1992-02-05February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 77
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on February 5, 1992, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County
office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin and Mrl Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., and County
Attorney, George R. St. John.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.mo by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. No one from the public came forward to speak on matters not listed on
the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda° Motion was offered by Mrs. Humph-
ris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve Items 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4, and to
accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. (Discussion
concerning Item 5.5 will be listed with that item.) Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None°
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Item 5.1. Resolution requesting acceptance of roads in Rosemont
Subdivision into the State System of Secondary Highways. Letter dated
January 7, 1992, was received from Michael T. Boggs, Vice President, Haley,
Chisholm & Morris, Inc., requesting acceptance of these roads. The following
resolution was adopted by the vote set out above.
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 into the Secondary System of Highways, subject
to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Depart-
ment, the following roads in Rosemont Subdivision:
Rosemont Drive
Beginning at Station 0+40.00, a point common to the
centerline of Rosemont Drive and the edge of pavement
of State Route 637, thence in a southerly direction
3044.03 feet to Station 39+84.03, the end of the cul-
de-sac.
Rosewood Lane
Beginning at Station 0+25, a point common to the
centerline of Rosewood Lane and the edge of pavement
of Rosemont Drive at Station 12+18.07, thence in a
northwesterly direction 554.99 feet to Station 5-
+79.99~ the end of the cul-de-sac.
Trellis Lane
Beginning at Station 0+25, a point common to the
centerline of Trellis Lane and the edge of pavement of
Rosemont Drive at Station 12+17.16, thence in a north-
weSterly direction 295 feet to Station 3+20, the end
of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
right-of-way and drainage easements along these requested addi-
tions as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 999, pages 427
through 430 and Deed Book 1133, pages 725 and 726.
Item 5.2. Resolution requesting acceptance of road in Windrift II into
the State System of Secondary Highways. Letter dated June 28, 1990, had been
received from William W. Bailey, Bailey Construction, requesting acceptance of
this road. The following resolution was adopted by the vote set out above.
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 78
(Page 2)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33ol-229,
the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby re-
quested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject
to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Depart-
ment, the following road in Windrift Subdivision, Section II:
Windrift Drive
Beginning at Station 00+25, a point common to
the centerline of Windrift Drive and the edge of
pavement of State Route.664, thence in a south-
west direction 3104.8~ feet to Station 31+29.81,
the end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that 'the Virginia Department of
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
right-of-way and drainage easements along this requested addition
as recorded by plats in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 717~ page 190 and Deed Book
1132, page 274°
Item 5.3. Resolution requesting acceptance of Walnut Creek Park Road in
Walnut Creek Park into the State System of Secondary Highways° Memorandum was
received from the County Engineering Department requesting acceptance of this
road into the State System. The following resolution was adopted by the vote
set out above.
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 into the Secondary System of Highways, subject
to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Depart-
ment, the following road in Walnut Creek Park:
Walnut Creek Park Road
Beginning at Station 0+25~ a point common to the
centerline of Walnut Creek Park Road and the edge of
pavement of State Route 631, thence in a southerly
direction 6405.00 feet to Station 64+30.00, the end of
the access road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot and variable
width right-of-way and drainage easements along this requested
addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1199, pages 171 to
174.
Item 5.4. Memorandum dated January 29, 1992, from V. Wayne Cilimberg~
Director of Planning & Community Development, entitled "SP-90-31, Robert A. &
Elizabeth K. Wilson (Little Keswick School), Request for Relief from Condition
No. 4." The memorandum stated: "Mr. Robert A. Wilson has requested relief
from the above-referenced condition due to a new purchaser on behalf of the
Little Keswick School of the East Rivanna Fire Company property. The original
intent of Condition ~4 was to require all property under common ownership (Mr.
and Mrs. Wilson's) and devoted to the school's use by special use permit be
consolidated. This would assure the simplest record keeping and that portions
of the school property would not 'stand alone' and be subject to alternative
· piece-meal' special use permits based on the existence of improvements on any
portion of the property.
· 'Staff agrees that, in consideration of the purchase arrangements now
planned for the East Rivanna Fire Company property, combination of this parcel
with the remaining school property is not possible. As a substitute, the
following condition would meet the above mentioned intent:
"4. Use is for the expansion of the Little Keswick School.
"Other special use permit conditions in combination with this substitute
condition will limit the use of the parcel. Should alternative uses be
proposed for the fire company property, they will be subject to separate
review. Staff can support Mr. Wilson's request for relief from condition #4
with the substitute condition referenced above."
The request for relief from Condition No. 4, with substitute Condition
No. 4 as set out above, was approved by the vote shomm above.
Item 5.5. Letter dated January 16~ 1992, addressed to David P. Bower-
man, Chairman, from E. C. Cochran, Jr., State Location and Design Engineer,
Department of Transportation, noting that the major design features of the
Route 29, Project 6029-002-119,C501~C502, from Route 743 to south end of
bridge over South Fork Rivanna River, have been approved by the Commonwealth
Transportation Board in accordance with presentation at the October 30, 1986~
public hearing, with modification to provide for six lanes plus continuous
right turn lanes with signalized at-grade intersections~ was received.
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 407 Pg. 79
(Page 3)
Mrs. Humphris wanted to discuss this item. She said it seems as though
the Board is back to the October 30, 1986, public hearing at which approxi-
mately 26 people opposed the grade-separated interchange at Rio Road~ so VDoT
officials deleted it. Her concern is that as Route 29 improvements are made~
with no plan to acquire the rights-of-way for the grade-separated interchanges
which are part of the County's agreement, and which are an absolute necessity
to make Route 29 viable, the end result might be that the grade-separated
interchanges won't be built and the project will move directly to a bypass.
She thinks this Board should continue to ask VDoT when the rights-of-way will
be acquired for the grade-separated interchanges. VDoT is already moving to
acquire the rightS-of-way in the alignment of the bypass. She noted that the
bypass is going to be built subsequent to that construction° She wondered if
there is anything that this Board could do in the way of communicating with
VDoT about those interchanges every time a notice is received. She is con-
cerned that these interchanges will be lost if County officials do not keep
insisting~ with City and University officials, that the interchanges are an
essential part of the plano
Mr. Bain called attention to Page Eight of the August 14, 1991~ minutes
of the Board. He said that there have not been any allocations made for the
interchanges, but Mr. Roosevelt had noted at the August 14 meeting that the
es would be built. Mr. Bain stated that there isn't a question of
rights-of-way being reserved until some of the properties are redone, because
properties on those interchanges are built up at this time° He thinks this
~rd has done everything it can do other than reminding VDoT officials each
time the bypass is mentioned. He believes that the agreement between the
three jurisdictions and what the Commonwealth Transportation Board has said
assures that the interchanges will not be removed from the plan.
Mrs. Humphris noted that Mr. Tucker was at a General Assembly committee
hearing yesterday and he made a request for legislation concerning the holding
of property. She asked the current projected costs of rights-of-way for the
proposed bypass. Mr° Tucker replied that Mr. Geer had mentioned $110.0
million, but Mr. Tucker does not remember a cost just for rights-of-way.
Mrs° Humphris commented that, at this point, the proposal looks ridicu-
lous. She said that the costs of rights-of-way acquisition in the Route 29
corridor are going to escalate every year. VDoT officials have indicated that~
this is going to happen. She stated that in the meantime, rights-of-way are
being acquired in a corridor where VDoT officials are unsure there will ever
be a road. She said that something is still not in the right order. She
asked if the Board is willing to have Mr. Tucker draft a letter for the
Chairman's signature asking VDoT officials to keep in mind that the grade-
separated interchanges are a top priority.
Mr. Bowerman answered that he is willing to sign such a letter, because
it is a restatement of the Three Party Agreement. He recalled that rights-of-
way acquisition and design were emphasized for phase two of the plan for the
interchanges, and this was to be done before construction of the bypass.
Item 5.6. Copy of minutes of the Planning Commission for January 14~
1992~ was received for information.
Item 5.7. Copy of letter dated January 22, 1992, from the Zoning
Administrator to Joseph W. Richmond, Jr., entitled "Official Determination of
Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1, Tax Map 65, Parcel 15~ property of Thurber
Mo Foreman, III," received for information°
Item 5.8. Copy of letter dated January 27~ 1992, from the Zoning
Administrator to Ruby C. Garnett and Nancy G. Osborne, entitled "'official
Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1~ Tax Map 57~ Parcel 68A~~'
received for information.
Item 5.9° Letter dated January 15, 1992~ from H. Bryan Mitchell~ Deputy
Director, Department of Historic Resources, noting interest from the owner of
Merrie Mill, Albemarle County, 02-49 in having property listed on the National
Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Landmarks Register~ received for
information.
Item 5.10. Copy of letter dated January 22~ 1992, from Leonard W. San-
dridge, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, University of
Virginia, addressed to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, in which Mr.
Sandridge notes that Harry Porter, Dean of the School of Architecture, has
assumed responsibility as the Architect for the University effective
January 1, 1992, was received as information. The letter also notes that Mr.
Porter will have overall responsibility for the University's facilities master
planning, and will chair the University's Master Planning Council. He will
also serve as the University's member of the PACC Technical Committee.
Item 5.11. Memorandum dated January 27, 1992, from Amelia M. Patterson~
Zoning Administrator, addressed to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive~
entitled "Official Determination of No Special Use Permit Needed - Keswick
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 407 Pg. 80
(Page 4) -~
Golf Maintenance Facility," received for information. Mrs. Patterson states
that the golf maintenance facility proposed as part of the Keswick Inn golf
course was not shown or discussed in the special use permits under which the
resort was approved, nor was the property proposed for the maintenance
facility included in the list of properties approved for the golf course by
special use permit. However, the zoning Administrator and the Director of
Planning and community Development have concurred that, subject to certain
conditions relating to the use and the structure, this proposal is in substan-
tial accord with the approved special permits on the Keswick properties and
will not require a new special use permit or amendment to one of the existing
special use permits. Approval of this facility is subject to the following
conditions: (1) Architectural review and approval by the County Design
Planner for the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to insure that the golf
maintenance facility is compatible with.the sewage treatment plant approved by
the ARB, and with the residential and agricultural character of the district~
(2) The uses allowed for this structure shall be limited to maintenance and
landscaping work associated with the golf course, grounds and gardens of the
Keswick Inn, and the administrative offices required to supervise these
functions only; and, (3) Any future expansion of this facility shall require
separate review and may require a special use permit.
Item 5.12. Memorandum dated January 28, 1992, from Patrick K. Mullaney,
Director, Parks & Recreation, entitled "City/County Fees" regarding non-
resident fees for use of the City's Pen Park, received as follows:
"As a general rule, the City charges the same differential as the
County for non-residents in classes and programs in that non-
residents typically pay 50 percent more than residents. As you
can see from the enclosure (on file) for golf, the City does not
charge a significantly higher fee for non-residents for daily
play. For a nine-hole weekday round, a resident adult pays $8 and
a non-resident adult $9. While there are slightly higher fees for
weekend play and slightly lower fees for junior or senior citi-
zens, the differential remains $1 for each nine holes played.
Daily fees for everyone increased $1 from 1991 to 1992.
For season passes the City maintains the 50 percent higher fee for
non-residents. For instance, a resident adult will pay $450 and a
non-resident will pay $675 in 1992. All season pass rates in-
creased approximately 20 percent from 1991 to 1992. Pen Park is a
self-supporting operation. With the addition of the new nine
holes, which will be playable in the fall, there is a need to
increase revenues to cover the additional expenses.
Admission fees for the County parks are set by the Board of
Supervisors. Season pass rates were last increased for the 1989
swim season. Daily rates were last increased in 1986.
Park revenues have steadily declined from a peak of $121,000 in
86-87 to $92,000 in 89-90. In 90-91 revenues rebounded slightly
to $96,500° Of course weather impacts park attendance, however~ I
do think our last season pass increase turned out to be counter
productive. Non-resident daily usage is also significantly down
in comparison to years prior to 1986. For instance in 1985,
12,977 resident adults and 11,131 non-resident adults paid the
daily fee at Chris Greene. In 1991, there were 10~954 resident
adults and only 5305 non-resident adults paying daily admission.
It would be my recommendation that both resident and non-resident
fees stay the same for the upcoming swim season. I feel that any
revenues gained through increasing fees, especially non-resident
fees, would be more than offset by additional decreases in atten-
dance.''
Item 5.13o Noise ordinance, Staff Update. Memorandum received for
information as follows:
"Backqround: Law enforcement personnel have had difficulty
obtaining convictions in court under our current noise ordinance.
Problems seem to be related to calibration issues of our existing
equipment~ lack of enforceable standards, and perceived lack of
due process provisions. Staff attempted to draft amendments which
would give the responding officer broader discretion as to what
was ~disturbing the peace' only to find that recent court cases
require little or no discretion to be used but rather very defini-
tive decibel readings at the property line.
Discussion: Calibration standards have been set for the County's
current equipment. Chief Miller intends to guide its use through
the development of department policies which should address some
of the court's concerns regarding due process. It is the inten-
tion of the department to write a number of citations, where
appropriate, using the newly calibrated equipment to determine
from the courts what the parameters will be to obtain successful
convictions.'~
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 81
(Page 5)
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: April 17, June 5, July 10~ and
August 14~ 1991.
Mr. Bowerman announced that he had read the July 10, 1991, minutes,
Pages 13 to the end, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bain stated that he had read the July 10, 1991, minutes, Pages 1 to
13, and found them to be in order except for a couple of typographical errors.
Mr. Bain had also read the August 14, 1991, minutes, Pages 1 to #9 on Page 10
and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bain moved approval of the minutes as previously stated. Mrs.
Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris~ Messrs. Martins Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Letter dated January 13~ 1992~
from Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Department of Transportation, addressed to
David Po Bowerman, 'Chairman, re: the Route 29 Bypass and its relationship to
the proposed Agnor-Hunt Elementary School (Deferred from January 22~ 1992)~
received as follows:
"January 13, 1992
The Honorable David P. Bowerman
Chairman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Mr. Bowerman:
This is in response to chairman Bowie's letter of December 18,
1991, regarding the Route 29 Bypass and its relationship to the
proposed Agnor-Hurt Elementary School.
On December 6, 1990, this office reviewed the preliminary plan for
the proposed school site and, at that time, acknowledged that the
Alternative 10 alignment did have a direct impact on the proposed
school site. This impact was to the baseball field and parking
area on the northern side of the property. At that time, it was
also noted that it did not appear feasible to shift out of this
proposed site.
This information was forwarded to the Culpeper District and was
subsequently verbally related to Albemarle Countye
The approved location of the Alternative 10 alignment did not
change in this area and as stated in your letter, the school site
is impacted by this corridor.
The same constraints which did not allow adjustment to the align-
ment after our December 1990 review still exist. A shift of the
alignment to the north, as suggested in your letter, would cause a
direct impact on the Rivanna River Reservoir. A shift of the
alignment through this area would also cause severe impact to the
Squirrel Ridge neighborhood. The approved alignment skirts the
southern portion of the neighborhood and a shift to the north
would sever the neighborhood. Any shift of the alignment in this
area would compromise the design of the alignment at its termini
at Route 29 north.
For these reasons, a shift to completely miss this site does not
seem possible. As we get into the design stage of this project~
we will work with the School Board and the Board of Supervisors to
minimize the impacts of this property.
If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED) Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner"
Mr. Bowerman said the above letter was received from the Highway
Commissioner in reply to the Board's question about whether the proposed
bypass will encroach upon the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School property. He
believes the School Board got the same letter since they had sent a similar
request to VDoT for clarification.
Mr. Bain mentioned that the County owns five acres that are part of the
school property. He suggested that if the construction of a bypass begins~
the ballfield be switched to another part of the school property~ if neces-
sarye
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. Pg. 81
(Page 6)
Mrs. Humphris did not think this Board should forget the basic premise
this bypass road is not needed at all. She said the children at Agnor-
Hurtthat Elementary School will be faced with health, safety and noise problems
that are not necessary. She pointed out that this will also be true of the
students at Greer and Jouett Schools.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Highway Matters: Discussion - Request from Citizen
to have traffic light installed at entrance to The Colonnades and have speed
limit reduced.
Mr. Bowerman commented that a citizen has requested that a traffic light
be installed at the entrance to The Colonnades and that the speed limit be
reduced in that area. He said Mr. Roosevelt had been contacted concerning
this inquiry.
