this authority were given, it would be made
according to what the residents are in favor of; it makes sense to him that
counties should be treated equally as cities especially when so many counties
now have large urban sections.
Mr. Robb said he feels, from his own perspective, that he is just as
close to the people as this Board of Supervisors. The fact that he is a state
legislator does not mean that he is not close to the people and he does not
think this is a political issue. Where representatives stand on issues is
what should be discussed, not a political position.
Mr. Bowerman said everyone in this room shares the same constituents, in
many cases, and the interest of the constituents is the same. It has been
recognized that there are problems regarding how to fund mandates. This will
not be resolved overnight, but he feels, it is discussions like these that are
extremely useful in having a better understanding of how Albemarle County's
legislative representatives feel about Board members thoughts, and giving the
Board ideas about what the legislature thinks and the likelihood of some of
the things this Board is requesting. He thinks education is a big issue and a
lot of things are involved. This Board is saying that it feels it should have
the right and privilege to look at these issues, have the power to incorporate
or deny them and be responsible to the people who elected them. If other
counties do not want to incorporate the same things then it is left to the
locality and this Board feels it is responsible enough to make those deci-
sions. He agrees with Mr. Martin that, if the Board voted on the meals tax
issue today, he does not know if it would pass because there has to be more
education of the public.
Mr. Robb said his position is to let the voters decide. Mr. Van Yahres
said in different counties, money will have to be borrowed to meet state
mandates and localities are faced with the issue that if the power to tax is
left to them, the money could be paid as it goes. This is the Virginia
conservative philosophy and he would like to see the localities have the
flexibility built-in so that it can do the "pay as it goes" route if that is
best for the locality. He feels this is an issue of fairness and equity, not
political.
Mr. Martin asked the legislators to identify other issues that Albemarle
County is proposing that they would not support. Mr. Van Yahres said he does
not have enough information on some of the items to say how he plans to vote.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Van Yahres how he felt about the 599 funding formula which
would result in a loss of money to localities with police departments because
this is something Albemarle County has been battling. Mr. Van Yahres said
that proposal, if approved, would break a state word. Years ago, a deal was
made between the state and locality, based on a formula and he does not feel
the state has a right to renege on that formula at this time. He does not
feel the formula should be tampered with.
Mr. Marshall asked the legislators how they feel about transferred
development rights (TDRs). Mr. Robb said he will abstain from any discussion
regarding this issue because he is in the land development business. Mr. Way
said he would not support TDRs, impact fees or any of those different things
at this point. Mr. Van Yahres said he WOuld want to see the specific propos-
al. He voted for TDRs before and thinks localities need help in management,
land development and growth. Albemarle County is one of the significant
counties that is having growth problems. He thinks all localities with growth
problems should be allowed flexibility on how to control and develop itself in
its own unique way. Each locality will have different patterns and require-
ments in its growth. He would hate to see the state put up road blocks to
localities in terms of designing methods. He feels the locality should have
as many ways to control the designing methods as possible within certain
perimeters. He would like to see the specifics but in general, he would like
to see Albemarle County given some flexibility and management tools for
growth.
Mr. Bowerman said he sees the benefit from a state point-of-view, and
the Dillon Rule, and its interpretation for not having TDRs in one area and
having them in all other areas. If something like this is going to be
allowed~ it needs to be state-wide so there is an even playing field for all
players within a state. He thinks that TDRs are growth management tools for
localities which recognize the value of development rights to individuals in
the country-side where they are coming from. They are compensated for them,
but one can transfer where those houses are built somewhere else. It seems
like a "win-win" situation to him, but he thinks it would have to be based on
the way the bill was tailored, how it could be applied and how fair it is. He
hopes the legislators could agree on a land-use issue that Albemarle County
has regarding the ability to remove land-use out of the growth area of the
Comprehensive Plan when land is designated for development. The current
owners, although in land-use for agricultural, clearly recognizes this as a
development vehicle in the future and there is a question of equity. The Farm
Bureau objected to it last year and this Board has met with the local Farm
Bureau this year and is hopeful that Albemarle County can work something out
with them to tailor a bill that they will agree with. If this were the case,
it would give Albemarle County the chance not to allow land-use in the growth
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
M.B. 43, Pg. 39
area, and put more funds into the County tax base without raising taxes. The
Board would very much like to see if it could get this bill to the legisla-
ture, in a form that could be supported. Mr. Tucker said this is the item
under growth management plarn~ing. A bill has already been passed giving
Loudoun County that authority. Albemarle is requesting that it be added to
that same bill. This is different from what Albemarle requested last year.
