1992-03-18 adjMarch 18, 1992 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
M.B. 40, Pg. 247
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on March 18, 1992, at 1:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was
adjourned from March 11, 1992.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and
Mr. Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy
County Executive, Richard Huff, II, Assistant County Executive, Robert B.
Brandenburger, and Executive Assistant, Roxanne W. White.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Eowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Work Session, 1992-93 County Budqet:
School Division. Present were: Dr. Robert Paskel, Division Superinten-
dent, along with School Board members, Mr. Clifford Haury, Mrs. Patricia
Moore, Mrs. Karen Powell, and Dr. Valdrie Walker.
Dr. Paskel said the budget for the school system as presented to the
Board of Supervisors was balanced. Subsequent to that, the General Assembly
through a compromise, will provide $173,178.00 additional dollars to the
school system. These funds are earmarked for at-risk, English-as-a-Second-
Language, building maintenance and lower EMRclass sizes. He understands that
if the school system exceeds those spending limits (and Albemarle County
does), the funds may be used for other items. The only question at this time
concerns spending on English-as-a-Second-Language.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
FY 1992-93 PROPOSED BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
~.~s FUNDSD
Teacher scale increase ($500 increase entire scale)
4% merit pool (classified & administrative)
Teacher scale movement
Classified & administrative vesting
(this figure was correcte4 below)
Increase in employer contribution to health care
Partial reinstatement of summer school funding
Partial reinstatement of staff development funding
Certified personnel
Ail other personnel
Rec¥clinq initiative
$445,074
407,572
346,076
327,945
208,392
50,000
50,000
12,000
20,250
Dr. Paskel said the allocation of local funds from the Board of Supervi-
sors along with state funds are insufficient.to meet the School Board's objec-
:ives so they selected some unfunded items and presented them in a prioritized
list (see below). It is just a partial listing of the unfunded requests for
[992-93, and the 1991-92 reductions which totalled almost $5.0 million. That
fist is also included in the budget book.
SCHOOL BOARD PRIORITIZED UNFUNDED I~MS
Reinstatement of the proposed $500 increase
at the top of the teacher salary scale $223,850
2. Implementation of new staffing guidelines
a. 7 classroom teaching positions 245,000
b. 7.7 classroom teaching positions 269,500
3. Reinstatement of teacher vouchers 70,000
4. Reinstatement of Agnor-Hurt equipment
request (10%) 26,500
5. Reinstatement of summer school funding 50,000
6. Increase classified & administrative merit
pool (1%) 101,987
7. Reinstatement of the purchase of two addi-
tional buses 70,000
TOTAL UNFUNDED PRIORITIES: $1~056~837
March 18, 1992 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
M.B. 40, Pg. 248
Dr. Paskel said the School staff knew this year that funds are not
readily available and it would not be able to ask the School Board or the
Board of Supervisors for all of the items it wants for the school system so
staff started the budget process with the idea of requesting what is essential
to the school system. The School budget includes a list of "Assumptions" (it
shows an estimate of 326 students in enrollment growth). There is a list of
"Objectives'~ and "Strategies". One of the objectives is to purchase rather
than lease new and replacement buses. Another is to increase the overall
teacher salary scale and to adjust the flat portions of the scale as well as
the top step of the scale. Dr. Paskel said they were able to accomplish only
a part of that objective. They did eliminate the possibility of another
reduction in force (the budget is balanced without that initiative), and they
were able to reinstate a portion of the funding cuts taken in FY 1991-92.
Dr. Paskel then went back to discuss the "ITEMS FUNDED" listing set out
above. He said that the item noted as "Classified & Administrative Vesting"
needs to be corrected to the figure $327,945. The School Board is also making
an attempt to absorbthe employee's additional cost of health insurance care.
The School Board did prioritize seven of the unfunded items, although there
are considerably more than that listed in the budget (see list set out above).
Dr. Paskel said the School Board was able to make a modest improvement
in the teacher salary scale, but Albemarle County still ranks near the bottom
of the cluster group for entry, maximum and average teacher salaries. The
Board was able to fund the growth of the 326 additional students, and restore
a few of the items that were reduced or eliminated in the FY 1991-92 budget,
however, additional funds are needed to address the Board's prioritized
unfunded list. The additional $173,178 provided by the state could help with
the first priority.
Dr. Paskel said that on behalf of the students served by the school
system, he asks for additional funds to help the School Board with its
responsibilities.