Mr. Roosevelt said he has already written to the traffic engineer and
asked him to run a complete study of that location and also to report the
number of accidents on that stretch of road over the past two year period. He
~ated that the study has not yet been completed, but as soon as he gets this
information from the Traffic Engineer, he will write the Board. He suggested
that the item be deferred to the next day meeting.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she had seen Mr. Roosevelt near The Colon-
~ades where the stop sign was installed. She asked who wanted the stop sign
there. Mr. Roosevelt replied that The Colonnades' representatives called him
to discuss some traffic problems their residents had. One of the problems was
that residents and visitors did not feel they needed to stop as they came out
of the exit. He informed The Colonnades' representatives that this could be
solved by placing a stop sign to notify drivers that the law indicates that in
any entrance onto a State highway, the vehicle is supposed to stop or yield to
traffic before entering the highway. He said the Colonnades~ representatives
then purchased a stop sign and put it in place.
Mr. Roosevelt noted that another concern was the design of the entrance.
He said the width between that curb and the centerline is about 14 feet and
that should be sufficient for most motorists to make that turn. He indicated~
to the Manager of The Colonnades that he has no problem with rebuilding that
curb if they so desire° He pointed out that if this is done, the cost will
have to be absorbed by The Colonnades. He does not know what has been decided
about this situation.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she tragels this portion of Barracks Road a
couple of times a day. She does not know what VDoT's report will indicate,
but she believes that 35 miles per hour is what the speed limit should be in
that area. She said this lower speed is desirable because of The Colonnades~
the store and Old Salem Apartments.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that when The Colonnades was constructed, VDoT
officials recommended, and County Planning staff made it a requirement on the
site plan, that left and right turn lanes be constructed. Because it was a
retirement facility where the motorists normally have slower reaction times
than normal motorists, VDoT officials felt that both turn lanes were needed to
add a margin of safety to that entrance. Everything that is possible has been
done to make that intersection safe. He went on to say that a problem at The
Colonnades intersection is one of sight distance. While it meets minimum
requirements, it is not excessive.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that The Colonnades' capacity should be kept in
mind when the study is done, because there will probably be twice as many
residents there some day. Mr. Roosevelt commented that he expects to have the
information from the studies available by the next day meeting.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Highway Matters: Letter dated January 23~ 1992~
from John G. Milliken, Secretary of Transportation, concerning Route 671
(Millington Bridge) project, was received as follows:
"January 23~ 1992
The Honorable David P. Bowerman, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Bowerman:
This letter is in response to former Chairman F. R. Bowie's letter
to me of December 31, 1991~ concerning the Route 671 (Millington
Bridge) project. I understand that congratulations are in order
for your recent election as Chairman of the Board. I look forward
to working with you.
You are well aware that the Millington Bridge is substandard,
deteriorating, and needs replacement; your Board's resolution of
April 10, 1991~ acknowledges this fact. The Department of Trans-
portation has completed the bridge's design, along the ~green
lines which the Board of Supervisors selected, and it stands ready
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 83
(Page 7)
to proceed with the project. However, the Virginia Outdoors
Foundation, holder of Open-Space Easements on certain properties
in the alignment, has not agreed to convey a portion of these
easements so that the project can proceed.
Mr. Bowie's letter was correct that Secretary Haskell and I have
met to discuss this project. I believe it should proceed.
If the Board of Supervisors agrees, I suggest you contact the
Virginia outdoors Foundation. The bridge continues to deteriorate
and it cannot be replaced within the existing right-of-way.
Failure to replace it may require that it be closed to traffic in
the future. I remain hopeful that this matter will be resolved
very soon, so the bridge can be replaced promptly.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED) John G. Milliken"
Mro Tucker said Mr. Milliken is requesting the County's assistance in
obtaining the release of some easements currently held by the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation, easements which affect construction of a new bridge on
Route 671 at Millington. He said the existing Millington Bridge is deterio-
rating, and VDoT officials indicate that the bridge cannot be repaired; it
also does not meet acceptable alignment criteria. To construct a new bridge
in a different location resulted in an alignment called the "green line'."
Albemarle County's position has been to repair the bridge and not build a new
one° A compromise was necessary a couple of years ago, however~ before VDoT
officials would accept the County's Six Year Secondary Road Plan. Mr. Tucker
explained that the Virginia Outdoors Foundation is unlikely to release the
easements, but if the County specifically makes such a request, the Foundation
may release them. He noted that this bridge access is a necessity, but repair
is still the preferred alternative of the County. Today this Board received a
copy of a letter from Mr. Tim Lindstrom, of the Piedmont Environmental
Council° Mr. Lindstrom's opinion is that VDoT has recourses other than
closing the road. One is to repair and replace the bridge where it currently
stands. Another is an appeal to the Governor, who has the authority to
mediate between State agencies, including VDoT and the Outdoors Foundation°
He suggested Board members take time to review Mr. Lindstrom's letter since it
had just been received.
Mr. Bain said the resolution adopted by this Board changed the language
to "replace" because VDoT officials indicated the bridge could not be re-
paired. Mr. Tucker agreed. He asked Mr. Roosevelt to discuss the "green
line" alignment with the Board°
Mr. Roosevelt explained that the "green line" alignment was the plan
used at the public hearing on this project. The pink area on the map is the
existing road, and he pointed out the location of the Moormans River. He
noted the approach from Route 614 and the location of the existing bridge
before traffic proceeds up the hill toward Free Union. He next pointed out
the "green line" alignment, which starts at a house on the south side of the
River and goes through a 30 mile per hour curve design into a second curve
that is also designed for 30 miles per hour. The "green line" alignment then
connects into the existing road at the intersection of Route 674, which is a
gravel road, and runs west to Route 810. He said the "green line" alignment
was one of approximately six alignments that~were reviewed by VDoT with the
Board some time ago. He does not have a large map that shows the six or seven
alternative alignments, but he has a sketch from the Environmental Impact
Statement which shows most of them. He said the "green line" alignment was
the shortest of the alternatives that T~ansportation Department officials
indicated would meet standards for road and bridge design, but it had the
sharpest horizontal curvature.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that there are people at the meeting who are
interested in this project, but this is not a public hearing. He asked for
the people who wished to speak to this issue to come forward.
Mr. Forbes Reback said he lives close to the bridge, and with his wife
Sherry Buttrick, has been working hard to preserve the current bridge. They
are members of an ad hoc group called the Millington Homeowners Association.
He is surprised to be discussing this subject again since he has been to about
20 similar meetings during the last four years. He thought this matter was
finished in the summer of 1990 when this Board passed its resolution. That
resolution indicated that the Supervisors would like to see the bridge
repaired or replaced in place, and if that became an impossibility, then the
option chosen would be the "green line" alignment. This subject is being
revisited at the request of Secretary Milliken, but none of the facts have
changed. He sees no reason to reopen the matter, except that once again VDoT
officials are trying to "strong arm" the citizens and local government to get
their way. He noted that this is the approach VDoT has taken throughout the
four-year history of this matter, and the people in his neighborhood do not
appreciate it.
Mr. Reback said Mr. Bowie, former chairman of this Board, characterized
actions of VDoT officials as "akin to blackmail." This occurred when VDoT
made it clear that if the bridge was not included in the County's Six-Year
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 407 Pg. 84
(Page 8)
Plan, then other projects would not be funded by VDoT. He pointed out that
the Richmond Times Dispatch, in an editorial dated July 5, 1991, described the
rejection of the County's Six Year Plan in similar terms to Mr. Bowie's. He
always been bewildered as to why Highway Department officials would want
to spend $1.0 million on this bridge, even if 75 to 90 percent of the cost is
paid from Federal funds. Why should $1.0 million of the taxpayers' money be
spent on a bridge that can be repaired or replaced for one-tenth or less of
that cost?
Mr. Reback stated that the Surface Transportation Act of 1991, which was
enacted and signed by the President at the end of November, has a section
relating to bridges in historic or scenic areas. There are provisions therein
for requesting the Federal Secretary of Transportation for an exemption from
the strict guidelines and standards for bridge construction and alignment that
have been adopted by VDoT. If this project is tabled until the regulations
are written and Department of Transportation officials know exactly what the
new law says, the end result will be a new bridge in place. He urged Board
members to retain their previous position, and to support the wishes of their
constituents°
Next, Ms. Sherry Buttrick informed the Board members that she is a
landowner next to the Millington Bridge. She pointed out that Secretary
Milliken made the following statement in the Richmond Times Dispatch two weeks
ago: "The priority has always been, under State law, maintenance first,
maintain what you have before you build anything new. And I think that is the
right priority. Don~t let our existing facility deteriorate by not maintain-
ing it so that five years from now it will cost you 20 times that amount to
rebuild it." She stated that the Highway Department has a legal obligation to
maintain the Millington bridge. She said it is the impression of those people
who live close to the bridge that scheduled maintenance is not being done and
everything that could be done to maintain the bridge is not occurring. An
official of the Highway Department told someone at the Outdoors Foundation
meeting that maintenance had not been done since 1988. Ms. Buttrick mentioned
that the Surface Transportation Act of 1991 will afford a long-term solution
to this problem. Section 10.16 of that Act allows for the Federal Secretary
of Transportation to waive any and all design standards in areas of scenic or
historic value. She thinks this project would qualify under that section.
She thinks the public will be best served if Highway Department officials
follow their own priorities and maintain this bridge to the best of their
ability until a long-term solution can be found under this Act°
Mro J. P. Davis, a landowner next to the bridge, spoke next. He said-
that he owns the hay field through which the "green line" alignment is
proposed to be constructed. His opinion is that the Supervisors should keep
to their position and let the Virginia Outdoors Foundation keep its standards.
He thinks the bridge should be replaced in the same spot° Me pointed out that
he would hate to lose the value of a piece of land, something which cannot be
replaced.
Mr. Roosevelt said he thinks Ms. Buttrick's comments need a response.
To say that the bridge has not been maintained since 1988 is not true. It may
be that large amounts of money have not been spent by VDoT doing replacement
work, but ordinary maintenance has been done as necessary° He pointed out
that the bridge has a truss band where every piece of the bridge relies on
another piece, and all of the pieces come together at joints, which have pins
in them. The pins cannot be pulled out without the bridge collapsing.
Because of the age of the pins and the design of the bridge the pins are
realistically impossible to replace, and they are rusting and deteriorating.
He said that everything wears out. He pointed out that this is the case with
this bridge, and he reiterated that the bridge has worn out, and it needs to
be replaced.
Mr. Bain read from the final paragraph of Mr. Milliken's letter which
indicated that the bridge continues to deteriorate, and it cannot be replaced
within the existing right-of-way° Mr. Bain believes, however, that engineers
can replace the bridge where it currently stands. He asked Mro Roosevelt if
Mro Milliken is saying that the bridge cannot be replaced in the existing
right-of-way because of new standards. Mr. Roosevelt responded that the
bridge cannot be replaced under current standards and guidelines at the
existing location because of the sharp curve on the south end of the bridge.
He added that the bridge also cannot be replaced with a standard width bridge
at its existing location because the right-of-way at that location is only a
30 foot prescriptive easement, and it is not the 50 foot right-of-way that is
required.
Mr. Bain asked if the current bridge is more than 30 feet wide. Mr.
Roosevelt replied, "no." He said the bridge can be replaced with a similar
width bridge at the samelocation withih the current prescriptive easement,
but, to build a bridge that meets current width and alignment standards~ it
cannot be placed at that location without additional rights-of-way.
Mr. Perkins stated that federal funding has been mentioned today for
this project. He recalled that several months ago he asked about federal
funding for this project, and Mr. Roosevelt told him that federal funds were
not involved. Mr. Roosevelt answered that Mr. Perkins is correct. He said
Mr. Reback mentioned federal funding, but no one from VDoT has mentioned it.
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 407 Pg. 85
(Page 9)
Mr. Perkins said to clarify the matter, the County would not be con-
trolled by federal regulations relative to how funds are spent because there
are no federal funds involved. Mr. Roosevelt agreed that Mro Perkins is
correct.
Mr. Martin asked if the reason the bridge cannot be replaced at its
existing location without violating VDoT's standards is because of the lack of
an easement. Mr. Roosevelt responded that the bridge cannot be replaced at
its existing width at the existing location without violating design stan-
dards. He recalled that one of the alignments considered in the early stages
of the project was to have the bridge at that same location with the approach
road being constructed through the field on the south side. He said this
alignment went through the side yard and fields that belong to the house on
the corner.
Next, Mr. Martin wondered if the new federal legislation will eliminate
some of the restrictions and make a compromise possible. Mr. Roosevelt
replied that he is unfamiliar with any federal regulations. He thinks VDoT
officials still have to agree to waive VDoT's standards. He noted that the
advice VDoT officials have consistently received from the Attorney General
regarding liability, is that standards need to be adopted and adhered to, or
there is a high risk of 'State and personal liability for whatever is con-
structed. He said that even if the Federal legislation allows the existing
bridge to be replaced in the same manner, he is uncertain if VDoT officials
would feel comfortable doing that.
Mrs° Humphris asked if it is possible for VDoT to waive its own stan-
dards. Mr. Roosevelt answered, "certainly."
Mr. Martin remarked that if this group of landowners is not willing to
provide the land necessary for the rights-of-way, VDoT cannot take them. Me
thinks VDoT would have to have the Supervisors put pressure on the landowners,
which may or may not work, or an appeal Would have to be made to the Governor.
He thinks that if there is legislation which offers a compromise, it would be
better to postpone any action until more is known about the legislation.
Mrs. Humphris stated that, according to Mr. Roosevelt, there are no
federal funds involved. She said that if no federal funds are involved~ the
Surface Transportation Act would not affect this project at all.
Mr. Bain asked if this is a question of violating standards instead of
whether or not federal funds are being used. Mr. Roosevelt replied that even
if they have not been funded with federal money in the past. federal funds are
available for bridges. This bridge could be eligible for federal funds, but
VDoT, in the past, has had sufficient State funds so it was unnecessary to
program everything for federal funding. He went on to say that only 15 to 18
percent of their projects had matching federal funds, which left approximately
70 percent of the money spent for improvements coming from State funds. A
decision was made to fund this bridge with State funds, but he reiterated that
the option of whether or not federal funding will be used is made by VDoT.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the Surface Transportation Act of 1991 comes
into play. Mr. Roosevelt answered that he has no confirmation of Mr. Reback's
comments. If what Mr. Reback indicated is correct, it is possible, if VDoT
officials waive the standards, that federal funding could be received for
something other than what is on the plan. ^The first thing that has to be
decided is whether or not VDoT officials want to waive the standards.
Mrs. Humphris asked if federal funds have to be involved. Mr. Roosevelt
replied, "yes."
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. St. John if he wanted to comment. Mr. St. John
said he cannot speak about the Act because he is not sure what it actually
says; the regulations have not yet been written. He does not agree or
disagree with Mr. Roosevelt, but he thinks that if this follows the usual
pattern, Virginia officials will have to adopt standards which apply to every
bridge in Virginia in order to get federal funds in a lump sum to spread among
the needed bridge projects. He said this Board needs to make a decision as to
whether or not to recommend to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation that these
easements be waived. He recommended that the Supervisors find out what will
happen if they don't agree to this recommendation. He said he does not know
the answer to this question.
Mr. Martin said if there is no federal legislation as a possible
compromise, he thinks it will be hard for this Board to make a decision. He
does not think this Board needs to speculate as to what needs to be done. He
asked that action be postponed by this Board until there is more information
about the federal legislation.
At this time, Mr. Bain made a motion to reaffirm the Board's resolution
of April 10, 1991, and requested that a letter be forwarded to Secretary
Milliken stating the Board's intent not to make a request to the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation and, to request the Virginia Department of Transportation
to look into new Federal legislation concerning bridges and see if it applies
to this project and to determine if a waiver is in order, and if so, the
Virginia Department of Transportation is to request such a waiver. Mr. Martin
seconded the motion.
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. Pg. 86
(Page 10)
Mr. Bain said this Board has heard about the liability issue. He
believes that if there were a major accident on the road today, VDoT could be
sued as well as if VDoT replaced the bridge in the same place. He does not
believe the liability issue is significant, and he thinks the bridge can be
replaced in the 30 foot prescriptive easement that is already there. He does
not intend to change his position, but he is willing to see if there is some
means of compromise. He thinks that this Board, with its previous resolution,
has already compromised as much as possible.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried with the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrso Martin~ Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 7d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Tucker announced that he had attended a General Assembly subcommit-
tee meeting on transportation regarding House Bill 855 along with several
people from the community. This is the bill Mr. Van Yahres placed before the
General Assembly at this Board's request, regarding acquisition of rights-of-
way within three years of the location of a major roadway by VDoT. He said
the subcommittee seemed sympathetic with the County's problem, because most
members recognized similar problems in their own communities. The bill did
pass from that subcommittee and will be heard by the full committee tomorrow
morning at 9:30 a.m. Several people from this area will be going to this
meetinge He was told there would be a short time allowed for a presentation.
Mr. Bain asked for information concerning the right-of-way width on
Berkmar Extended versus the interchange problem. Mr. Cilimberg answered that
the timing between doing that short section of Rio Road on the east side of
Berkmar as a separate project, or doing it as part of the overall Rio Road
project, is a difference of approximately nine months because of design and
public hearing requirements.