The Board has talked with Mr. Bloch, Chairman of the Farm Bureau, and he seems
to be supportive of this language because it is more specific in zoning dis-
tricts. The zoning districts are limited to industrial, commercial and
planned development. This simply gives Albemarle the authority; it does not
necessarily mean that it will be adopted. Mr. Bowerman said the implementa-
tion of this will be difficult because there are legal issues that would have
to be dealt with. Mr. Robb said unless the bill has language that upsets or
bothers him, he will support this position.
Mr. Martin said there are problems with titling programs, just as there
are with Medicaid and Medicare. These are federal programs. He asked if
there is anything at the state level that can be done to let the federal
government know that these problems are serious. He also asked if the state
can say that it does not like where the federal government allocates money so
it will be done the way the state thinks it should be. Mr. Van Yahres said
the state cannot put the money where it feels it should go if it disagrees
with the federal government because there is too much money involved. The
state lets the federal government know that there is a problem. He feels the
state needs to go toward waivers and there will be more sympathy in the next
administration for going that route. Wavering is an approach to the problem,
not an answer.
Mr. Martin asked about coordinated efforts and letting people know how
state officials feel. As a Board, Albemarle County has a little more "clout"
with the three legislators present, than an individual citizen would have. If
the state legislators agree on something, he asked if that would be helpful.
Mr. Way said it depends on the situation.
Mr. Way asked what is Share-the-Ride. Ms. Moore said Share-the-Ride is
proposed legislation where school divisions would provide transportation to
any student in private schools through the school transportation system and
the school system would have to pay for this. The cost to Albemarle County,
if enacted, is not yet known. Mr. Van Yahres said the bill was designed so as
not t impact the local school system. There are many questions concerning
this proposal. He voted against this even though he received a lot of
pressure from constituents to support it. He does not know if it will be
proposed again this year. Mr. Way said he would not have a problem with the
possibility of Share-the-Ride taking place, if it would not physically harm
the localities or disrupt its situation. The idea of doing this and having
the school system pay for it is ridiculous and he would not support that.
Ms. Moore said a proposal to request legislation to provide incentives
to school divisions is being undertaken in Maryland. This legislation would
not have to cover just school divisions, i.e. if Albemarle County would
receive incentives for rebate through the power companies it would save money.
On October 24, 1992 the 1992 Federal Energy Action came through and this may
end up being a mandate before the state gets to it. She has research if any
of the legislators are interested in looking at what other states have imple-
mented. Mr. Van Yahres said he supports this and asked where the money saved
would go. Mr. Bowerman said it would be that much less the County would have
to borrow. Mr. Van Yahres said he will support this bill.
Ms. Moore said she is not sure if there is a bill on the provisional
certification. This came from the Albemarle County School Division's Blue
Ribbon Committee who brought forward ideas for better education in Albemarle
County. In order to have someone from the technologies and trades come into
the classroom and teach, the certification process needs to be relaxed. The
school system could then take advantage of the business community. Mr. Way
said he thinks this is a great idea and thought it had been done.
Ms. Moore said the last proposal is to repeal post-labor day. Mr. Way
said that is a local position.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Van Yahres to tell the Board about the legisla-
tion he is proposing regarding the Alternative-10 resulting in peoples ability
to not sell their property. Mr. Van Yahres said his bill would require the
agency (V/DoT) to purchase the property where right-of-way has been designated
for a highway within three years or turn it back over to the property owner.
The decisions VDoT would have to make would have to be absolute, instead of
holding a individual property owners land until it decides what it would like
to do with the proposed highway.
Mr. Robb asked that someone be designated to coordinate who will be
sponsoring or initiating bills. Mr. Bowerman said the persons would be Mr.
Tucker and Ms. Trank. Mr. Robb said this is important so that everyone is not
introducing the same bills.
Mr. Van Yahres said there is proposed legislation that may be helpful to
Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville regarding composting.
Presently, agricultural composting can only be done for use on farms. He will
introduce a bill that will allow a farmer to bring in the leaves from any
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
M.B. 43, Pg. 40
other source, compost and sell them. This would be great for localities to
have.
Mr. Bowerman said the legislators may be interested to know that the
Centel Board of Directors, at its special meeting today, approved the merger
with the Sprint Corporation. This is tentative and subject to final audit of
proxies which will happen next week.