Mr. Bain asked if the seven classroom teaching positions listed as #2a
on the priority list are mostly for the high schools. Dr. Carole Hastings,
Director of Human Resources, said of the 14.7 additional positions requested,
ten would be for the high schools.
Mr. Martin asked about the reinstatement of the two additional buses,
and asked if that extends the replacement cycle beyond twelve years. Dr.
Paskel said these are the two buses the School Board had requested to keep the
twelve-year cycle in tact.
Mr. Marshall said several teachers had spoken to him and indicated that
the "Career Ladder "was not being funded. Dr. Hastings said it is fully
funded, but the teachers feel a commitment was made to keep the base salary
competitive. The base salary has fallen in terms of its competitiveness so
the career ladder has become less of an incentive. Mr. Martin said the items
listed as "teacher scale increase" will address the issue of the base salary.
the "teacher scale movement" addresses the teachers on the regular salary
scale. Mr. Marshall said the top of the scale appears to be the item most in
meed of addressing.
Dr. Paskel said the Superintendent had recommended two approaches To
teacher salaries. One, to add $500.00 across the board, and that is in the
oudget approved by the School Board. However, the School Board did not want
ko put the $500.00 at the top because 54 percent of the people working for the
School Board are at the top of the scale.
Dr. Hastings said in 1985 Albemarle County was ll6th in the state on the
naximum and 110 on minimum salary. Now, in terms of the cluster group rating
· hich the state tries to use for comparison, Albemarle County is at 12 out of
L5 at the bachelor degree minimum salary, and 14 out of 15 in the maximum
~alary. In 1986-87, an average of $2.3 million was put in the budget to get
:he base salary increased in preparation for the career ladder. At that time,
%lbemarle County went from the bottom state-wide to the upper 25 percent in
:he state. In terms of state figures, Albemarle County is 119 out of 134
~chool divisions in bachelor degree maximum salary.
Mr. Perkins asked if the figures shown reflect the VRS and insurance
)ayments. Dr. Hastings said "no", the figures reflect only base salary. Mr.
?erkins said in 1985, Albemarle County was 110, but including these payments
;ould have made Albemarle CounTy 92nd. At that time, there was probably no
~ore than a $500 difference between the 30thposition and the 90th position.
)r. Hastings said that is true. At this point in time, most school divisions
.n the state are paying VRS for their employees, just as Albemarle County is
loing. But, in looking at comparison salary scales, the state just looks at
;he base salary. Mr. Perkins said he felt the total compensation package
~hould be looked at. Dr. Hastings said she had some information on the
:ounty's benefit package. The Blue Cross/Blue Shield contribution is less
;hah average for most employers but on the average Albemarle County's benefit
~ackage is fairly competitive. At this time, the concern of the School Board
~ests with teacher salaries.
March 18, 1992 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
M.B. 40, Pg. 249
Mr. Bain asked for figures from other school divisions which pay the VRS
payments. Dr. Hastings said about 70 percent of the divisions make this
payment.
Mr. Perkins asked the number of teaching positions for next year. Dr.
Hastings said there are 758. Mr. Perkins asked how many are classified, and
how many are administrative. Dr. Hastings said it is about 700.
Mr. Bain asked why Priority #6, "additional one percent merit pool" is
below #3, #4 and #5. Mr. Haury, Chairman, said the School Board discussed
whether or not to match what the County Executive was carrying in the General
Government budget, a five percent merit pool for classified and administrative
personnel. A majority of the School Board members felt they should be
conservative and allow only a four percent pool which would allow the vesting
of one step and'not two steps. When the School Board voted on its priorities,
this item came out as #6.
Mr. Bain asked if there was any discussion of staying on target with the
General Government. Mr. Haury said they did discuss what it had meant in the
past to attempt to honor the issue of commonality. However, the Board felt it
was something the two boards should discuss at their next joint session in
April. It has not been discussed since that time.
Mr. Bain asked the cost of purchasing versus leasing of school buses.
Mr. Haury said when the School Board discussed purchase of the buses, they
drafted up the following strategies in order to find the money. They felt
that by purchasing the buses, the interest over a five-year period would be
saved, so they were saving a little. They did discuss whether they were okay
in terms of maintenance to allow the buses to stay on the road, and were
assured that there are some buses in good repair and they would not be in
jeopardy with older buses on the road.