Mr. Jeff Echols, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer~ remarked that he
has met with Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer, who is in the process of
developing plans for that section of roadway. They have come to an agreement
as to what needs to be planned for the portion of the road that involves the
school. Mr. Bain asked if more right-of-way would be needed for that area.
Mr. Echols said it can be built in the interim until the County's project
begins, and Ms. Higgins is having plans developed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a spot improvement can be made on Rio Road in the
vicinity of Phillips Building Supply, even if it is just a gravel laneo
Vehicles are only traveling three or four miles an hour at that point and it
would be helpful if people could get down to the light at Route 29 North
without traffic backing up into the single lane part of the road.
Mr. Echols responded that there will be more lanes at Route 29 when
Route 29 is widened, and there will be stacking ability toward Route 29. He
said that it is possible to put in another lane in the vicinity of Phillips
Building Supply.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks something temporary something not expensive,
needs to be pursued to help alleviate that problem.
Mrs. Mumphris remarked that she had been asked about the lack of anti-
littering signs around Albemarle County° She asked who determines the number
and installation points of these signs. Mr. Echols answered that the Highway
Department's Traffic Engineer is responsible for anti-littering signs. The
signs don't have much affect on people, even though some of the signs indicate
that a fine could be imposed. He suggested that if there are particular areas
where Mrs. Humphris thinks signs are needed, the need will be reviewed.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 10:08 a.m., and Mr. Bain, as
Vice-Chairman, continued with the meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Sara Watson Preliminary Plat Appeal.
Mr. Tucker indicated that there is a request for indefinite deferral of
the Sara Watson Preliminary Plat Appeal. He suggested that the matter be
deferred until May 6, 1992.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to defer
the Sara Watson Preliminary Plat Appeal'until May 6, 1992.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
~S: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins, and Bain.
NAYS:- None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Marshall.
M.B. 40, Pg. 87
Agenda Item No. 9. Acceptance of Deed from Emerald Land Company to
Albemarle County for Land Adjacent to Mint Springs Park (deferred from
October 9, t991).
Mr. Tucker said that on April 20, 1988, Emerald Land Company offered to
donate approximately 56 acres of land to the County as an addition to Mint
Springs Park. This donation was to serve as 'both a buffer to the adjoining
subdivision as well as provide watershed protection.
Mr. Tucker said that on August 14, 1991, the Board instructed the staff
to work out the details of the donation. Emerald Land Company had requested
that the 1991 real estate taxes on this property be forgiven by the County as
well as lifetime access to Mint springs'Park granted for the Langman Family
and the Roell family
The 1991 tax bill for the property including penalty and interest as of
February, 1992 should become the "purchase price" for the property as state
law prohibits the County from forgiving taxes. This amounts to $592.63.
Mr. Tucker said the Board had also requested that specific family
members to be given lifetime free access to the Mint Springs Park be listed,
and they are as follows:
The Lanqman Family:
Linda Langman
Ronald Langman
Willem Langman
Ina Langman
Juliet Langman
The Roell FamilH:
Katurah Roell
Elizabeth Roell
Isaiah Roell
Joshua Roell
Emerald Land Company has requested that a press release describing the
donation be distributed in late June at an event to be planned by Emerald Land
Company° Details of this press release will be developed at a later date°
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board accept the deed granting
58.788 acres to the County of Albemarle, and authorize the County Attorney.and
Board Chairman to execute the necessary documents to close the transaction
subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
Staff further recommends that an ~ppropriation of $592.63 be authorized
from the Board's Contingency Fund to be paid to Emerald Land Company for
payment of the 1991 real estate taxes on the noted property with instructions
that the money be used to satisfy the tax liability before the deed is
executed.
(Mr° Bowerman returned at 10:10 a.m.)
At this time, Mr. Perkins moved that the Board accept the deed from the
Emerald Land Company in accordance with the staff's recommendations, and that
the Chairman be authorized to sign the deed.
Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 10. Retirement (Continuous Service Policy) (deferred
from December 18, 1991).
Mr. Tucker said that at the Board's January 15, 1992, meeting, staff
discussed a request from an employee to allow the County's retirement bonus
policy to apply to total years of serviQe with Albemarle County rather than
basing it on the existing policy of using continuous service. At that time,
it was indicated that if this change were to be made for all employees, there
would be impacts on several other policies which reference continuous service.
He noted that the additional policies which may be affected are referenced in
a memo (on file) from Dr. Hastings.
Mr. Tucker said that as alternatives, the Board could choose to treat
requests on a case-by-case basis or could choose to amend its policies to
allow any or all of them to apply to total service with the County.
Mr. Tucker said if the Board is inclined to change the retirement bonus
policy for all employees, staff recommends that the policy be sent to the
Joint Personnel Policy Committee for review and recommendation as to fiscal
and operational impacts. If the Board chooses to make an exception on a case-
by-case basis, no further changes are needed at this time to other policies.
He pointed out that the employee making this request would benefit by approxi-
mately $1,400.
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.40, Pg.88
(Page 12)
Mr. Bain said when this policy was first developed, the word "continu-
ous'' was not in the wording, it was inserted in the final draft. A lot of
time was not spent on determining whether "continuous service" should be part
of the policy. He thinks there may be some justification to having "continu-
ous service" apply to one policy, but not to another. He suggested that the
Joint Personnel Policy Committee review'this request and make a recommenda-
tion.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Bain wants to make a decision on this request
and then look at the policy. Mr. Bain answered that he does not feel strongly
that a decision has to be made on this one individual before there is a
recommendation from the Policy Committee. However, if it will take six months
to consider the policies, he asks that the Board not wait to make a decision
for this employee.
Mr.~Tucker said he does not know how long it will take for the Committee
to make a recommendation, but he does not anticipate that many General
Government employees will be affected.
Mrs. Humphris said it seems to her that service is service, and the
continuous part of the policy is irrelevant. She said there could be a lot of
personal circumstances which might cause an employee not to have continuous
service, but that employee has still served the County°
Mr. Bain said there may be justification in the retirement area only for
an employee who has a break in service. He does not want to make that policy
decision today without having the Joint Personnel Policy Committee consider
the matter.
Mr. Tucker suggested that the request be deferred for sixty days so that
the Committee can consider it.
At this time, Mr. Martin made a m°tion to defer the decision on the
continuous service section of the Retirement Policy for sixty days, with the
matter being brought back to this Board at its day meeting in April. Mr. Bain
seconded the motion.
Mr. Perkins commented that he thinks there is a benefit in the way the
current policy is written. There is a cost incurred by the County anytime a
person leaves the system, anytime a person comes back to the County, or
anytime an employee is hired. He believes this policy needs a lot of consid-
eration before any change is made. Mr. Bain said he does not disagree with
Mro Perkins' comments.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(Note: The Board recessed at 10:20 a.m. and reconvened at 10:30 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: An ordinance to amend and reenact
Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation of the Albemarle County Code, by moving
certain sections within Article I, In General, to other sections of this
chapter; to add a new chapter Article XIV, Real Estate, In General~ for
simplification and consistency within the chapters; to create a new chapter
Article XV, Personal Property, In General, to provide qualified volunteer
rescue squad and fire company workers a tax exemption of the first $4500 of
assessed value on one motor vehicle, subject to certain requirements~ to amend
and reenact Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Section 12-23, to allow
any person listed on the active rolls of any volunteer fire company or rescue
squad who qualifies under Article XVto be exempt from license fee provisions
as to any one vehicle registered to such person. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on January 21 and January 28~ 1992.)
Mr. Tucker said that as "housekeeping" items in the Code of Albemarle,
Sections 8.1 through 8.1.9 are proposed to be renumbered. Sections 8-64
through 8-66 and Sections 8-67 through 8-69 are new sections which relocate
the previously adopted language.
Section 8-70 establishes, pursuant to a resolution of the Board in June.
1990, a personal property tax exemption for volunteer fire and rescue person-
nel. Section 12-23 is proposed to be amended to use the requirements listed
in Section 8-70 for issuance of a county fire decal for this small group of
volunteers.
Mr. Tucker said members of the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue
Association have indicated that they desire the interpretation of the ordi-
nance to be broadened to include the officers and board members of their
organizations, those who donate food and fund-raising services for the
responders. The intent of the present policy is to grant the exemption only
for volunteer responders.
Staff recommends that the ordinances be adopted as advertised. Staff
further recommends that the Board clearly state its intentions as to who is to
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 407 Pg. 89
(Page 13)
receive the exemptions since some volunteer fire departments state that their
ladies auxiliary members receive a different kind of training but do donate
over 100 hours just as the responders do.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Melvin Breeden is present at today's meeting to
answer questions. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Breeden met with JCFRA while developing
the ordinance in order to get their comments.
Mr. Breeden explained that the County has given vehicle decals to fire
and rescue members for many years. The ordinance has always been interpreted
as applying to individuals who actively respond to fight fires or to give
assistance; the ordinance was never interpreted to apply to auxiliary
personnel, etc. When this Board adopted the resolution in 1990, guidelines
were established to clear up problems. Mr. John Hood and Mr. Ray Jones met to
establish the guidelines, and then a set of regulations were drafted and sent
to Mr. Hood who made some changes which were implemented. Many changes
related to the new split billing procedure of the personal property tax. In
the past it was not easy to find who was eligible. The new regulations were
modified so that eligibility could be determined on a split year basis,
therefore, if a new member meets the minimum criteria, he will qualify for the
second half of the year. It was a problem identifying fire fighters and
rescue people because these people have to meet minimum training requirements.
The training requirements vary from company to company. He is not sure if all
the companies even have a minimum hour requirement; the required hours are
reasonably low so that people can qualify.
One of the problems of administering the program is the question of what
minimum training requirements are. For auxiliary members, there may be no
training requirements. If the program~applies to auxiliary members~ they
would have to meet minimum training requirements. He would like for the Board
to define who exactly is eligible under ordinance provisions. One company
added all of its auxiliary personnel to its list, and that is what initiated
the problem. He feels everyone should be going by the same guidelines. He
brought out the fact that if the program is expanded to cover auxiliary
personnel, cost to the County must be considered. He said the cost of the
program is now between $50,000 and $60,000.
Mr. Raymond James, Fire Chief of the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company
at Keswick, was present to represent the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue
Association. He concurs with Mr. Breeden about the problems that have been
experienced over the past year. He would like to change some wording of the
ordinance so that associate members and members who perform other duties, such
as the auxiliaries are covered. He said the'companies were polledt and such a
change to the ordinance would allow an increase of approximately 50 people to
the program. Under Section (c) of the ordinance, he would like the words "'or
to perform company business," added. Members of the boards of directors,
auxiliary/associate members perform business for the companies, in relation to
fund drives and to the operation of the companies. These companies have
different divisions just like any other business. The people do not respond
to calls, but they fill the gap between what is received in allotment from the
County and the actual budget every year..
Mr. James next called attention to Section (d) of the ordinance which
states: "The qualifying volunteer must have completed minimum training
requirements and one hundred hours of volunteer activities during the preced-
ing twelve months." He said the members of his Association would like this
changed to read: "The qualifying volunteers must have met the minimum
requirements for their position within their respective rescue squad or fire
company." He said each position generally has different requirements for
training standards; there is no one standard that can be applied for everyone
in a fire or rescue squad company.
Next, Mr. James read Section (d) under Sec. 8-70~ which stated:
"Eligible volunteer hours are limited to hours attending squad/company
meetings, training sessions or actual responses to calls." He said the
members of his organization would like it to state: "Eligible volunteer hours
are limited to hours attending squads company meetings, training sess~ons~
actual responses to calls, fund raising or other company business." This
would include those people who perform functions other than just responding to
fire calls. There are associate and auxiliary members at the East Rivanna
Fire Company who spend more time handling company business and raising money
than the fire fighters spend fighting fires. These people are doing a lot,
but others are getting the credit.
Mr. James said as far as costs are concerned~ with the $4.30 per $100
tax rate, and with the $4,500 maximum exemption, the cost would be approxi-
mately $193.50 a vehicle, with a maximum of $25 for a decal for a pickup or
automobile. This would bring the total.to $218.50 per person, and the total
cost of the package would be approximately $10,925 for these additional
people. He said the whole purpose of this project is to have an incentive to
entice people to be members of fire and rescue stations and to have something
to offset the out-of-pocket expenses that these volunteers have throughout the
year. This is his proposal, but he noted that the costs he quoted may vary.
Hopefully, with the incentive program and the training program that the
volunteer coordinators are developing, there will be an increase in members~
so the volunteer system can be kept going to help reduce overall expenditures
to the County for fire and rescue protection.
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) 54.B. 407 Pg. 90
(Page 14)
Mrs. Humphris asked if the volunteer responders have the same out-of-
pocket expenses that the other volunteers have. Mr. James answered that
volunteer responders only have traveling expenses. Mrs. Humphris asked who
pays for the volunteer responders' uniforms and laundry, etc. Mr. James
replied that the companies vary as to expenses for their volunteers. The East
Rivanna Company has a system whereby all the members, whether they are
auxiliary or fire fighters, pay for everything other than the actual fire
suppression turnout gear. The uniform costs, etc., are borne by the members
themselves, along with vehicle expenditures. Mrs. Humphris asked if the
actual responder has an out-of-pocket expense beyond that of other volunteers.
Mr. James replied, "yes."
No one else came forward to speak-for or against the ordinance, so Mr.
Bowerman closed the public hearing.
Mr. St. John said he has found that other localities include the same
type of people to which Mr. James referred under the terms of their ordinanc-
es. This has not been questioned legally, and he does not think it would be
"stretching" the enabling legislation if auxiliary personnel were included.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many total people would be included under the
recommendation. Mr. Breeden said he thinks there would be 186 volunteer
firemen plus 50 auxiliary members. Mr. Bowerman asked if the total cost to
the County would be approximately $50,000 a year. Mr. Breeden commented that
the cost would be closer to $60,000.
Mr. Bain said the figure of 50 auxiliary people would indicate that with
seven fire companies in the County, there would only be seven auxiliary
members per company. He thinks this figure is low. Mr. Breeden mentioned
that the State Code permitting the exemption at local option specifically
states that the vehicle should be owned by the individual and that it be used
in responding to a call. The problem lies in how to define the situation of a
person responding to a call. He asked if just coming to the fire house to
provide other services is equivalent to responding to a fire or an accident°
Mrs. Humphris pointed out that there is an additional out-of-pocket cost
to the actual responders. There is an additional stress level on the respond-
er which is not existent for a volunteer. Also, there are a lot of volunteers
for a lot of worthy organizations within the County who would have the right
to expect such a break if this opportunity were given to these people. She
said that these other volunteers do a service of a different kind. She thinks
the program should be limited to the actual responders.
Mr. Perkins agreed with Mrs. Humphriso He belongs to the Ruritan Club~
and one of their projects is raising funds for the fire company and rescue
squad. He believes the Crozet Fire Company must have 50 auxiliary members~ as
well as junior fire fighters. There are probably another 50 persons in the
Crozet community who are not connected in any formal way with the fire
company, but they still help the fire company with fund raising projects. He
does not want to belittle the efforts of the volunteers, but he thinks the
program was meant for the people who actually respond to a fire or an emergen-
cy medical situation. He said he intends to support this program for the
actual responders.
Mrs. Humphris said she does not want to minimize the value of the
contribution that the other volunteers make. She believes, though, that the
original idea was to give the break to the people who are actually responderso
Mr. Martin agreed with Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins. He pointed out
that most of the Supervisors have volunteered their time for different
projects, committees or task forces, etc. He has always done volunteering in
the spirit of donating his time to the community° He does not like the idea
of this Board establishing a precedent of paying people who volunteer. He
thinks it would take some of the spirit out of volunteering.
Mr. Bowerman stated that Mrs. Humphris had raised a good point about
volunteers in other areas. He would like to point out, however, that this is
one of the areas where the County receives the most significant benefit from a
volunteer service° He.can see the program growing as fire chiefs are asked to
approve additional people who provide legitimate service to that fire company°
He does not know where the program would end~ if the original idea was not
kept°
Mr. Tucker explained that this issue is new to staff. A couple of years
ago when the study was completed, the intent was to provide an incentive from
a recruitment perspective for those actual responders because it was felt that
there were not enough volunteers trained to fight fires. He does not remember
the Board discussing auxiliary and associate members in the program.
At this time, Mr. Martin moved that An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, of the Code of Albemarle, and Chapter 12~
Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of Albemarle, be adopted as adver-
tised. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the staff has enough clarification from the Board
as to who qualifies for the program under the terms of this ordinance. Mr.