At 2:55 p.m. the Board recessed.
At 3:10 p.m. the Board reconvened in Meeting Room 5/6 for its Joint
Meeting with the School Board.
Agenda Item No. 15. Joint Meeting with School Board.
School Board Member Present were: Mr. Clifford W. Haury, Mr. William W.
Finley, Mrs. Patricia L. Moore, Mr. Michael J. Marshall, Mr. George C.
Landrith, III and Mrs. Karen L. Powell.
Absent: Mrs. Sharon Wood.
Also present were: Dr. Robert W. Paskel, Superintendent of Schools, Dr.
Carole Hastings, Director of Human Resources and Assistant Superintendent of
Schools.
Agenda Item No. 15a. Discussion: Salary and Benefits Long Range Plan.
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"Beginning in the summer of 1992, a task force comprised of repre-
sentatives from the local government, school division and both
boards convened to develop a long range plan for salaries and
fringe benefits in Albemarle County. This is the first time such
an effort has been made to develop a plan that establishes priori-
ties for five years and which can be used as a guideline in budget
discussions. Previously, salary and benefit issues have been
discussed on an annual basis and it is recognized that without a
strategic plan, our goals in the areas of fringe benefits and
salaries may not be accomplished.
The plan (on file) presents the recommendations of the task force
for fiscal years 1993-94 through 1997-98. The plan will be dis-
cussed with the board members at the joint meeting of the boards
on December 2. At this meeting, it is requested that the boards
hear the report and discuss with staff any major disagreements
with the initiatives or assumptions presented. The actual strate-
gies as to when and how these initiatives could be implemented
will be contingent upon available revenue and other budgetary
needs. Such details will be presented to the boards throughout
the coming months in the various discussions held about the FY
1993-94 budget. In projecting some of these budgetary assump-
tions, however, we believe that the following will have to be
addressed:
A general scale adjustment will be required in order
to maintain the County's competitiveness with its
market;
An increase in the cost of medical insurance will be
necessary which will require an increase in the boards
contributions to the employee share of insurance in
order to maintain the present contribution ratio;
The pay for performance plan will continue to be
funded for all employees other than the teachers.
In summary, the board members are being requested to hear the
presentation and discuss the long range plan as a conceptual
document. The purpose of such a plan would be to provide guidance
for budget discussions over the next five years, however implemen-
tation details of the plan will have to be developed in light of
available revenues and other budgetary needs."
Dr. Carole Hastings, Director of Human Resources and Assistant Superin-
tendent of Schools, said she co-chaired the task force with Mr. Robert
Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive. The whole idea about this process
was to get out of a mode of trying to figure out, each year, what was to be
done with salaries and benefits because they take up a large portion of the
budget. The task force felt that planning for this large expenditure was the
wise thing to do. Three years ago, Mr. Brandenburger began conducting an in-
house salary study. In the past, the County hired a consultant to do this
study. The task force recognized that the salary ranges being paid to classi-
fied and administrative employees were low and major steps had to be taken to
correct that situation. The Board of Supervisors was supportive and the new
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
M.B. 43, Pg. 41
salary ranges were implemented, but by doing that the County was not able to
do the second part of the recommendation which was to bring current employees
up further in their ranges so that their individual salaries were also at a
competitive level. This was one problem that the task force faced. Another
problem was that the teachers had never been brought in as part of the
planning group, in terms of looking at salaries and benefits for Albemarle
County. The school employees and local government employees have always been
looked at as one, in that some type of salary plan needs to be developed for
all employees. The purpose of the plan was to give a five year road map in
terms of salary and benefit initiatives. The task force recognized, the same
as the Board recognized with the CIP, that there would have to be some
amendments made each year as revenues are looked at. The task force tried to
identify the major issues among employees. The plan basically is presented
for discussion this afternoon.
Dr. Hastings then reviewed the initiatives which were: teacher/salary
scale; salary compression of classified/administrative staff; classified/ad-
ministrative staff being allowed to vest full bonus amounts; phase in flexible
benefits plan; increase level of salary competitiveness and increase perfor-
mance rewards for employees.
Mr. Bowerman asked Dr. Hastings if she had any idea of what the cost of
this would be if fully implemented over a period of years. Dr. Hastings said
the task force does have an idea of what the cost would be, but chose not to
'bring that this afternoon because of the other priorities that are present,
i.e. staffing schools, police officers, etc. The task force did not feel it
would be fair to bring the cost because it really wanted the concept of the
plan to be dealt with. The County Executive and Superintendent of School
would then deal with affordability of the plan during the budget process. Mr.
Tucker said in looking at the preliminary costs, he realizes that it will be
difficult to fund the plan in even a five year period. Therefore, aspects of
the plan are targeted, they should be looked at in terms of priority and need.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Boards are being asked to take any official
action on either of these proposals. Mr. Tucker said staff is looking for
acceptance or approval of the concept if the Boards choose. This plan gives a
lot of flexibility and if the Boards generally agree with the concept,
priorities and initiatives as outlined, and would provide a road map as to how
to begin providing salaries and benefits to the employees over the next five
plus years.
Dr. Paskel said the School Board will consider this plan at its meeting
on December 14, 1992, and include this into its considerations of the priori-
ties.
Mr. Bain asked School Board members for some general comments on the
budget. Mr. Forrest Marshall said he has been involved with the benefits and
retiree health insurance. He feels that if the County is to remain competi-
tive at all levels, it must have a good health insurance and retirement plan.
This should be one of local government's higher priorities. He would like to
see something offered to the retirees. It is difficult for individuals 65 and
over to obtain insurance, particularly if they have a minor health problem.
One of the most important things that the County can do for its employees is
to see that each employee has sufficient retirement insurance.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the report was good and covered a broad range
of opinions. He thinks he can agree with this. Mr. Bowerman said the items
covered in the report are things that an employer would like to see for its
employees given the resources to do it. This is a goal and idea to work with.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the County needs to get close to subsidizing the
employees cost for health insurance. He would like to see an incentive, in
terms of wellness, tied to the subsidy.
Mr. Forrest Marshall said he thinks the County could get better insur-
ance programs than the current one. Dr. Hastings said staff got some inter-
esting data from the health screenings last year that showed that if some of
the proactive stances were taken money could be saved in the future. This is
an excellent thing to strive for.
Mr. Bain referred to the recommendations for salaries. He is concerned
about the review of teachers and administrators salaries in that those persons
who are doing their jobs will be rewarded and those who are not will improve.
He wants to make sure that the County is paying for top performance. Mr.
Bowerman said he thinks this is a function of the School Superintendent and
the County Executive and through the oversight of both boards.
Ms. Moore said the school division has been reviewing the evaluation
process. She asked Dr. Paskel or Dr. Hastings to address the issue. Dr.
Paskel said the principals revised the evaluations for the school principal.
The new evaluation establishes what the job of a "principal" and the job
descriptions. The evaluation also sets out standards that will be used, and
the process that has to be adhered to. The process of the evaluation is open
to setting objectives outside of the job description and has been prepared by
the principals in relation to student performance, School Board priorities and
professional growth. This creates a minimum against which 20 percent of the
performance rating is reviewed.
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
M.B. 43, Pg. 42
Dr. Hastings said the same type of process is being followed with all
directors. All County staff is being asked to look at performance standards.
Mr. Tucker said the important thing that Dr. Hastings mentioned is
training for the evaluators because evaluators are scoring differently; each
have a different perspective on how to evaluate. The criteria, standard and
objectives that employees are evaluated by are as close as they can be. This
is the most important thing to him.
Ms. Powell said she attended every meeting and heard a lot of dialogue
from people involved as to how this will effect them. There were a lot of
interesting points brought out. The scales definitely need to be adjusted to
be competitive, in order to attract good employees and keep them. As far as
the way this is presented, she believes it is in priority order. Dr. Hastings
said that the priorities were set by the committee so that the most pressing
problems were recommended to be initiated in FY 1993/94, although the commit-
tee did not want to take a position on which priority was most important. Ms.
Powell said there were parts of this that would not need to be implemented
based on the budget. The compression problem seemed to be a big issue to a
lot of people. It seems to her that if the salaries were adjusted before
problems with moral occurred.
Mr. Haury said he did not attend all of the meetings because he was put
on the committee after it had been established. One of the problems was the
revamped and simplified teacher pay scale. Some of the teachers were asking
if the steps past 12 could be restored to eliminate discrimination and give
them additional money by enlarging the number of steps. This is a way to
solve the problem of 50 percent of the teachers who have more than 12 years
service to increase the top and provide for the most experienced teachers.