Breeden stated that he hates to have the staff members put in a position of
not having a clear policy and having to make their own decisions. He asked if
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 91
(Page 15)
the Board members are saying that this program will be for the people who have
met whatever guidelines and training requirements are necessary to fight a
fire or respond to a medical call. He wanted to be sure this program does not
~nclude life members who might have responded to calls at one time or board
members who render other duties. He suggested that auxiliary personnel who
have not qualified to actually go out and perform these specific acts are not
included. Mr. Bowerman answered that this is his understanding.
Mr. Tucker stated that the definition is not in the ordinance exactly as
Mr. Breeden has expressed it. He believes that Mr. Breeden wants to know if
this would be the criteria that he would use in reviewing those lists of
volunteers who requested the exemption. If this meets with the Board's
approval, then this is the criteria Mr. Breeden intends to use°
Mr. Bain stated that he would like to have the definition spelled out.
He stated that he would leave that to Mr. St. John's legal determination.
Mr. Breeden said he wanted to make sure that the criteria stipulates
that the program will pertain only to responders. He went on to say that as
far as volunteers meeting the 100 hours of service requirement~ he wonders if
the hours of service can involve hours spent in meetings, training or actual
hours responding to calls. Mr. Breeden said he feels there is a need for a
definition of "active member."
Mro Bain commented that Mr. Breeden's question is whether or not
training hours can be included in the 100 required hours. Mr. Bain thinks
they should be included, because a responder has to be trained, but an
auxiliary person coming to give the responder lunch while he is training would
not qualify. He said that a responder would be a person actively involved in
doing the work.
Mr. Breeden pointed out that there are two requirements for eligibility
for the program. One requirement is that the person be the actual responder,
and the other requirement is that the person meet the 100 hour requirement°
He said that the 100 hours could be made up of several different things, and
the hours would not all have to be involved with responding to calls. He
noted that the responder has to be qualified to respond.
Mr. St. John remarked that he believes this ordinance already indicates
exactly what Mr. Breeden has said. He added that if the ordinance is inter-
preted in this way, but someone disagrees because they are not given the
credit, the issue can be taken to court. He believes it is unnecessary to try
to define the ordinance further, because he thinks it is adequate.
Mr. Breeden stated that if he understands the Board's interpretation of
the program, then he thinks the ordinance provides for that. He noted that
there is a separate internal policy that was distributed to fire companies
relative to this matter. He suggested that this policy be examined and made
clearer.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he just wanted to be sure that the program
could be administered based on the Board's action.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion to adopt the ordinances as
advertised carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Note:
The ordinances as adopted are set out in full below:
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMENDANDREENACT
CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, of the
Code of Albemarle is hereby amended and reenacted in certain
sections to read as follows:
Article I. In General.
Sec. 8-1. Exemption of certain personal property from taxation.
Repealed Sec. 8-1 and moved the wording to be new Sec. 8-67.
Sec. 8-1.1. Biennial assessment of real estate.
Repealed Sec. 8-1.1 and moved the wording to be new Sec.
8-64.
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 92
(Page 16)
Sec. 8-1.1. Erroneous Assessments~
(a) The director of finance of the county, after diligent
investigation and upon being satisfied that he has erroneously
assessed a taxpayer with any local levies shall, if the levies
have not been paid, exonerate the taxpayer from payment of so much
thereof as is erroneous, and if such levies have been paid, shall
refund to the taxpayer the amount erroneously paid together with
any penalties and interest paid thereon.
(b) When the director of finance who made the erroneous
assessment has been succeeded by another person, such person shall
have the same authority as the director making the original
erroneous assessment; provided, that he makes diligent investiga-
tion to determine that the original assessment was erroneously
made and certifies thereto to his local governing body.
(c) Any application by an aggrieved taxpayer for correction
of a tax assessment must be made within five years from the last
day of the tax year for which such assessment is made.
(d) Reports itemizing such refunds shall be made to the
board of supervisors on a quarterly basis.
Sec. 8-1.2. Penalty for returned checks.
(a) If any check tendered for any tax due under this
chapter is not paid by the bank on which it is drawn, the taxpayer
for whom such check was tendered shall remain liable for the
payment of the tax the same as if such check had not been ten-
deredo
(b) If such person fails to pay the amount shown on the
face of the check within five days after notice of such nonpayment
has been mailed by certified or registered mail to the taxpayer by
the director of finance, a penalty of twenty-five dollars ($25.00)
shall be added to the tax due. Such penalty shall be in addition
to any and all other penalties provided by law.
Sec. 8-1.3. Penalty; interest; date and manner of payment.
(a) Taxes due and owing to the county for real estate shall
be due and payable in one installment on or before the fifth day
of December of the year such taxes are assessed.
(b) Taxes due and owing to the county for tangible personal
property, machinery and tools, mobile homes and public service
corporations shall be due and payable in two (2) installments on
or before the fifth day of June and the fifth day of December of
the year such taxes are assessed.
(c) Supplemental tax assessments for real estate, tangible
personal property, machinery and tools, mobile homes and public
service corporations shall be due and payable within thirty (30)
days of the billing date.
(d) A penalty equal to ten (10) percent of the amount past
due shall apply on all taxes remaining unpaid after the due date.
(e) Interest at the rate of ten (10) percent per annum shall
apply on all taxes and penalties commencing the first day of the
month following the month in which such taxes are due and continu-
ing until paid.
(f) The provisions herein are in no way intended to alter
any other provisions of state law or county ordinance, the subject
of which is not specifically addressed herein.
Sec. 8-1.4. Use of credit card in payment of taxes.
The director of finance is authorized to accept payments of
local taxes by use of a credit card. In addition to any penalties
and interest, the director of finance shall add to such payment a
sum not to exceed four (4) percentum of the amount of the tax~
penalty and interest paid, as a service charge for the acceptance
of Such card. Such service charge shall not exceed the percentage
charged to the county by the credit card company.
Sec. 8-1.6. Assessment of new buildinqs substantially completed.
Repealed 8-1.6 and moved wording to be new Sec. 8-65.
Sec. 8-1.7. Time limits for appeals of real estate assessments.
Repealed 8-1.7 and moved wording to be new Sec. 8-66.
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. Pg. 93
(Page 17)
sec. 8-1.8. Tax Valuation, etc., date for tanqible personal
property, machinery and tools~.
Repealed 8-1.8 and moved the wording to be new Sec° 8-68.
Sec. 8-1.9. Proration of Tanqible Personal Property.
Repealed 8-1.9 and moved the wording to be new Sec. 8,69.
Article XIII. Real Estate - In General..
Sec. 8-64. Biennial assessment of real estate.
(a) All real estate in the county shall be assessed bienni-
ally for purposes of taxation by the director of finance of the
county as of January 1 of each odd year, and all taxes for each
even year on such real estate shall be extended on the basis of
the last assessment made prior to such year.
(b) The office of real estate assessments of the county has
conducted a new reassessment of all real property to be applicable
on real estate for the tax year beginning January 1, 1977, and
shall conduct a new reassessment of all real property biennially
to be applicable for the tax year beginning January 1 of every odd
tax year thereafter. The office of real estate assessment may
complete such reassessment during an entire two year period,
employing the same standards of value for all appraisals made
during such period.
(c) Beginning with assessment effective on January 1, 1977~
all assessments of real estate in the county shall be made at one
hundred (100) percentum fair market value.
Sec. 8-65. Assessment of new buildinqs substantially completed.
Every new building substantially completed or fit for use,
occupancy and enjoyment prior to November 1 of the year of comple-
tion shall be assessed when so completed or fit for use and
occupancy, and the director of finance shall enter in the books
the fair market value of such building. No partial assessment as
provided herein shall become effective until information as to the
date and amount of such assessment is recorded in the office of
the director of finance and made available for public inspection.
The total tax on any such new building for that year shall be the
sum of (i) the tax upon the assessment of the completed building,
computed according to the ratio which the portion of the year such
building is substantially completed or fit for use and occupancy
bears to the entire year, and (ii) the tax upon the assessment of
such building as it existed on January 1 of that assessment year,
computed according to the ratio which the portion of the year such
building was not substantially complete or fit for use and occu-
pancy bears to the entire year. With respect to any assessment
under this section after September 1 of any year, the penalty for
nonpayment by December 5 shall be extended to February 5 of the
succeeding year.
Sec. 8-66. Time limits for appeals of real estate assessments.
Pursuant to the provisions of section 58.1-3330 of the Code
of Virginia, all applications for appeal from any assessment of
real estate must be made by the property owner or lessee within
ninety (90) days from the notice date of the real estate assess-
ment change. In accordance with section 58.1-3378 of the Code of
Virginia, any additional appeal must be made to the board of
equalization within thirty days. Appeals on pro rata assessment
where new construction becomes substantially complete between
January 1 and October 31 are not affected by the March 31 or April
30 deadlines.
Article XIV. Personal Property - In General.
Sec. 8-67 Exemption of certain personal property from taxation.
The following household and personal effects are hereby
exempted from taxation:
(a) Bicycles.
(b) Household and kitchen furniture, including gold and
silver plates, plated ware, watches and clocks, sewing machines~
refrigerators, automatic refrigerating machinery of any type~
vacuum cleaners and all other household machinery, books, firearms
and weapons of all kinds.
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) ~4.B. 40, Pg. 94
Page 18) ~
(c) Pianos, organs, phonographs and record players and
records to be used therewith and all other musical instruments of
whatever kind and all radio and television instruments and equip-
ment.
(d) Oil paintings, pictures, statuary, curios, articles of
virtu and works of art.
(e) Diamonds, cameos or other precious stones and all
precious metals used as ornaments or jewelry.
(f) Sporting and photographic equipment.
(g) Clothing and objects of apparel.
(h) All other tangible personal property used by an indi-
vidual or a family or household incident to maintaining an abode.
The classification set forth above shall apply only to such
property owned and used by an individual or by a family or house-
hold incident to maintaining an abode.
Sec. 8-68. Tax valuation, etc., date for tanqible personal
property, machinery and tools.
Tangible Personal Property, except as provided under section
8-69, shall be taxed as of January first of each year. The status
of all persons, firms, corporations and other taxpayers liable to
taxation on any such property shall be fixed as of such date in
each year and the value of such property shall be taken as of such
date°
The director of finance shall not make an assessment under
the provisions of this section if the assessment would result in
the issuance of a tax bill in an amount less than five dollars
($5.00).
Sec. 8-69. Proration of tanqible personal property.
(a) The tangible personal property tax shall be levied upon
motor vehicles which acquire a situs within the County after
January first of any tax year for the remaining portion of the tax
year; such tax shall be prorated on a monthly basis.
(b) When any motor vehicle loses its situs in the County or
changes ownership after January first of the tax year any tax
assessed on such vehicle shall be relieved, or refunded if paid.
Such relief or refund shall be prorated on a monthly basis.
(c) Whenever a motor vehicle with a situs in the County is
transferred to a new owner within the County~ the new owner shall
be subject to taxation on a prorated basis for the remaining
portion of the tax year. The previous owner shall be eligible for
relief or refund as provided by paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) For the purposes of this section a period of more than
one-half (1/2) of a month shall be counted as a full month and a
period of less than one-half (1/2) of a month shall not be
counted.
(e) The director of finance may apply any refunds under this
section to any delinquent accounts owed by the taxpayer. In
addition, this refund may be applied as a credit toward the tax
due on a newly acquired motor vehicle.
(f) Each taxpayer owning tangible personal property with a
situs within the County shall file a return on forms prescribed by
the director of finance on or before January 31 of each year or
within thirty (30) days of the date of purchase or the establish-
ment of a situs within the County.
(g) Tangible personal property, which was legally assessed
by another jurisdiction in the commonwealth and on which the tax
has been paid, are exempt from taxation under this section for the
portion of the year such property was legally assessable by
another jurisdiction in the Commonwealth.
Sec. 8-70. Volunteer rescue squad and fire company workers.
(a) Items of property owned by members of a volunteer
rescue squad or fire company which meet the criteria set forth in
this section shall constitute a class of property separate from
other classifications of tangible personal property°
(b) Qualified property is limited to one motor vehicle as
defined in Code of Virginia Section 46.2-100 owned and registered
or partially owned and registered with the Virginia Department of
Motor Vehicles by the qualifying volunteer rescue squad or fire
February 5,~ 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) 54.B. 407 Pg. 95
(Page 19)
company member. Qualification may not be transferred from one
vehicle to another during a six month billing cycle as long as the
original vehicle reported remains in the volunteer's ownership.
(c) The motor vehicle must be regularly used by the quali-
fying volunteer rescue squad or fire company member to respond to
calls.
(d) The qualifying volunteer must have completed minimum
training requirements and one hundred (100) hours of volunteer
activities during the preceding twelve (12) months. Eligible
volunteer hours are limited to hours attending squad/company
meetings, training sessions or actual responses to calls.
(e) Qualifying volunteers must meet the minimum require-
ments and be an active member of the squad/company as of June 1 or
December 1 to be eligible for the next six (6) month billing cycle
beginning the following July 1 or January 1. The chief or captain
of each squad/company shall provide by June 15 and December 15 a
certified list of all members who have met the eligibility crite-
ria. Volunteers will not be eligible for a refund on any tax paid
or assessed prior to meeting the eligibility criteria and being
included onthe appropriate listing.
(f) The tax rate for the first four thousand five hundred
dollars ($4,500°00) of assessed value shall be set at $0.00 and
the balance of the assessed value shall be set at the general
personal property tax rate.
FURTHER ORDAINED that in all other respects Chapter 8,
Finance and Taxation, of the Code of Albemarle remains the same;
AND FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance is effective with
the 1991 license year.
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 12r MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffict
Article V, County Vehicle Licenses, Section 12-23 is hereby
amended and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 12-23. Same--Volunteer Fire Company and Rescue Squad
Members.
Any person listed on the active rolls of any volunteer fire
company or rescue squad who qualifies under section 8-70 of this
Code shall be exempt from the license fee provisions of this
article as to any one vehicle registered to such person.
FURTHER ORDAINED that in all other respects Chapter 12,
Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of Albemarle remains the
same;
AND FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance is effective with
the 1991 license year.
Agenda Item No. 12o United Way Scholarship Fund - Discussion of.
The following staff report was received:
"Request: To transfer $10,000 in FY 1991-92 unused funds from the
United Way Teen Scholarship Program to the Child Care Fee Program
in the Department of Social Services (DSS) to pursue funding of
the Teensight Program in FY 1992-93.
Backqround: At the Board's November 13, 1991, meeting, the United
Way Child Care Scholarship Program requested permission to trans-
fer $10,000 in unused funds from the Teen Scholarship Program to
their regular scholarship program for working parents. Although
the County had originally appropriated $20,000 to the teen pro-
gram, United Way staff estimated that they would only use $10,000
before the end of the fiscal year.
The Board deferred a decision asking staff to determine if there
were other ways to direct the $10,000 ~n order to fulfill the
original intend of the grant, which was to help teen age mothers.
In December, staff met with representatives from United Way, the
Department of Social Services, Teensight, and the Central Virginia
Child Development Agency, in addition to guidance counselors from
Albemarle High School (AHS) and Western Albemarle High School
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 96
(Page 20)
(WAHS) to discuss the needs of teenage mothers in Albemarle
County.
Analysis: Although teenage mothers in Albemarle County are not
using the United Way Child Care Program, the need to assist these
girls was clear from the discussion. There are currently eleven
teen mothers at AHS and nine at WAHS. Although all mothers
attending school need some help with day care, they do not utilize
United Way for several reasons: 1) the families are proud and do
not want to be labeled 'welfare'; 2) most day care providers are
family members, i.e., mothers, grandmothers, aunts, who do not
wish to have their homes inspected, a requirement for DSS day care
providers; 3) although most would qualify, they do not want to
disclose their financial situation.
Although the girls do need help with day care to either supplement
a family member for expenses or when a family member is not avail-
able, both guidance counselors stressed the importance of over
financial pressures on these families, i.e., food, medicine,
pampers, clothing, etc. Equally important as financial help, the
girls also need parenting skills and vocational guidance, as well
as less instructional guidance and support, such as building self-
esteem, self-sufficiency, motivation, etc.
One program currently attempting to provide this type of support
in the Albemarle schools, is Teensight. Teensight works with the
guidance counselors to keep the girls in school, using a cash
incentive of $5.00 per day if the girls maintain good attendance
and grades. Under current funding limitations, Teensight has only
been able to provide funds to the girls during the second half of
the year. Teensight also provides a group session for the girls
every other week at each school. Sessions include parenting
skills, self-esteem building, vocational/career directions or
discussion centered on issues raised by the girls themselves.
Teensight benefits the girls in several ways other than daycare.
It provides a small cash incentive to encourage the girls to stay
in school and gives them the discretion to use the money for
whatever is needed to help their families with additional expens-
es. The guidanoe counselors are pleased with the program and
report that the girl's attendance and grades are good. The groups
are well attended and both counselors have indicated that a weekly
group would be beneficial.
Recommenda%ion: Should the Board wish to continue their support
for teen mothers, staff recommends that funding be directed to the
Teensight program for FY 92-93. However, it is not recommended
that the $10,000 from United Way be transferred to Teensight in
the current fiscal year for three reasons:
Teensight is able to provide cash incentives for day
care, supplies, etc. to the girls during the second
half of the school year, but could use additional
funds next fall.
Teensight shouldsubmit a proposal to the County prior
to any allocation of funds from the Board. This would
be consistent with other agency funding requirements,
and would allow the county to evaluate the services to
be provided, the cost of those services, and the
anticipated outcomes of the program. Based on their
proposal, a funding recommendation will be included in
the FY 92-93 budget.
An opportunity exists to use the $10,000 in the cur-
rent year to pull down $20,000 in child care fee
program monies from the Federal government. This
$20,000 could be used to keep approximately 37 fami-
lies from being terminated from this program at the
end of February when current day care dollars run out.
The Social Services fee-based child care helps working
families with day care under eligibility criteria
similar to the United Way Scholarship Program.
For these reasons, it is recommended that the $10,000 in unused
funds from the United Way Child Care Scholarship Teen Mother
Program be transferred to the fee-based child care program admin-
istered by the Department of Social Services for the current
fiscal year. It is further recommended that the Board consider~
during budget review, funding the Teensight program to assist teen
mothers at Albemarle and Western Albemarle High Schools in FY 92-
93 based on staff's review of Teensight~s proposal-v'
Mr. Bowerman asked the amount available. Mr. Tucker replied that
$20,000 is available, but staff is suggesting that the $10,000 available from
the United Way program be used to match federal government monies so there
would be a maximum of $20,000.
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) 4.B. 407 Pg. 97
(Page 21)
Mrs. Humphris wondered if there is a reason Murray High School was
omitted. Mr. Tucker said the omission of Murray was an oversight.
Mr. Perkins stated that this program could also involve middle schools.
Mrs. Humphris agreed that the program should not be limited to particular
schools. Mr. Tucker answered that the program would not be limited to any
particular school.
Mr. Bain asked if the Teensight Program is federally funded. Ms.
Roxanne White said Teensight is part of the FOCUS program and it is funded
from several sources. One source is the Gender Equity Grant that comes to the
State through the Vocational Education Program. She mentioned that Teensight
has also received some CDBG money from the City. The money that is now being
used for Albemarle County students comes from the Vocational Education Program
at the State Department of Education.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to transfer
$10,000 of unused funds from the United Way Child Care Scholarship Teen Mother
Program to the fee-based child care program administered by the Department of
Social Services for this current fiscal year. Mrs. Humphris included in her
motion that during budget review, the Teensight Program should be considered
for funding at any of Albemarle County's schools in 1992-93. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Martin.
Mr. Bain suggested that the motion be handled separately for the
different programs. Mr. Tucker responded that it did not make any difference
how the motion was stated. Mr. Bowerman stated that the staff could be
directed concerning the second half of the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(The resolution setting out the transfer is set out in full
below.)
FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92
NUMBER: 910040
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
Transfer of funds from United Way Child
Care to Social Services.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100059000567900
1100053013571107
UNITED WAY CHILD CARE
SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD CARE
TOTAL
($10,000.00)
10~000.00
$0.00
Agenda Item No. 13. Police Proficiency Skill Policy. The following
memorandum was received:
"A proposed skill proficiency plan is presented by the Police
Department in an effort to address two major concerns. One is
that an effort is needed to keep skilled police officers on the
street to perform their duties as an alternative to moving into
supervision. Secondly, at the present time, 36 of 42 patrol
officers are in the A, B or C step of the salary scale which is
creating quite a morale problem when new police officers are hired
and reach the same or higher step within one to three years of
employment. This plan provides a mechanism for rewarding those
officers with specialized skills and high proficiency scores, thus
providing a separation in pay grade between these patrolmen and
new officers.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed plan to be
funded from existing resources in the current fiscal year.'~
Chief John Miller said he has wanted to look at a skill proficiency plan
since he came to Albemarle in 1989. Police administrators talk about the fact
that the most important segment for a police department is the patrol divi-
sion, and also the people who work in operations. However, when good officers
are identified, they are either transferred to other areas or promoted. He
thinks it is important to keep officers who are good at what they do and who
have developed skills that are important for the delivery of police services
in their same positions° The only way to do that is to give police officers a
financial reward. The plan he has drafted contains a combination of skills
and education. A standard has been set that the police officer should reach
and maintain. The performance evaluation is set at a very high range requir-
ing that an 85 average be maintained.
Chief Miller told the Board that if a police office wants to get ahead
in his job and there are no supervisory positions or other specialized areas
open where the officer can transfer, he may want to look elsewhere for
employment. Chief Miller remarked that Albemarle County's supervisory
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 98
(Page 22)
positions are limited so the County lost nine officers last year. It takes a
long time to select an officer and a long time before an officer is profi-
cient.
Mr. Bain asked the percentage of police officers who left the County who
stayed in police work. Chief Miller said three out of the nine police
officers who left stayed in law enforcement. Mr. Bowerman asked if this plan
had been in effect, how many of those officers would have stayed. Chief
Miller estimated that six officers out of the nine who left the County would
have stayed in their positions if this plan had been in effect at that time.
Mr. Bain asked if this incentive program is more critical to keeping
officers in their positions than improved salary levels. Chief Miller
answered that he would certainly not want this plan to be a substitute for
keeping up the salary levels. He thinks, however, that this incentive program
rewards people who are interested in developing and keeping certain skills°
Mr. Bowerman asked for an example of what a police officer would be
making with and without this plan if he was employed by the County for four
years, assuming that he was proficient in the different levels. Mr. Tucker
said if an officer's performance was exemplary and he received bonuses which
were vested, the officer would move up through the range. However, with this
program, the officer would move more quickly because he would become more
proficient as he met requirements for the different levels.
Chief Miller explained that the recommendation is that the skill pro-
ficiency level be established at Level I, and the first step would move the
pay grade up one range from a Grade 19 to a Grade 20. He said that an officer
with four years experience who had just met the qualifications, if he was not
in the skill proficiency plan, would be making $22,933. He noted that if this
same officer was included in the Skill Proficiency Plan, he would be earning
$24,094, which is five percent more. Mr. Tucker recalled that when the Board
was reviewing its classification and pay plan a couple of years ago, one of
the things discussed was a proficiency plan. That proficiency plan was being
considered for all general government employees in the hope of identifying
criteria so an employee could move through the pay scale more quickly in their
particular job classification. Mr. Tucker said it had been hoped that the
Police Department could be used as a pilot program to develop similar programs
for other employees.
Mr. Bowerman noted that all of the people who qualify for these levels
are above average, and that is the whole point. Average pay should be paid
for average work and above average work should be rewarded with above average
pay. Mr. Bain wondered if this program will encourage people to get to a
certain level and then maintain their efficiency. Chief Miller answered that
in looking at the other programs in and out of the state, he thinks this plan
is best. He even thinks this plan could turn out to be a model plan.
At this time, Mr. Perkins moved that the Board accept the staff's
recommendations and adopt the Police officer Skill Proficiency Plan (copy on
file in the Clerk's office), and that the plan be funded from existing
resources in the current fiscal year. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(Note: Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:34 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 14. Erosion and Sedimentation Control ordinance
Amendment.
Mr. Tucker explained that the portion of the State Code governing
erosion and sedimentation control was recently amended and this requires
changes to the County's ordZnanceo The recently adopted fee schedules have
also been incorporated in this revision. The staff's recommendation is to
request the Planning Commission to provide comment on the proposed amendments
prior to the Board's public hearing, which he expects to be set for March 18,
1992, with an effective date of April 1, 1992. He informed Board members that
Mr. Bobby Shaw, Erosion Control Inspector, is present at the meeting. Mr.
Shaw is responsible for administering these regulations so can answer any
questions concerning the amendments.
Mrs. Humphris offered motion to adopt a resolution of intent to amend
the Code of Albemarle in Chapter 7, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, with a
public hearing being set for March 18, 1992.' As a part of the motion, Mrs.
Humphris noted that this Board requests.the Planning Commission to provide
comment on the proposed amendments prior to the public hearing.
Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.40, Pg.99
(Page 23)
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 15. Memorandum of Understanding for the Jefferson Area
Board for Aging (JABA) to use of The Meadows Community Center.
Mr. Tucker said JABA is using the Meadows Community Center in Crozet as
its base for delivering homebound meals, serving congregate meals and provid-
outreach for County senior citizens. He noted that this will expand
JABA's meals program which is currently in operation at the Greenwood Communi-
ty Center.
Mr. Tucker said when the Meadows complex was first developed, JABA
managed the community center. That responsibility was later turned over to
the County. It has always been the intent that the Meadows serve as a center
of activity for all the senior citizens in the western part of the County and
not solely the residents of the Meadows° The outreach service~ congregate
meals and associated activities will more than ever encourage this. The
Meadows residents obviously will benefit from this program also.
Staff does not anticipate charging a rental fee as this is an opportuni-
ty to augment the existing limited program at a minimal expense to the Park~s
Department budget.
Mr. Tucker recommended that the Chairman be authorized to sign an
agreement to allow JABA to provide these services.
Mr. Bowerman stated that Mr. Tucker's memorandum is quite thorough. He
asked if Board members had any questions. Mrs° Humphris referred to the Memo-
of-Understanding. She wondered why, in these times of cost containment~ would
JABA need fax lines.
Ms. Lida Arnason, Director of Community Services at JABA, stated that
she believes the fax line will no longer be provided. She explained that the
person who supervises the care managers was hoping for a fax line coming
directly into JABA's central office because there is a lot of governmental
required on case management for people who are receiving outreach
services. She pointed out that a telephone will be in service at The Meadows
if this project is approved.
At this time, Mr. Perkins made a motion to authorize the Chairman to
execute the following Memo-of-Understanding between The Meadows Community
Center and JABA. Mr. Bain seconded the motion.
MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
MEADOWS COMMUNITY CENTER
ALBEMARLE PARKS AND RECREATION
401 MCINTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901
AND
JEFFERSON AREA BOARD FOR AGING
2300 COMMONWEALTH DRIVE, SUITE B-1
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901
The Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) will use the
Meadows Community Center located in Crozet for its base for
delivering homebound meals, for serving congregate meals to senior
citizens of Albemarle County and providing outreach.
JABA will use the kitchen, main room, and a designated
office. A JABA Care Manager will be using the office full-time
weekdays along with a part-time site Coordinator. JABA will
provide office furniture, supplies, a phone and fax lines.
JABA will utilize three Green Thumb Workers to receive
supplies, deliver homebound meals and prepare congregate services.
These Green Thumb workers will be supervised by JABA Care Manager
housed in the Meadows Community Center. When the Senior Site
Coordinator is hired, Green Thumb Workers will be supervised by
this new position.
The Green Thumb Workers will receive and store food and
supplies delivered each Tuesday. Packing and delivery of meals
will occur each week. A congregate meal will be served on the
second Tuesday of each month. As participation grows, a congre-
gate meal will be served once weekly. When program is fully
enrolled, JABA will offer a congregate meal with senior activities
twice weekly. The days will be negotiated with the County at that
time. The kitchen will be used to heat frozen diners and for
preparation of the balance of the meal.
The Green Thumb Workers will prepare the Main Room for use
by setting up tables and chairs. They will also restore the Main
Room to its original condition by putting chairs and tables back
in storage, as well as, cleaning the kitchen, lavatories and
floors.
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. Pg. 100
Page 24)
JABA will use County tables and chairs stored at the Meadows
Community Center.
County will provide toilet paper and hand soap for the
restrooms.
JABA will provide a small refrigerator and freezer to be
used only for the homebound and congregate meals.
JABA will use the stove and sink in the kitchen area for
preparing congregate meals, and designated storage off of the
kitchen.
JABA agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the County of
Albemarle, its officers, agents and employees from any and all
costs arising out of claims brought as a result of negligence of
JABA, its officers, agents and employees in using the Meadows
Community Center for delivering homebound meals, serving congre-
gate meals and providing outreach for senior citizens. JABA
further agrees to name the County of Albemarle as an additional
insured on its general liability insurance policy.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain°
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 16. Solid Waste Report. Mr. Tucker said that late last
year~ the Board requested staff to report on a number of solid waste issues.
The following report addresses issues, but gives no detailed cost/benefit
alternatives which are being evaluated by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority.
The voluntary curbside program has just begun; it is too soon for a definitive
evaluation.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT - UPDATE
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to supplement the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District (TJPDC) Solid Waste Management Plan and to communicate the
issues related to the County's policies, functions, activities and facilities
for management of the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream in the County. The
report will serve the County as a guide for discussing solid waste management
as the County meets legislative mandates, implements the regional plan and
strives to manage solid waste generated and/or disposed within its boundaries
in a manner which is environmentally sound and fiscally responsible.
Io SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Ao Prior Studies/Programs
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Solid Waste Study of 1989 and the
Thomas Jefferson Regional Solid Waste Plan of 1991 provide exten-
sive data and analysis on the full range of waste stream management
alternatives. This report does not duplicate that effort but will
focus on how Albemarle County can best implement the regional plan
objectives in balance with our needs and resources. The following
factors have significant impact on any solid waste management
recommendation and are discussed here to provide relevant informa-
tion for evaluating these recommendations.
B. Waste Generation
A plan to target reduction of the solid waste stream requires
accurate data on the composition of the current waste stream and an
estimate of the future composition of this same waste stream. This
is particularly important in Albemarle County as the waste stream
is subject to significant change due to the County's continued
growth.
Of equal importance is being able to identify what type of waste is
generated and who generates it - specifically the residential~
commercial and industrial components. Knowing all these is criti-
cal to developing a viable program to achieve the solid waste goals
of: (1) meeting mandates, (2) extending the life of the landfill,
and (3) improving environmental quality.
c. Data Limitations
Recent solid waste studies have captured only a part of this
information. Tonnage data is available from records at the Ivy
Landfill that identifies the landfilled component by jurisdiction
(Albemarle, Charlottesville and the University of Virginia) and by
general type (domestic, stumps, white goods, tires, brush, other).
The data does not identify where the domestic component (45.5
percent of our waste) came from (i.e., residential, commercial or
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
M.B. 40, Pg. 101
industrial) and does not further identify domestic waste by type
(yard waste, food waste, trash, paper/cardboard, newspaper, glass,
aluminum, metals, etc.). Of further concern in developing a cost-
effective waste reduction program is the dispersion pattern of
waste generated between our urban growth areas and the rural areas.
Since meeting state recycling mandates is based on the TJPDC
aggregate, the size of Albemarle County's waste stream is a criti-
cal factor in supporting this effort. In 1989-90, Albemarle
County's landfilled waste represented 54.5 percent (145,377 tons)
of the Planning District's total. Cost-effective programs of this
magnitude demand reasonable data. Improvements in our data are
necessary and will be pursued as part of program evaluations. The
.following options are offered for consideration:
[] Determine necessity for and conduct a waste stream
analysisD
· Develop a waste stream forecasting capability to ac-
count for new business growth impacts, new expanded
residential growth, and changing waste stream compo-
nents.
II.
COSTS
Reducing the waste stream through recycling is more costly than land-
filling° Current tip fees for domestic waste are $32/ton. The revised
tip fees may increase to $45-$50/ton for the operating and capital needs
to meet state regulations for the Ivy Landfill. The cost to recycle can
range from $60 to $200/ton depending on collection methods, processing
methods and the market. Recycling costs are directly impacted by the
market rates for recyclable materials which are discussed in the next
section. Recycling does not generate profits. The full impact of
recycling compared to the landfill is readily apparent: Albemarle's
domestic waste in the last 11 months was 38,589 tons, or $1,234,867 at
$32/ton. State mandate for 1995 requires 25 percent reduction through
recycling. Recycling 25 percent (9647) at $60/ton cost $578,835 or a~
net cost increase over landfilling of $270,127. While further efficien-
cies in collection and processing can be pursued, it is unlikely these
efficiencies will ever result in a recycling program paying for itself.
Action is ~nderway to investigate processing and collection alterna-
tives. The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority has initiated a study of a
regional Materials Recovery System (MRS). The results of this should
identify the best collection and processing alternatives to support
marketability. This study is expected to be completed in late summer
and will be incorporated in our program development.
RECYCLING COMPONENTS
Ao Recycling Mandates
The State mandates a recycling rate of 10 percent in 1991, 15
percent in 1993 and 25 percent in 1995 of the total household
wastes and principal rec¥clable materials (wastes generated by non-
household sources, i.e., commercial or industrial). The regional
plan indicated that TJPD had attained an 11.4 percent rate as of
July 1, 1991. TJPD is compiling the FY '91 data and recent efforts
by the City, University of Virginia, and County should have a
significant impact.