Another issue was the length of time spent on the base scale. Also, a lot of
people said they were given a base scale raise and then given an insurance
package that cost them double what their raise was. Another issue was the
compression factor which involves moral where people have the ability to walk
in the door and be hired off of the street at equal to or just below current
employees who have been reclassified. This needs attention because it affects
the whole County, not just the school system. If benefits are going to cost
more money and a scale is being raised, both issues should be looked at
together and the best interest should be looked at.
Ms. Moore asked if Ms. Powell and Mr. Haury are saying that they agree
with the package conceptually. Mr. Haury said "yes." Ms. Moore asked if they
felt there needs to be more than just general discussion. Ms. Powell said she
thinks dollars and cents plays a big part of it, conceptually as opposed to
being competitive. She also thinks that health insurance is an extremely
important issue and benefits are very important to a salary. She is not sure
that the County needs to go to the extreme of the non-subscriber at this
point, because it involves money. Mr. Bain asked Ms. Powell what she means by
non-subscriber. Ms. Powell said it is similar to what the City did; it is a
flexible benefits plan where everyone would get a certain amount of money if
the health benefit is not needed. She sees this as an additional fringe
benefit that may not be necessary at this point, given the cost.
Mr. Mike Marshall asked what was meant by the word "competitiveness."
He does not see any data that establishes where the County is currently
competitive. He asked if the career ladder payments to teachers on the pay
scale are included when their total compensation is discussed. He also asked
what percentage of teachers are on the career ladder. Dr. Hastings said
approximately 74 percent of those teachers who are eligible for the career
ladder are participating. Approximately 50 percent of all teachers are
participating. Mr. Marshall said approximately 60 percent of the teachers
affected by the scale are actually getting more payments than the scale shows.
Dr. Hastings said "yes." Mr. Marshall said he feels this mixes up the
comparisons made when discussing competitiveness with other systems which may
not be using the career ladder as a way of rewarding teachers. He noticed
that the state recently did a study that was publicized by the House Appropri-
ations Committee where it analyzed total compensations compared with the
private sector and found that after three years of no state raises for state
employees, there was only a seven percent disparity between the private sector
and state employees. He asked if staff knows what the total compensation
compared to in Albemarle County is. Dr. Hastings said an annual survey is
done and in terms of competitiveness, the study that began three years ago
defined competitiveness as the midpoint of the market. The survey recently
done indicates that classified and administrative salaries, in general, are
about 0.3 percent lower than the market which would mean that last July the
Boards decided not to raise the scale. This Fall the scale should have been
adjusted 1.3 percent to stay with the competitive midpoint. In terms of
benefits, the County is very competitive with the exception of Blue Cross and
Blue Shield contribution which is below average. Mr. Marshall said he thinks
both Boards agree with the health care and insurance problem. Considering
that public employment offers the advantage of security which private employ-
ers do not always offer. He asked if employees would trade security with a
1.3 percent deviation with private sector. He wonders what it means when the
word "competitiveness" is used in the study. He asked what is meant by a
bonus if it is vested, because if it is vested, that makes it a raise. He
asked why it is not called merit raise instead of bonus and if it is made a
raise, does it remain as an incentive to perform well. If an employee
performs well in 1980 he/she gets the advantage of that performance for the
rest of his/her career in the current system; whereas, if it is a bonus there
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
M.B. 43, Pg. 43
is an incentive to perform well each year. Dr. Hastings said it is a bonus.
One year a bonus is received based on the evaluation which is a direct
correlation to the score received on the evaluation. The following year a
portion of that bonus becomes part of the employees vested salary and this is
a raise. Mr. Marshall said if the bonus plan was not vested, that would put
more pressure on employers to maintain a fair salary scale across-the-bOard.
Dr. Hastings said it could. Mr. Marshall said if it were just a bonus, the
County would have an incentive to give employees raises by looking the other
way or distorting the performance evaluation. Less pressure would be put on
the evaluation and there would be less motive to "tinker" with it. Dr.