Be
Markets
Recycling mandates throughout the country are creating a glut in
recyclables. Thus, there is little or no revenue to the County
from recyclables except for aluminum. This is a highly volatile
market and is expected to remain so for some time. Until there is
a demand for products made from recyclables~ or government action
dictates such demand, the private sector's commitment to making
products from recyclables will lag. Our best efforts to enhance
marketability will lie in:
(1) providing quality recyclables to processors/markets
(uncontaminated),
(2) consolidating w£th other localities/agencies to in-
crease market volume and increase leverage with pro-
cessors/market buyers, and
(3) influence the business, public and state, to require
purchase of products made from recycled material~
packaged with reduced material, or purchase only
recyclable products.
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 407
(Page 26)
The current market for recyclables is as follows:
Markets
Cost Per Ton*
Drop-Off Center End User
Profit
Generated
Paper
Newsprint 0-5 15 No
White Ledger 20 197 No
Mixed newsprint (20) 15 No
Computer Paper 60 170 No
Corrugated 10 30 No
Glass
Green (23) 15 No
Other 0 50 No
Plastic
Clear #1 & #2 (150) 15 No
Aluminum 440 680 Yes/No
Tin 0 44 No
*Does not include collection, processing or freight.
User costs are potential prices if the MRS becomes a
reality.
End
Albemarle County cannot achieve a 25 percent reduction in our waste
stream by targeting only a curbside household recycling program. The
current voluntary curbside collection program is estimated to achieve an
11-12 percent recycling rate. This assumes:
(1)
a 20 percent participation rate from people who have to pay
for some part of recycling,
(2)
70 percent of the recyclable waste stream collected (capture
rate),
(3)
16,000 of the 24,433 residences are served by private haut-
ers, and
(4) all haulers offer the service.
If the program were mandatory, 100 percent was captured and newspa-
pers were added, the recycling rate would be from 18 to 20 percent°
Thus, a curbside program, in any form, isn't enough to meet man-
dates for two reasons - over 8000 households aren't served by the
current curbside program and the recycling conducted by the commer-
cial/industrial sectors hasn't been accounted for and encouraged°
C. Current Curbside Program
The County's voluntary curbside program is just underway and
preliminary data on usage and lessons learned is not yet available
to assess the program. A co-mingled curbside program is still
supported as the best way to maximize citizen participation. The
estimated program cost for FY '92-93 is $65,978 or $88/tono This
program should continue while we assess the need to expand the
products recovered (currently we do not accept newspaper) and the
impact of serving all households. Adding newspapers to the current
curbside program would cost approximately an additional $19~080 for
a total of $85,058 or $52/ton. The feasibility of private trash
collectors providing this service needs to be determined. Of the
22 private refuse collectors operating in Albemarle County, four
participated in the initial pilot program that started last Novem-
ber. As of January, 17 percent (698 of 4116) of their customers
are using the recycling service. Also, effective January 1, the
service was expanded to all private refuse collectors in an effort
to reach the approximately 16,000 residential customers served by
them.
D. Non-Served Households
The estimated 8400 households not served by private collectors do
so because they elect to manage their own refuse. They may not be
able to get service, or they cannot get service at an acceptable
rate. In any case, recycling service needs to be provided to these
8433 residents. Alternatives to consider are:
Drop-off center at the Ivy Landfill: Drop-off at Ivy Landfill
for FY '93 would cost about $16,649 or $49/ton to operate a
source-separated program for glass, jars, aluminum, tin, see-
through #1 and #2 plastics, and mixed paper. This would pro-
vide service for citizens who do not use private servicee
Drop-off centers at other areas of the County on a permanent
or rotatinq basis: Costs for the Crozet project were ex-
pected to approach $12,000 or 100 to 200/ton for FY '93.
This program may fill a need for service not provided by
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
M.B. 40, Pg. 103
private collectors, the M6Intire drop-off or the Ivy drop-
off. It is recommended that the expanded curbside and Ivy
programs~be instituted and evaluated before implementing a
roving or regional drop-off program. Staff will develop a
program design and bid package if such a program is desired
or warranted.
Mandated curbside service for all residents. This could be
achieved by private collectors, through contract, provided
by public government or through a service district.
Commercial/Industrial/Non-Household
A recent Chamber of Commerce/League of Women Voters survey of
businesses with 15+ employees (30 percent replied) indicate:
65 percent have a recycling program in place,
· 77 percent not participating are unsure of what to do,
· 59 percent with a program have storage problems~
92 percent practice source reduction~
· 62 percent want to work together in a cooperative pro-
gram,
· 54 percent are unwilling to fund a position to help
coordinate a program.
As commercial/industrial recycling can be included in meeting
mandates, and in light of the above survey, the TJPDC sent a
request to 578 businesses in the district (225 in Albemarle County)
seeking data on what they recycled in FY '91. Only 13 County
businesses replied (5°6 percent), but these 13 reported 1684 tons
of recycled material.
There is the potential for significant impact on meeting state
mandates through the business sector without having them do more
than they are already doing. Getting their data is critical to
assessing their impact on our ability to meet mandates. In addi-
tion, providing support in education and assistance to initiate new
and expanded recycling in the business sector appears to be war-
ranted. The imposition of an ordinance to require annual reporting
may be necessary if efforts at voluntary reporting are unsuccess-
ful. The minimal cost to a business to report their recycling
efforts far outweighs the spending of taxpayer dollars in imple-
menting more aggressive household or business programs.
· An example of business use is the collection of used oil
by service stations~ automotive service centers~ fleet
operators, etc. The oil can be used to meet state
mandates whether the oil is collected for recycling or
reused for fuel.
Abandoned vehicles are another source of continued
recycling in lieu of expanded household programs. Since
this source may dry up in time, it must be evaluated
each year as a component to the waste stream.
IV. EXTENDING LANDFILL LIFE
The discussion thus far has focused on meeting state mandates. Equally
important is a need to extend the life of the landfill. While state
mandates can be met without a mandated household recycling program~ such
a program may be warranted to achieve the goal of extending the life of
the landfill and improving environmental preservation/protection.
Ao Landfill Alternatives
In addition to recycling, reducing the landfill waste stream can be
achieved by reuse, reduction, composting, or resource recovery.
All have various cost/benefits and feasibility thresholds. The
Thomas Jefferson Planning District regional plan identified initia-
tives in the area of reuse/reduction and the following options are
discussed again in terms of Albemarle County:
Reuse/Reduction
Initiate joint procurement procedures for equipment and
supplies for Albemarle County and Schools that focus on
reduction and recycled material.
Continue to coordinate joint procurement within the
community, and expand to the region and state.
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
M.B. 40, Pg. 104
Continue procurement of products made from recycled
material. County/School pursue establishing annual
goals and budget accordingly.
composting of Yard Waste
Yard waste can represent 12 to 18 percent of the waste stream. For
Albemarle County, this would be applicable in the urban area or
areas of high residential density that are not amenable to compost-
ing on their property. While the actual tonnage may be small, the
mechanics to collect and recycle yard waste are available in the
area.
Since the state is mandating new yard waste composting regulations
for 1995, the City of Charlottesville has undertaken a review of
their current composting facility and alternatives. Albemarle
County plans to consider the following composting alternatives with
the City and Rivanna Solid Waste Authority.
Develop a program through RSWA for residential compost-
ing.
Implement a total ban on burning in the urban/growth
areas to encourage on-site composting or yard waste
collection in conjunction with the City/RSWA program.
Investigate yard waste collection services including
expansion of City service to the urban/growth areas°
Continue to investigate with RSWA and the private sector
the potential recycling of stumps and brush.
C. Resource Recovery
Waste-to-energy alternatives will be reviewed by RSWA in the near
future. Studies prior to 1989 indicate these alternatives were not
economically feasible. The increase in landfill operation/clo~ure/
siting costs make it prudent to evaluate waste-to-energy again.
This is especially important as an integrated waste stream manage-
ment program of recycling, composting, and MRS can have a signifi-
cant impact on one of the most critical variables in a waste-to--
energy program, i.e., available tonnage of waste going into the
waste-to-energy plant. While regulations and mandates are driving
up the costs of landfills, there is an equal and maybe more dynamic
regulatory environment underway regarding waste-to-energy in terms
of environmentally safe operation and disposal. This analysis will
not be completed until later in FY '92.
EDUCATION
Without a focused and directed solid waste management program, it is
counter-productive to develop a comprehensive education program other
than generic issues and information. Time, money and energy can be best
spent once our direction is established. Once strategies such as: (1)
a coordinated business/household management program, (2) an aggressive
program within the County and County schools, (3) yard waste collection
and on-site composting, (4) support of business needs, and (5) consor-
tium/regional efforts have been developed~ the education specialist
currently being considered by RSWA would support City and County needs
and work closely with Charlottesville-Albemarle Recycle Together (CART)
and other interested groups in coordinating our education efforts.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
Ao Phase I (April 1, 1992).
Determine private sector data collection requirements.
Develop an ordinance to require private sector reporting of
recycling if warranted.
Request RSWA to investigate joint market contracts with the
City, University of Virginia and the other public or private
sector firms.
Continue County reuse/reduction efforts and provide recom-
mendations for further initiatives~
B. Phase II (July 1, 1992).
Expand funding of voluntary curbside program to include
newspapers after determining feasibility with private col-
lectors.
· Provide and fund an Ivy drop-off collection center.
Request that RSWA determine the need and~ if warranted,
develop a waste stream forecasting capability.
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
M.B. 40, Pg. 105
· Complete evaluation of the voluntary curbside collection
program and make recommended changes.
· Evaluate necessity for mandatory recycling.
· Evaluate private sector recycling impact on attainment of
state mandates.
Develop a yard waste collection plan in conjunction with the
City and RSWAo
· Evaluate the need for a roving drop-off program or area
drop-off centers.
· Evaluate alternative methods for providing curbside collec-
tion service to include, but not be limited to:
- private collection
contract with private sector
- public sector collection (in whole or in part)
- service district°
complete evaluation of chipping and composting stumps and
brush.
Develop and implement integrated education strategies for
the total waste stream in consultation with the City, RSWA~
School Divisions, University of Virginia, CART, private
sector and other interested groups°
Ce
Phase III (As necessary).
· Complete evaluation of MRS and resource recovery alterna-
tives.
Mr. Bob Brandenburger, who had written the report, was present to answer
questions°
Mr. Tucker pointed out that Mr. Randy Layman, a hauler° was present at
the meeting. He said Mr. Layman may want to comment because he has had good
participation in the recycling program that he is provides to his customers°
Mr. Bowerman commented that he was contacted by his hauler with a note
in his bill saying the service is available. However, the note did not inform
him who to call, what to do or the cost of the service. He thought there
would be a follow-up to this note, but there was none. He said clearly some
haulers can do more than they are doing to educate their customers.
Mr. Perkins asked about the cost per ton at drop-off centers. Mr.
Brandenburger said the figures are from the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority and
are primarily the result of what has been collected at the McIntire Drop-off
Center and the Center's ability to collect the materials and subsequently
market them. The chart shows the differences between the drop-off centers
versus end users, if the materials were being directly shipped without using
an intermediary. Mr. Bain said some haulers are charging a fee, but some
people don't use a hauler because they can bring their materials to the drop-
off centers without cost.
Mr. Bain asked if more concrete information will be available after the
MRS study. Mr. Brandenburger said the MRS study will refine all of the
numbers in this report. He was trying to report to the Board the magnitude of
difference between the end users, which is the company that is purchasing
materials at their freight doors versus going through an intermediary process~
Mr. Bain asked how many times these different recyclables can be used.
He feels that information is available from the end users. Mr. Brandenburger
answered that he cannot recall the details of the specifications relative to
the MRS study. He indicated that neither the County staff nor the Rivanna
Authority can currently answer Mr. Bain's question. He added that even though
the contract has been awarded for the MRS study, it does not mean that the
study cannot be modified to include this piece of information. He agreed that
with paper products such as newsprint~ there is a limited life span. Mr.
Tucker advised the Board that all of the localities in Planning District 10
are going to participate in the MRS study~ except Greene County.
Mr. Martin asked what effect composting and burning have on the life of
the landfill. Mr. Brandenburger replied that urban waste is not collected for
composting purposes, as the City of Charlottesville does with its leaf
collection program. The County allows people to collect and burn leaves at
the curbside. He noted that people with large properties let the leaves
compost naturally. Some people do bag their leaves and take them to the
landfill. He recalled that the Franklin Report indicates that approximately
17 percent of the typical residential waste stream is yard waste. He said the
only way to get credit~for the state mandate is if collective composting is
done, but the number burning cannot be used for the state mandate.
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 106
(Page 30)
Mr. Brandenburger said there are a lot of issues targeted specifically
to help meet the state mandates, which means that restrictions are put on how
the materials can be disposed of so that they can be captured and collected.
Mr. Bain asked if the costs relating to the drop-off centers are on a
bid basis. Mr. Brandenburger replied that the drop-off center costs are not
bid costs. He added that these costs relate to the rental of the container,
transportation costs and some supervision from the RSWA.
Mr. Bain next commented that, as far as contamination issues are
concerned, a Rivanna employee could be responsible for this on site. He asked
if this cost was included in the $16,649 figure as it related to the costs of
the drop-off center at the Ivy Landfill. Mr. Brandenburger responded that
there are a few Rivanna man-hours included in the $16,649 figure as it relates
to that particular drop-off center.
(Mr. Bowerman left at 12:10 p.m. and returned at 12:14 p.m.)
Mr. Bain said he assumes the $45-$50/ton tip fee at the Ivy Landfill for
operating, as well as capital needs, to meet state regulations will be
dependent on the General Assembly's actions. Mr. Tucker explained that House
Bill 1073 has been amended, but it deals more with the capping issue. He said
the requirements are to meet EPA standards~ rather than state standards. He
pointed out that state standards are more stringent than EPA standards.
Because of this, there should be a reduction in the requirements for the Ivy
and Keene Landfills. He added that he was happy this bill went through the
General Assembly subcommittee smoothly.
Mr. Bain wondered if House Bill 1073 covers the same thing as House Bill
879, which gets into specific dates, etc. Mr. Tucker replied that HoUse Bill
1073 indicates that these amendments will be effective through October, 1993.
He said this gives County officials another year to make sure the State's
Solid Waste Management Department makes those changes in its regulations.
Mr. Bain said as he looks at the all encompassing nature of this report,
he believes County officials are on standby until more data is received, the
MRS study is completed, the legislation from the General Assembly has been
finished, and County officials have dealt with the commercial side of the
issue. He does not think there is any question that keeping material out of
the landfill extends the life of the landfill and also helps meet state
mandates for 1993 and 1995. He wondered if the costs for the Ivy drop-off
center will be in the County's budget cycle for the next fiscal year. Mr~
Tucker answered that this will come as part of a budget proposal to this
Board, but it probably cannot be made effective unless some additional funds
become available in this fiscal year. He added that if funds are allotted in
this fiscal year, however, the effective date would probably be July 1, 1992.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Randy Layman if he wished to add anything
regarding this report. Mr. Layman commented that, as far as curbside recy-
cling is concerned, 10 to 45 percent of the customer base is willing to
participate in the program. He thinks the economy has hurt the program at
this time, as well as the prices some of the haulers are charging for the
program. He said haulers charge different rates because of the type of
vehicles used to collect the materials. He referred to Mr. Bowerman's comment
about the hauler who had left him a note relative to the recycling program°
He agreed that there is a communication gap between the haulers, the private
sector and the Rivanna Authority~ He said it is hard to get the proper
educational information offered to the homeowner. Most haulers an the program
have generated their own information, with the exception of the brochure and
the bag that was distributed. He said that a good communication link is
needed, and the different needs and faults of the program need to be examined.
He does not think there will be instant success with the program, and it will
probably be three years before the program is stable. He thinks, in general,
that the public has accepted the program.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that there are a very limited number of haulers
involved with the curbside recycling program. He asked Mr'. Layman if he
thinks that other haulers are showing an interest in participating in the
program. Mr. Layman said some of the haulers are interested while others have
said they don't know enough about it, and will probably get out of the
business if they are forced into it. He noted that some of the haulers have
made attempts to offer recycling programs, but they ran into the problem of
not having the market or the sources for getting rid of the products, espe-
cially when there was a source-separated system. He said that in the rural
areas, it is almost cost-prohibitive to run a second truck. He pointed out
that the County does not have the same advantage as the City because there
are a lot more square miles to cover to serve the customer base.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Layman where he is employed. Mr. Layman replied
that he owns Layman's Disposal Company. His company is a small company. It
is a sole proprietorship and services are offered to less than 500 homes in
very rural areas. He has more of a personal contact with his customer based
and has between 40 and 45 percent of his customer base participating in or
having signed up for this program. He noted that larger companies probably
have ten percent of their customer base participating in the program.