Hastings said recently other localities looked at, and many of them incorpo-
rated, the idea of an annual increase and everyone receives a three or four
percent increase. Several years ago, the Board of Supervisors and School
Board agreed that they did not want to provide automatic increases, i.e. cost
of living. The only way County employees move up on the scale is by the
vesting of the previous years bonus. A combination of cost of living increas-
es would have to be looked at, if the County were not to vest the bonus,
because there would be no other way to move up the scale. The current policy
is solely pay for performance and this is how a raise is obtained in the
current system. It is projected that in July 1993, the County will probably
be about three percent from where it should be with the market. The scale
adjustment then becomes something different than how one moves up on the scale
within their particular pay range. Mr. Marshall said what he is proposing is
that this be done away with and every year have a comparison with the market
and if the County is three percent off, does the County want to fund three
percent and make parity or fund one or two percent. This way an annual
decision as to fairness is made and it does not create a system that cannot be
tracked.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this is an idea that both Board's would like to
see implemented as much as possible. He thinks it is important that both
Boards buy into some concept of what is before them.
Mr. Martin said he thinks it should be developed into as a strategic
plan and then look at the specifics when it comes back in recommendation form.
Mrs. Humphris said as a plan there is a major factor that is unknown.
Because of Mr. Michael Marshall's question she understands that the deviation
the Boards are seeking to correct is only that 1.3 percent from the private
sector. She asked what the plan would do, if implemented. Since there are no
numbers, she is confused as to what to do. She does not know if it should be
accepted or adopted because she does not want the Boards to take action that
they do not understand.
Mr. Bowerman said, to him, this is like the comprehensive plan of the
salary scale and the salary policy of Albemarle County. There is a lot of
information in this report and ideally he thinks all of these ideas are great
objectives and he wishes all employers could meet all of these objectives. He
knows that there will be individual concerns raised and he does not know, as a
planning tool, what this says if there is not agreement between all members
from both Boards. He has not heard anyone say that they expect to go 100
percent with this plan.
Mr. Bain said next year he would love to see the health care issue
looked at. This would be a priority to him before the scale is adjusted. He
is not keen about vesting the full bonus amount. He understands what staff is
trying to do, but this is a general concept and there are not specifics. He
thinks it is philosophical to do something different rather than do this
because it is a raise and it should be called that.
Mr. Bowerman said the way it currently stands, the priorities are
outlined and the first thing that will come back to the Boards is what will be
first implemented in FY 1993/94 which is the teacher salary scale.
Dr. Hastings said there are three issues proposed for FY 1993/94:
teachers salary scale adjustments; implementation of 95 percent of Blue Cross
and Blue Shield contributions; and the compression factor being adjusted.
Mr. Bowerman asked what priority would those items come back in. Mr.
Tucker said there would be a package and the Board can debate whether it wants
to choose one or all. Mr. Bowerman said he is willing to instruct staff to
look at those three areas and come back to the Board of Supervisors and the
School Board with proposals along those lines, reserving his right to approve
or deny those at that time.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks this information should be accepted and what
is being recommended could be worked on to see what can be implemented
according to the budget.
ment.
Agenda Item No. 15b. Status Report on Informational Technology Depart-
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
Backqround: On August 11, 1992 authorization was given to
transfer three positions from the School Division to the Informa-
tion Services Department along with all automation responsibili-
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
M.B. 43, Pg. 44
ties including Instructional Technology. At their joint meeting
in October, the School Board and Board of Supervisors asked that a
status report be provided in order to monitor the transition. The
report (on file) summarizes the issues and accomplishments to
date.
Discussion: The report indicates that the biggest challenge thus
far in the transition has been the overwhelming number of requests
for assistance from the schools, mostly with target dates request-
ed before school opening. It was clear that these requests could
not all be honored, even with the entire seven member support team
staff which was largely dedicated to the projects. What has
resulted is that many of the requests have been honored and others
have been given a target date and scheduled as resources are
available.
One of the commitments made was to restructure the Instructional
Technology position such that well over the majority of time would
be spent on classroom technology issues rather than manual hard-
ware and software installations which can now be performed by
other support team members. Structure has been added to task and
training requests so that response times can be monitored and an
up-to-date status can be determined on an ongoing basis.
In response to the sensitivity of merging the functions and in an
effort to solicit input from a broad cross section of users,
several user groups have been established including a Technology
Steering Committee which will provide direct comment to the
process and assist in understanding the breadth of issues in-
volved. A1 groups have been formed and have met at least once
with a regular schedule of meetings planned.
Lastly, it should be noted that the Central Office Computer System
(LAN) which provides electronic mail access and across from the
schools to various application software packages has been vastly
upgraded for better performance and up-time reliability. This
will provide the backbone to connect all of the County schools for
direct data entry and connectivity system wide.