Mr. Bowerman stated that BFI is his supplier, and he hasn't figured out
how this program wii1 be handled for BFI's customers. He said that there has
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 407 Pg. ]07
(page 31)
been no appearance of recycling going on in his community. Mr. Layman
indicated that BFI has offered the program, and has had a lot of homeowners
signed up for it. BFI has approximately 20 Percent of its customer base in
Albemarle County as participants in the program. BFI tried something differ-
ent but ran into problems. This is why Mr. Layman feels Work sessions need to
be held with the haulsrs so that the problems everyone is facing can be
solved. He thinks that everybody needs to be participating in the same
program.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Layman if he knows the specific problems that BFI
faces. Mr. Layman replied that BFI was using the bag system, and they tried
to supply their homeowners with the bags. Mr. Layman commented that he (Mr.
Layman) had recommended to his customers the type of bag to used and where it
could be bought. BFI bought the bags at a discount price, but the bags were
of low quality and serious problems developed. This caused problems in the
program because of contamination and breakage due to the quality of the bag~
BFI had a lot of complaints from their customers, and they are now considering
doing something different. He pointed out that BFI has a different operation
from most of the haulers in the County because they do not offer service in
the very rural areas. Instead, according to Mr. Layman, the BFI company
offers service only where there is a high concentration of population° What
BFI can offer and what he (Mr. Layman) can do are entirely different. This is
true ~with most of the haulers, and that is why these problems need to be
examined.
Mr. Martin remarked that BFI services his neighborhood, and he got a
good description from BFI as to what the customers needed to do. He believes
that 50 percent of his neighbors participate in the recycling program° Mr.
Tucker commented that his neighborhood uses the BFI company also, and recy-
cling is being done there.
Mr. Brandenburger commented that he, too, uses BFI services. In Novem-
ber or early December, he received a letter asking if he would be interested
in taking part in the recycling program as well as informing him of the
approximate cost. He sent back a response indicating that he was interested.
He then got an instruction sheet informing him how to participate in the
program and also telling him that bags would be provided. The program is
working because he is being billed for it. He went on to say that if BFI has
run into the problems to which Mr. Layman referred~ it may be that the program
has been postponed in Mr. Bowerman's neighborhood.
Mr. Layman remarked that most of the haulers who participate in the
recycling program are having fair success. Approximately 20 percent of BFI~s
customer base is taking part in the program, and BFI services over 2000 homes
in the County. The bag program has proven to be the most cost-effective way,
and it reaches the most homes, because the homeowner does not have to be
involved in several separations. It also gets the products back into the
recycling centers for processing~ and the bags can be recycled as well. He
feels there are pros and cons with each system, but the costs for the differ-
ent programs are what is being considered.
Mr. Martin asked if the haulers belong to an association. Mr. Layman
said there has been an effort to form an association, but only 12 people
showed an interest and only nine actually joined. Only three or four people
actually come to the meetings on a regular basis. He said that BFI and MoUo
Dixon participated in the meetings, but M.U. Dixon is not involved with the
recycling program. He remarked that it is hard to get the haulers together~
they seem to respond better to County staff. He said that the haulers do not
respond as well to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority.
(Mr. St. John returned at 12:28 p.m.)
Referring to the participation rate in the recycling program, Mr. Bain
wondered if other households could be reached.
Mr. Layman said he believes that 60 to 65 percent of the homeowners in
his service area will do whatever they want to do whether it is legal or not.
The service is there if the people want it. He noted that there are four
haulers who offer service in the Scottsville area, but the homeowners will not
pay for the service since the service was free at the Keene Landfill.
Mr. Bain asked how more of these homeowners can be reached. Mro Layman
said he thinks that even with the drop-off center at the Ivy Landfill, the
numbers show that there are approximately 700 vehicle trips per month for
individual family homes. When small commercial pickup trucks, etco, are
eliminated, there are only 350 families who are actually using the landfill on
a regular monthly basis. Other homeowners have burn barrels or they use river
banks, road banks and next door dumpsters. In his area there are families who
live side by side, and they put their trash together, so that they only have
to pay one bill. He has a weigh-in rate based on volume to take care of this
problem. He noted that the Franklin Report seems to be one of the better
reports, although numbers vary from locality to locality and are affected by
the economy.
Mrs. Humphris asked how much effort RSWA has put into working with the
haulers. Mr. Tucker replied that County staff initiated meetings and tried to
get the RSWA involved in the hopes that they would take over the responsibili-
ty of meeting with the haulers. He agrees with Mr. Layman's comments that the
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.40, Pg.108
(Page 32)
haulers do not seem to respond to RSWA. County staff provided the haulers
with a brochure that had information about the voluntary curbside program,
etc., but he thinks that Mr. Layman is ~nterested in having a specific type of
communication which might help each individual hauler's specific need. County
staff will have to initiate whatever is done, with Rivanna being a partici-
pant. He added that it is going to take time for the people to accept RWSA as
the solid waste authority which provides services in terms of landfills and
recycling centers.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that County officials may have to take a more
active role in involving RSWA with the County haulers. Mr. Bowerman asked,
without any action by the Board, will the recommendations listed in the Solid
and Recycling Report be pursued by the staff. Mr. Tucker answered,
"yes." He said if the Board accepts this report, the staff will take that as
a directive and start moving forward with the recommendations. He said the
Board will receive progress reports from the staff.
Mr. Bain reminded Board members that Mr. Marshall had asked the Board to
reconsider the Keene Landfill situation. Mr. Bain asked how the Keene
Landfill matter can be tied in with the information in the Solid Waste and
Recycling Report. Mr. Tucker said staff hopes to bring a report on the Keene
Landfill before the Board in March. Any impact from this report on the Keene
!ill will be provided at the same time. He added that there could be some
conflicts, and he pointed out that transfer stations would have to be dealt
with as a separate issue.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Layman how he handles the recyclables that he has
collected. Mr. Layman replied that since he is involved with the recycling
program, he deposits the recyclables at the landfill. Before his involvement
in the recycling program, however, he b~ought the materials back to his farm.
He said that the materials were separated by hand and put in recycling
trailers. He has found markets for the materials whether the markets were in
the area, or in Fishersville or Lynchburg. He said that when the program was
originally started, glass was worth $40 a ton to the hauler. He noted that
today as much as $23 a ton is paid by the hauler to get rid of the glass, and
that is why the haulers do not even offer the program that they initially
started. He added that newspapers went from a positive of $18 per ton to a
negative $5 per ton. Newspaper markets on the East Coast are within a
negative $50 range, but on the West Coast they are within a positive $40
range. He stated that now the haulers are only involved with the County
program. He said that newspapers would be the next phase of the County
program that will need to be discussed.
Mr. Bowerman asked what happens after the materials are taken by the
haulers to the landfill. Mr. Tucker replied that the haulers deposit their
bags in the containers at the landfill. He said that these are picked up on a
periodic basis and taken to Coiner's. Mr. Bowerman asked if the recyclables
are actually separated at Coiner's. Mr. Bain stated that RSWA pays Mr. Coiner
$85 a trip, which is expensive, but he pointed out that Mr. Coiner is the only
local person who is involved in this phase of the recycling program at this
time.
(Mr. St. John left at 12:42 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 17a. Reappropria~ion - Crozet Crossing CDBG Grant.
Mr. Tucker said this appropriation was a grant originally awarded for
$600,000 ($300,000 CDBG funds, $300,000 local match). The County appropriated
and transferred $40,000 during the '90-91 fiscal year leaving a grant balance
of $560,000 to be appropriated for FY '91-92. The remaining County share of
$260,000 will be transferred from the General Fund balance.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the
following resolution of transfer approving staff's request:
FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92
NUMBER: 910011
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: LOCAL SHARE OF CROZET CROSSING GRANT
PROJECT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1100093010930205 TRANSFER TO CDBG-CROZET CROSSING
1122481027563120 CROZET CROSSING
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$260,000.00
560,000.00
$820~000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
2100051000510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE
2122433000330082 GRANT PROCEEDS-CDBG-CROZET CROSSING
2122451000512004 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND
TOTAL
$260,000.00
300,000.00
260,000.00
$820~000.00
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.40, Pg.109
(Page 33)
Roll was called on the foregoing motion, which carried by the recorded
vote which follows:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 17b. CIP Appropriation - Keene Landfill.
Mr. Tucker said due to the establishment of the Solid Waste Authority,
funds which had been appropriated for the Ivy Landfill remained unexpended at
June 30, 1991, in the amount of $745,400. He asked the Board to approve
transferring these funds to the Keene Landfill Closure Project.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins~ to adopt
the following resolution of appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92
NUMBER: 910022
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR KEENE LANDFILL
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1900041000950059 KEENE LANDFILL
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$745,400.00
$745,400.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900051000510100 FUND BALANCE $745,400.0u
TOTAL $745,400.00
Roll was called on the foregoing motion, which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 17c. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Appropriation -
Adjustment of Revenues based on finalizing the Virginia Public School Authori-
ty (VPSA) Bond Issue and Sale of Fourth Street Property.
Mr. Tucker said since the VPSA Bond Issue totalled $16,070,000, the CIP
revenue estimates need to be adjusted. The bonds issued exceeded the original
projection by $824,953.24.
Mr. Bain asked why the bonds exceeded the original projection. Mr.
Tucker answered that when bids were taken, there were various projects which
had been planned to be included. Once final projections came for estimates on
all of the projectsw the original projections were exceeded by $824,953.24.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the $824,953.24 has been requested of VPSA. Mr. Tucker
responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Bain said when the vote was taken for the bond issue, it was for the
amount of $16,070,000. He asked if this amount was ever increased by this
Board. Mr. Tucker recalled that it was discussed during CIP review.
Mr. Tucker then pointed out another adjustment which resulted from the
sale of the Fourth Street, N.E., property. Me said the amount for this
property was projected in FY 1991-92, but the money was actually received in
FY 1990-91. The FY 1991-92 budget projection of $50,000 needs to be changed
to zero. He asked for the Board's approval of this change.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
the following resolution of appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92
NUMBER: 910023
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADJUSTMENT OF REVENUES BASED ON FINAL-
IZING VPSA BOND ISSUE, AND SALE OF FOURTH STREET, N.E. PROPERTY.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
TOTAL $0.0u
REVENUE
2900015000150210
2900041000410306
2900051000510100
DESCRIPTION
SALE OF REAL ESTATE
VPSA BONDS-91B
FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
($50,000.00)
824,953.24
(774,953.24)
0.00
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following
recorded vote:
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 110
(Page 34)
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 18. Revenue Projections Update. The following memo-
randum dated January 31, 1992, was received from the County Executive:
"The Department of Finance has just completed its mid-year review
of projected revenues for both the current year and FY 92-93 and
despite the gloomy economic climate, the overall revenue picture
looks good.
For the current year, overall revenues are projected to be over
budget by approximately 1.2 percent. The majority of this in-
crease is due to a better than anticipated collection rate on real
estate taxes. Personal property is also over projection, primari-
ly due to the difficulty of accurately estimating the revenue
collection in the first full year of split billing and proration.
From these updated figures, I feel confident that our current
fiscal year operating budget will be in balance. We should not
experience the shortfall in revenues we did in FY 90-91. For
these reasons, I recommend reducing the five percent freeze
imposed on County departments and agencies in anticipation of a
revenue shortfall in the current year to a one percent freeze and
that agencies be exempted from this holdbacko This one percent
should give a necessary cushion should revenues take an unexpected
downward turn in the last five mOnths of the fiscal year.
With regard to FY 92-93 budget projections, the attached sheet (on
file) shows both the October and the January estimates of avail-
able revenues. The variance between the two estimates provides
$465,750 in additional revenues for FY 92-93. The majority of
these increased revenues are due to a higher than expected real
estate collection, underestimated personal property from split
billing and proration estimates, and an increased machinery and
tools tax collection. It should be noted that although it appears
that there may be additional revenues available, baseline FY 92-93
budget requests and required expenditures are exceeding general
government's revenue allocation by more than $250,000 according to
very preliminary budget discussions. Requests for additional
foster care funds, which is a mandated service, as well as
attempting to provide funds for such initiatives as solid waste,
Northside Library operations, and deep cuts at the state level for
popular services and programs (constitutional officers' budgets,
library, gypsy moth, VPI Extension Service) will require careful
prioritization as we work through the budget process.
There are several options for the additional FY 92-93 revenues at
this point in the budgeting process. One option is to divide the
additional refund dollars between the schools and general govern-
ment based on the 60 percent to 40 percent split. This would
provide an additional $279,450 to the schools and $186,300 to
general government. A second option is to retain the total
$465,750 in a contingency fund to be used at your discretion
during budget work sessions. A third option would be a combina-
tion with only part of the additional revenues retained as a Board
reserve. At this point in the budget process, it may be prudent
for the Board to retain the total amount until you can assess and
prioritize total funding needs.
Mr. Bowerman concurred with the recommendation of retaining the total
amount of $465,750 in a contingency fund to be used at this Board's discre-
tion, because it will give this Board flexibility. Mrs. Humphris agreed.
Mr. Martin said his first reaction was to concur with the first option
of dividing the additional refund dollars between the schools and general
government based on a 60 to 40 percent split, but he agrees with Mr. Bower-
man's statement of retaining the total amount so the Board will have some
flexibility° If it seems the 60 percent to 40 percent split is necessary at
some points it can be done.
Mr. Tucker remarked that the State's funding for schools was better than
anticipated. He said that general government is not seeing that kind of State
increase, and budgets are still being cut. The initiative with which the
general government is faced, particularly with the solid waste issue, is
astronomical. It will take a lot of money to implement some of those issues,
so he thinks it is wise to look at all of the initiatives before a decision is
made° He noted that the percentages could be changed and the allocation does
not have to be a 60 to 40 percent split.
Mr. Bain pointed out that $465,750 is not a lot of money when the County
is facing projects that will cost millions of dollars. He asked if this Board
will get better preliminary projections before the budget cycle in March. Mro
Tucker answered that one more month will give the staff a chance to reconsider
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.407 Pg.ll!
(Page 35)
the projections. Even during the work sessions, staff will continue to watch
revenues.
Mr. Bain wondered if more information will be received regarding
automobile decals. Mr. Tucker responded that these are the types of things
that the staff continues to monitor, and the staff reviews these things on a
monthly basis. He always tries to have an analysis ready for January for this
Board's information, as well as to give the staff an update for budget
planning purposes.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County's request for legislation to allow a
parked vehicle to be ticketed if the County decal was not displayed has gone
to the full House of Delegates. Mr. Tucker replied, "no." He indicated that
he had talked to Senator Robb yesterday, and Senator Robb informed Mr. Tucker
that the bill had not come back before the subcommittee. Mr. Tucker said that
because of Senator Robb's know- ledge of the people who are on that committee,
no problems are anticipated.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any action is needed on the additional FY 1992-93
revenues. Mr. Tucker answered that no action is necessary because he has
heard the Board members' consensus, which is to leave the additional revenues
in the contingency fund to be used at this Board's discretion.
Agenda Item No. 19. Executive Session: Personnel.
At 12:59 p.m., Mr. Bain moved that the Board go into executive session
for discussion of personnel matters. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
At 3:00 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and adopted the
following certificate of executive session:
MOTION: Mr. Bain.
SECOND: Mrs. Humphris
MEETING DATE: February 5, 1992
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma-
tive recorded vote and in accordance ~with the provisions of The
Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 and 2.1-344.A.7 of the Code of
Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformi-
ty with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each
member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were
discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification
resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as
were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were
heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and
Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mr. Marshall.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 20. 3:00 P.M., Joint Meeting - School Board, Room 5/6°
Present at this time were School Board members: Messrs. William W. Finley,
Clifford W. Haury, Michael J. Marshall, and Mesdames Patricia L. Moore, Karen
L. Powell, Valdrie Walker and Sharon Wood. Also present: Dr. Robert Paskel,
Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Carole Hastings, Director of Personnel, and Ms.
Tracy Holt, Finance Director.
Item 20a. Overview of FY 92-93 School Budget. Dr. Paskel noted that
the document being discussed today is a proposed budget, and it has been
balanced with expected revenues, as directed by the School Board. There is a
list of items staff had to take out of the budget in order to balance same.
Revenues are based on the most current information available from the Board of
Supervisors and the State, and the format is closely in line with what the
supervisors are accustomed to seeing. He thanked Ms. Holt, and Mrs. Roxanne
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
M.B. 40, Pg. 112
White, Executive Assistant, for their work in bringing the School Board's and
General Government's format together so that this process could be made
Easier. He pointed out that the expenditure recommendations have been
coordinated with Mr. Tucker. Dr. Paskel then discussed the assumptions,
objectives and strategies of the School Board's budget (copy on file).