Many of the improvements made in recent months will become more
visible in the months to come. Documentation is now in place for
most of the functions and technical improvements are being made to
correct past performance problems of the technology itself. A
commitment is in place to relieve the pressure on the Information-
al Technology position to provide more time to meet the goals set
by the School Division in this area. Strong working relationships
are being forged that, in spite of minor problems at the onset,
seem to be providing much stronger support for all involved."
Mr. Bowerman said the Board of Supervisors looked at this Information
Services package in terms of the strategic plan that was proposed and agreed
to it. He asked the school system, if this is working for them, are they
getting the answers needed, are staff and teachers who will use this system
comfortable that this is moving forward in the right direction. Dr. Paskel
said it appears at this time that it is going to work as all of the user
groups are put into place and everyone gets comfortable with who to ask what
questions. He would assess the situation based on the number of complaints he
has received since he told all of the employees in the school system that if
there was a problem they could contact him or Dr. Hastings. He has had one
comment in the last six weeks about service not being what it should have
been, he followed through, and it was done. He thinks it has potential that
would have never been reached if it had not been done this way. He wants to
be sure that the school divisions employees who are interested have the
opportunity to participate in the decision-making processes.
Mrs. Moore said she thinks the report the Boards received was excellent.
She thinks it is important to know that 112 projects were received on August
11, 1992 and 73 have been completed. The transfer has caused employees in the
department to learn Apple Macintosh, instructional software and cross-train-
ings and she feels these are transitions that everyone needs to be patient
with. She thinks it is excellent that this information is available.
Mr. Finley said the new vision of the student information system is
mentioned twice and asked who someone would contact to learn more about this.
Mr. Tucker said most of the comments should be directed to the Information
Services Department. Mr. Finley said the report mentioned 112 education
projects and asked had this not been transferred to Information Services;
would it still have been 112 projects. Dr. Paskel said it would have still
been 112 projects on the list, but he doubts that staff would have gotten to
them as expeditiously as was done at this point. Mr. Bowerman asked who was
doing this for the school system before. Dr. Paskel said two employees who
transferred to Information Services.
Mr. Bowerman said he wants to make sure that the schools are getting the
service they feel they should be getting. He asked Mr. Fred Kruger, Director
of Information Services, if the department is able to continue to provide this
without taking away from some place else. Mr. Kruger said they are looking at
reorganizing the department and trying to redistribute the workload to help
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.43, Pg. 45
(Page 26)
them tackle this work as well as other things that they are still working
with.
Dr. Paskel said one of the principals who is knowledgeable in this area
of Instructional Technology said he was pleased with the services that the
schools were getting and felt this transition was going to work.
Agenda Item No. 15d. Discussion: Retiree Health Insurance.
Ms. Tracy Holt, Director of Fiscal Services, said a few persons from
local government and from the school division staff met to discuss the issue
of retiree health insurance. The discussion began bY everyone realiZing the
need and the issue that has to be addressed. Although state legislation at
this time is somewhat vague the feeling of the committee was that it was
prudent not to enter into a plan at this time to address retiree health
insurance. The committee felt something needed to be done, specifically for
the small group of employees who would be coming off of the County health care
plan in March of 1993. These employees opted to retire under the Governor's
early retirement plan in June of 1991. Through that plan, they are allowed to
remain on the County's health insurance for 18 months. The committee dis-
cussed extending the time that retirees are allowed to remain on the County's
plan from 18 months to possibly 24 months. It was felt that within 24 months,
there would be some final state legislation and local government and the
school division would be able to develop a plan to address the retiree health
insurance issue. Basically, the recommendation is that the Boards discuss
extending the period of time that employees are allowed to remain on the
County's health insurance plan.
Mr. Tucker said the 18 months is a federal requirement. Mr. Bowerman
said he would concur with staff's recommendation that the retirees be allowed
to remain on the County's health insurance for 24 months while this issue is
being clarified.
Mr. Bain asked if this decision had to be made today. Mr. Tucker said
action does not necessarily have to be taken today, but it would give those
retirees some idea of the two Boards commitment and support. Dr. Hastings
said the action necessary would be to notify those employees that the two
Boards have agreed to extend their COBRA benefits to 24 months. She agrees
with Mr. Tucker's comments that taking some action today would provide relief
to the participants because many of them are worried that by March they have
to come up with their own insurance. Mr. Bowerman asked how many people this
would effect. Dr. Hastings said approximately 40. Mr. Bowerman asked if the
retiree health insurance was extended, would there be a cost to the County or
are the retiree's paying the full benefit. Mr. Bain asked if this will affect
the County's insurance rating. Ms. Holt said it could.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this is extended to 24 months would it change the
experience of the group and result in higher costs to everyone. Mr. Marshall
said he thinks the County has to "bite the bullet" Mr. Bain said he is not
ready to make that decision today. The memorandum states "until legislation
is finalized," but that could be six months or longer before anything is
finalized. Mr. Bowerman said the issue it could be discussed again in six
months.
Mr. Finley asked if all retirees would have the benefit of 24 months or
just this small group. Ms. Holt said just the small group currently partici-
pating.
Mr. Martin then made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to allow the
approximately 37 employees who retired in 1991 under the Governor's early
retirement plan, to remain on the County's health insurance until July 1,
1993. 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.
Ms. Powell then made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to allow the
approximately 37 employees who retired in 1991 under the Governor's early
retirement plan, to remain on the County's health insurance until July 1,
1993. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Finley, Haury, Landrith, Mrs. Moore, and Mrs. Powell.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Wood.
Agenda Item No. 15c. CIP Update
Projects.
Debt Service on Additional School
Mr. Bowerman updated the School Board on its earlier discussion on the
CIP. Mr. Bain asked what is the status of Murray High School. Ms. Moore
said, at this point, the School Board has made a commitment to continue with
Murray and there has been an increase in enrollment. She thinks it is
important that the roof be replaced because there are areas in the school that
are leaking. Dr. Paskel said the roof needs to be replaced if the school is
December 2, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) 54.B. 437 Pg. 46
(Page 27)
to be used for any purpose. Mr. Bain asked why the project was not included
in the CIP. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the Planning Commission deferred this
item because they were not sure_what direction Murray was going to take and,
therefore, the Commission replaced it with another priority. Mr. L.A. Reaser,
Director of Building Services, said Mr. Tucker's original memorandum, dated
November 4, 1992, stated that the Commission had placed Murray High School's
roof replacements as a high priority. Staff's feeling is that the roof needs
to be replaced whether it is used as a warehouse, school or whatever the use.
This was one of the School Board's high priorities. Mr. Tucker said if the
building is going to be used then the roof does need to be replaced, but if
the building is going to be sold then any revenue that may be experienced from
the sale would be lost in the sale price.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to include $496,000 in
the CIP to be borrowed through bonds for the roof replacement Of Murray High
School. 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. 15e. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no other items for discussion.
At 4:30 p.m., the Board adjourned its joint meeting with the School
Board.
At 4:35 p.m., the Board reconvened its meeting in Room 7.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Perkins asked for an update on Acme.
Mr. Tucker said yesterday Mr. Matthew Lee, a reporter for the Daily
Progress, informed him that the bankruptcy court had postponed a decision
until next Tuesday. Nations Bank is considering providing a bridge loan to
Acme until the Board of Supervisors takes action. The Board is still sched-
uled to review this on December 16, 1992. Mr. Marshall asked if Acme has
received the bridge loan. Mr. Tucker said he does not know.
Mr. Bowerman said he was assured by one of the attorneys on Monday that
Acme did not feel it needed the Board to take action until December 16th
because of the other pending items. There would be no financial liability by
the County of Albemarle.
Mr. Bowerman said the issue of what the Board wants the IDA to do and
what is in the Code is a separate matter that this Board will disCuss apart
from the issue of Acme.
Mr. Martin asked that staff look at the issue of sidewalks as part of
the beautification of Route 29 North and that a cost study be done.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Cilimberg has arranged a field visit to the Goco
site this Friday at 3:00 p.m. This is regarding the request for water service
on Routes 250 and 20 at Shadwell. Any Board members who would like to visit
the site should meet in Mr. Cilimberg's office at 3:00 p.m. If any Board
member would like to meet at the site for the field visit, they need to
contact Mr. Cilimberg.
Mr. Bowerman said as part of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission's legislative packet, there was legislation on gun control and
supervisors being able to participate in the state's retirement system. Mr.
Bowerman said this Board has to decide whether it collectively agrees because
otherwise Albemarle County endorses all information in the TJPDC package.
Following some discussion, there was a consensus of the Board to delete the
legislation regarding Supervisors being able to participate in the state
retirement system and include gun control.
Mrs. Humphris asked staff to review the procedures involved in increas-
ing the stipend for the Chairman of the School Board.
Agenda ItemNo. 17. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.