Next, Ms. Holt discussed the summary of the schools' projected revenue
for the FY 1992-93 school year. She pointed out that an additional 427
students had been expected this current fiscal year, but there were only 50
additional students. State revenue was lost because of this, but that change
is reflected in the adjustment of the projected revenue.
Ms. Holt continued by saying that revenues have declined, but expendi-
tures have also declined. When next year's budget is examined, it shows a
gain of approximately $670,000. She asked the Supervisors to be aware that
the $19.0 million shown in the 1991-92 anticipated revenues includes an
additional $1o0 million for a refund from the Virginia Retirement System (VRS)
and the higher payment rate° She went on to state that the total projected
revenue of $53,498,336 represents a six percent increase over the anticipated
revenues for 1991-92, but it is only a 3.3 percent increase over what was
actually anticipated to be received in revenue for 1991-92. Mr. Bowerman
asked for an explanation of that statement° Ms. Holt explained that there
were two different revenue projections for 1991-92. The anticipated revenue
is actually what has been appropriated. If this is compared to the anticipat-
ed revenue for 1992-93, there is approximately a six percent increase. How-
ever, if the anticipated revenue for 1992-93 is compared to the budget, there
is a 3.3 percent increase.
Ms. Holt called attention to the fact that proposed expenditures have
been broken down into three categories. The base expenditures represent a
line budget, assuming that the Agnor-Hurt School will not be opened and
the additional 326 students won't be added. If everything remains the same,
the operating expenditures and compensation would amount to approximately
$52.0 million. This is a 2.7 percent increase over what is projected to be
received for this current fiscal year. The combination of growth and Agnor-
Hurt expenditures is approximately $1.6 million. The pro- posed 1992-93
operating budget is approximately $53.5 million.
Ms. Holt called attention to a set of summaries relating to "Drop-Out
Prevention." She wanted the Supervisors to be aware that for the last two
years there has been a Drop-Out Prevention Grant from the State. There is
some uncertainty about the funding of that grant at this time so it is not
included in this budget. The three personnel who were funded by that grant
have been moved to other areas and are funded in the regular budget. Ms. Holt
also pointed out that the individual schools' fiscal 1993 requests are zero at
this time° She explained that a committee determined that a lump sum alloca-
tion would be best for the schools. The committee made a recommendation to
the School Board last spring, so this method of allocation is being used to
base the additional money that is being requested for the 326 students. The
lump sum amount being proposed for the schools for FY 1992-93 is listed on
Page Seven and is approximately $2.5 million. There are zeros shown for the
individual schools because the schools have not yet had any money allocated.
Ms. Holt then discussed the part of the report relating to the opening
of the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School and the growth situation. She noted that
there is approximately $771,000 related to the additional 326 students for the
next fiscal year. The costs associated with the opening of the Agnor-Hurt
Elementary School are estimated to be approximately $890,000. She went on to
describe how the projected costs would be broken down in the different
categories for the Agnor-Hurt School°
Mr. Bain asked if the six regular education teachers shown as a project-
ed cost for the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School would be in addition to the 13
regular education teachers shown as needed for the additional 326 students.
Ms. Holt answered, "yes." She explained that teachers will have to be added
to schools other than the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, wherever growth
appears. She continued the report and pointed out that the total projected
cost of growth and the opening of Agnor-Hurt Elementary School is approximate-
ly $1o4 million.
Ms. Holt described the list of items that needed to be taken out of the
operating budget in order to fund the increase in teachers~ salaries~ the
opening of Agnor-Hurt Elementary School and the additional students.
Mr. Bain inquired, in reference to the postponing of new staffing guide-
lines for teachers and clerical workers, if this affected the high schools,
middle schools and elementary schools. Ms. Holt answered, "yes."
Mr° Bowerman asked for the recommendation for the pupil/teacher ratio.
Dr. Carole Hastings replied that the recommended ratio involves all the
classroom teachers, as well as auxiliary staff. Guidance personnels librari-
ans and other kinds of teacher personnel have never been counted in the
pupil/teacher ratio. Albemarle County has a 16/1 pupil/teacher ratio. She
noted that the recommendation is to continue this ratio for middle and high
schools next year, but to lower the ratio to 15/1 for the elementary schools.
This results in the additional positions if this recommendation is implement-
edo She does not want the Supervisors to think that Albemarle County has.gone
from a 22/1 pupil/teacher ratio to a 16/1 pupil/teacher ratio~ This is just a
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
M.B. 40, Pg. 113
different way of combining all of the teaching staff in a school. She added
that the school has access to all of these people, but it is just a question
of how these people are used in a program.
Mr. Bain stated that the pupil/teacher ratio for writing classes on the
high school level used to be kept under 100/1 per day. He asked where this
situation is at this time. Dr. Hastings replied that the current guidelines
are still 100/1 per day for English. The recommended pupil/teacher ratio ~for
regular classroom teachers in the high schools is approximately 24/1. She
said that this ratio drops when vocational staff, librarians and guidance
counselors, etc., are added.
Mr. Bain responded that he understands this, but he would like to know
the pupil/teacher ratio in a classroom° Dr. Hastings answered that the
guidelines for the English staff is lower than for the other subject areas.
The one provision that would be put in a recommendation would be the State
staffing guidelines as they pertain to the maXimum number of pupils per
teacher, since these guidelines must be adhered to.
Mr. Bain recalled that Albemarle County used to be far ahead of the
State guidelines. Dr. Hastings replied that Albemarle County's ratios are
still better than the State guidelines.
Mr. Bain said he was told about a situation where students could not
take a particular English class because there was only one such class being
taught. These same students had been in the program the two previous years.
Dr. Hastings noted that the reduction-in-force took 37 positions, and the
majority of the 18 teaching positions came out of the high schools. This
reduction was not warranted by enrollments, but it was~ instead, a budget
decision. The additional 14.7 positions, as referred to by Ms. Holt, not only
would allow for the elementary ratio to be brought down by one pupil per
teacher, it would also reinstate many of the positions taken out of the high
schools this year.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many positions would be involved. Dr. Hastings
responded that there are 20 positions in the budget that would not include any
changes in the current Board guidelines. She went on to say that if the new
recommendations should take effect, which would restore the high school
positions and bring the elementary school ratios down, it would be an addi-
tional 14.7 teaching positions. Mr. Bowerman asked if these additional
teaching positions would be broken down between the elementary and high school
levels. Dr. Hastings stated that approximately ten positions would be
restored back to the high schools; eleven high school positions had been
reduced this year. The remainder of the positions would go to the elementary
schools°
Mr. Bowerman asked if these 15 positions represent the cost of approxi-
mately $825,000. Dr. Hastings replied, "no." There is also a clerical
recommendation included in the $825,000. The elementary schools are now
currently staffed 11 months per year by their clerical staff, and the school
division, as a whole, has staff in its schools at seven and one-half hours per
day. She noted that the Committee also considered the seven and one-half hour
days versus eight hour days for the central office and general government
personnel° The school principals work eight hours a day~ 12 months a year and
they need access to clerical staff. A recommendation has been made to have
parity with the division offices and the schools~ so that a 12-month, eight-
hour a day person could be provided to even the small elementary schools~ as
well as increasing clerical time to eight hours a day to achieve equality with
the employees in the County Office Building°
Next, Ms. Holt noted that the reductions that are still unfunded for the
FY 1991-92 budget amount to approximately $2.7 million. The reductions for
the FY 1992-93 budget amount to approximately $5.0 million°
Mr. Bain asked if the School Board has a priority list for the items
which have been left out of the budget. Mr. Haury answered that the School
Board has reached a consensus to construct a priority list.
Ms. Holt then described the proposed 1992-93 teacher pay scalee She
noted that there is a proposed $500 increase for all steps and an additional
$500 increase at the top step. Dr. Paskel said he believes the Supervisors'
expectations have been me5 with this budget presentation. He noted that
school staff members are present if the Supervisors have any questions.
Mr. Martin said some buses and data processing equipment were amortized
last year as well as the year before. He would like to know last year's debt
service figures and the anticipated debt service figures for this year as well
as for the data processing equipment° Mr. Haury replied that Ms. Holt has the
information that shows the spread of payments over five years° He said this
page of the budget information can be provided to all of the Supervisors if
they so desire. He noted that if amortization is considered for buses for
this year, it means adding to the payment schedule.
Mr. Martin asked if the information he received included the buses which
are proposed to be amortized. Ms. Holt stated that she believes Mr. Martin is
asking if the proposed buses for 1992-93 are shown on the list that was
included with the budget information, and she indicated that these buses are
not included. Mr. Haury then explained that approximately $200,000 would have
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) ~4.B. Pg. ll4
(Page 38)
to be added to the total figure shown in the budget report that has already
been given 'to the Supervisors, if additional buses are amortized.
Mr. Bowerman commented that money was saved last year and this year
because of the lease-purchase of the buses, but the total cost over the life
of the lease is higher than if the buses were bought outright. Mr. Haury
agreed. Me said that even though the interest rates are favorable, the
interest is considerable over the five-year period. One of the first lease-
purchaSe agreements is coming to an end this year, but one more will be added
for another five years. This situation could be endless if it keeps being
done year after year. He stated that this is an important issue and needs to
be discussed in detail by the School Board.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that, at some point, the cost of continuing this
lease-purchase arrangement for the buses will be greater than the cost of
purchasing a new bus. Mr. Haury agreed.
Item 20b. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Tucker informed
the School Board members and Supervisors that there is a bill before the
General Assembly that would prohibit localities from lease-purchase agreements
for school buses, computer equipment, and other equipment, unless approved in
a referendum.
Mr. Bowerman said the Supervisors appreciate the budget overview the
School Board has given today. He knows the School Board members are reflec-
tive of the job that they will have to do over the next few weeks to bring the
Supervisors a reasonable budget. He thinks this review has been instructional
for the Supervisors, and it also helps to let the public know about the total
figures through the media.
Mr. Bowerman said the Supervisors have changed their meeting times and
dates. During 1992, the all-day meeting will be the first Wednesday of each
month, and the meetings on the second and third Wednesdays will be held at
7:00 p.m. Because of this change in schedule, the School Board joint meeting
with the Supervisors will be held the first Wednesday of each month at 3:00
p.m. If the Supervisors' agenda is such that the time for the joint meeting
needs to be changed, the School Board will be contacted as soon as the agenda
is prepared.
Mr. Bain asked when the School Board will have its last public hearing
on the budget. Mr. Haury replied that the School Board is going to set the
public hearing date at its meeting tomorrow night. He noted that he and Dr.
Paskel, however, have been discussing setting the time for the public hearing
before the week of February 21st.
Mr. Bain asked about filling the principalship vacancy at Scottsville
School. Dr. Paskel said he hopes to discuss the recommendation for that
principalship with the School Board at its February 13th meeting.
There were no other questions from the Supervisors, so, at 4:12 p.m.,
Mr. Haury adjourned the School Board meeting.
Agenda Item No. 21. Appointments. Mrs. Humphris nominated Mr. Edward
H. Deets, Jr. for reappointment to the Equalization Board from the Jack Jouett
District, for the 1992 calendar year. Mr. Bain seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall°
Mr. Bain made a motion to reappoint Mr. Bruce D. Rasmussen as the Samuel
Miller representative to the Industrial Development Authority, for a four-year
term ending January 19, 1996. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain°
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Tucker stated that he has been informed by Mr. Leonard Sandridge
that Mr. Harry Porter will be replacing Mr. Werner Sensbach as the University
of Virginia's non-voting member on the Planning Commission for a one-year
term.
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 40~ Pg. ]]5
(Page 39)
on a motion by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Martin, Mr. Harry Porter was
appointed to serve as the University of Virginia's non-voting member on the
Albemarle County Planning commission for a term to end on December 31, 1992.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None°
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker said the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has increased the
septic rates for sewage haulers from two cents per gallon to three cents per
gallon. This equates to a $10 to $15 increase to homeowners. For individuals
outside of Albemarle County and Charlottesville, the rate was increased from
two cents to five cents.
Mr. Tucker informed Board members that the Materials Recovery Study
(MRS) will include all localities within Planning District 10 except Greene
County. He next reported that the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority has reCently
taken over all of the responsibilities of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Clean
Community Commission (CAC3) effective February 1, 1992.
Mr. Bain asked if there is anybody responsible for the McIntire recy-
cling center on a regular basis. Mr. Tucker replied, "no." Mr. Bain stated
that the recycling center is not very orderly. People are not putting
materials in the proper places. He thinks it will take a lot of effort to
correct what has been happening. Mr. Tucker responded that he knew there were
problems toward the end of last year, but recently, he thought the problems
had been corrected. He uses the recycling center, and it seemed to be clean
and orderly the last time he was there. He pointed out that occasionally
there is a problem when the hauler is a day or so late and the containers are
too full. He added that a lot of times the problems are not the County's
fault. Containers for plastics and steel cans will be provided in the near
future. He thinks that this will cover all of the various recyclables the
County can handle.
Mrs. Humphris asked how soon the containers for plastics and steel cans
will be provided. Mr. Tucker answered that it is expensive to handle plastic
because it takes up so much volume and the containers fill up quickly.
Mrs. Humphris stated that the receptacle for junk mail and telephone
books was so popular that the receptacle filled up quickly. She thinks more
space is needed for this.
Mr. Bain wondered if there had been any further word on the lodging tax.
Mr. Tucker replied that this matter will be discussed by the General Assembly
this afternoon along with equal taxing power and land use issues.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the lodging industry has sponsored a bill
which would allow for counties and towns to be able to introduce a lodging
tax° He noted that now the lodging tax is two percent for counties. The
lodging industry's bill would increase the lodging tax for cities, counties
and towns up to four percent. Anything over four percent would be on the
basis of a 50/50 split between the local government and the local lodgers to
be used for advertising, and 25 percent of the first four percent would go to
the same group for advertising. He noted that Albemarle County officials have
submitted a bill asking that Albemarle's lodging tax be increased to four
percent. He said this would match the City's percentage.
Mr. Bain asked if the lodgers' legislation will allow counties to go
beyond four percent. Mr. Bowerman answered, "yes." He said~ though, that
going beyond four percent would benefit the lodgers' organization.
Mr. Bain then asked if there is a cap included in the lodgers' bill.
Mr. Bowerman replied, "no," but the lodgers' bill would also require auditing
of the County's finances to see that the money collected was distributed the
way the bill specified.
Mr. Tucker informed the Supervisors that the Equal Taxing Authority bill
does not have any caveats similar to those of the lodgers' bill, although they
could be added. Currently, Albemarle County contributes 27 percent of what is
collected with the two cents tax to the Tourism Bureau. This money is not
used just for advertising. If the bill is changed to promote tourism, the
County is already meeting the criteria relating to the first four cents.
Mr. Bain mentioned the Charlottesville-Albemarle Child and Youth
Commission (CACY). He said that he and Ms. Roxanne White met with their
counterparts from the City, along with Steering Committee members who were
appointed by both the City and County. The Steering Committee met yesterday
at a retreat to get comments from local governmental officials as to whether
February 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 116
(Page 40)
or not the committee is accomplishing its actual charge. It was a very good
meeting, and Mr. John Dawson and Ms. cindy Stratton were happy with the local
government officials' input, committee members were concerned about making a
budget, and whether or not they were as directly involved as they should be.
Duplication of services was mentioned, but the committee members decided not
to involve themselves in more than they can manage during this first year.
Two people from the Committee have gone to interview the different child and
youth agencies.
Mr. Bain said the local government officials informed the Committee
members that they are doing what is expected of them; everything cannot be
done in one year. This is seen as an on-going project~ something to be used
in trying to improve the system of delivering services to needy persons
throughout the planning district. After a retreat this week, the Committee
members will come to the City and County in March to bring officials up-to-
date. Committee members plan to meet individually with new members of the
Supervisors to give them background information relative to the last two and
one-half years. Committee members will also inform the Supervisors what they
plan to do for next year.
Mr. Bain said councilor Kay Slaughter was present at the meeting as well
as two City staff members. It was clearly the feeling that progress is being
made. Committee members are not necessarily finding duplication, but have
found that people do not know what the other locality i~ doing in the same
field. This project is bringing people together, not only the professional
community, but also the youth who have the needs throughout the County and
City. He was encouraged with what he heard from this committee.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Committee members have any concerns about their
charge. Mr. Bain replied, "yes." Committee members asked local government
officials present at the meeting if they were doing what was expected of them.
In listening to what the committee members had done, the officials felt
with the work completed thus far. He said the committee members will expand on
their actions when the matter is brought to the two jurisdictions.
Mr. Bowerman said he appreciated the information from Mr. Bain. He said
that Mr. Dawson had discussed with him some uncertainties which the Committee
members were feeling, and he is glad that this has been resolved.
Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:08 p.m.