SCHOOL BOBW~ STRAT~OIES
To provide funding for the purchase of the 18 buses:
Elimigate. propo~ed $500~increase at top of teacner salary sca±e
Reduce proposed merit pool from 5% to 4%
Eliminate funding for School Board goals
Reduce funding for summer school
Reduce equipment funding for Agnor-Hurt
($223,850)
($101,987)
($6o,000)
($50,000)
($26,500)
Increase teacher salary scale:
$500 across entire scale
$445,074
Limit increase in base budget requests to provide funding for:
Recycling initiative
Reinstatement of three RIF positions
Staff development
Summer school
$20,250
$99,549
$62,000
$50,000
Dr. Paskel said he would like to talk about purchase versus lease of the
ouses. If 20 buses are leased, it will cost $875,000 more or less over a
five-year period of time. If 18 buses are purchased outright in one year, the
=ost is $645,000.
Mr. Perkins said he had received a number of comments about the station
~agons used to transport special education students. He asked how many of
:hese there are. Mr. Willie Smith, Director of Transportation, said there are
L7 of these vehicles, sixteen in operation and one in reserve. Mr. Perkins
~sked why the School system is using these vehicles instead of buses. Mr.
Smith said that usually only three or four students can be transported at one
:ime. They do have some mini-buses but because of the small number of
:hildren, they are using cars. Dr. Paskel said when the driver has to go way
)ut in the county to pick up one student, and then maybe has a 45 minute drive
:o the next student, it is more efficient to use a smaller vehicle. Mr.
{artin asked the longest length of time a student is on a bus. Mr. Smith said
)n the longer routes it is just under 90 minutes.
Mr. Bain said he would like to hear comments from the Board of Super-
risors' members about the purchase versus lease of buses. Mr. Martin said he
;ould like to know from the School Board members if there could be a change of
~ind concerning this item, and the one percent merit increase. Hr. Haury said
~ach item on the priority list was discussed individually. Since it was
~bvious that there would be no consensus on the items, each item was voted on
~eparately. Ail of the votes were not unanimous. If the School Board were to
~econsider the list, it would have to follow parliamentary procedure to
]iscuss them again. The earliest time that the School Board can discuss these
items again is next Monday. He plans to bring up the question again and see
~hat the School Board thinks in terms of what the Board of Supervisors says
=oday.
March 18, 1992 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
M.B. 40, Pg. 250
Mr. Martin said the additional $400,000, plus the additional $173,000+
and, hopefully, if.the Board of Supervisors sees fit to give.the School Board
some additional.funding, would fund items far down into the list of priori-
ties. Mr. Haury said that was a scenario discussed by the School Board, but
one member pointed out that if the buses continue to be leased, it simply
extends an o~ligation which then becomes built into the operational budget
each year. Some members felt the buses should be purchased outright and
another year should not be added to the five-year debt cycle. On the other
hand, many of the priorities on the list could be funded if the buses were
bought using the lease purchase arrangement over the five years.
Mr. Bain said the School Board went to the lease/purchase arrangement
several years ago, and at that time, the County Executive, Guy Agnor, was
against the idea, although he did change his mind over the years. Mr. Bain
said he can see both sides of the issue.
Mr. Perkins said he feels the School Board is taking a step in the right
direction. He does not feel it is a balanced budget if there is a
lease/purchase arrangement (the same as borrowing money), since this only puts
off into the future what should be paid for this year. He feels this practice
just keeps "snowballing". Mr. Bowerman said there is a benefit the first few
years of such a program because money is freed for other operating costs.
Beyond the period of five years, if leases are continued to be turned over,
more is paid in operating expenses than the amount that would have spent to
just purchase the buses outright. Mr. Bain said it turns out to be about
$2000 per bus over that period of time.
Mr. Martin said it appears to him that the economy is beginning to pick
up. Maybe in the next couple of years, the County will be in a position to
retire the debt before the end of the five years. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr.
Martin is indicating that the lease should be carried forward for at least one
more year. Mr. Martin said "yes".
In reply to a question concerning the beginning of lease/purchase
arrangements, Mr. Haury referred the Board members to Page H-5 of the School
Board's budget entitled "Existing Lease Amortization Schedule." He said that
leasing of computers began in FY 1987-88, while the leasing of school buses
began in FY 1990-91.
Mr. Marshall asked how many of the unfunded priority items could be
funded if the buses were leased instead of purchased. Dr. Paskel said if the
School Board uses the $173,000+ allocated from the state, plus the amount
saved using a lease option, it would total almost $600,000.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the School Board members present would discuss
their consensus that purchase of school buses in FY 1992-93 is a superior way
to balance the budget as opposed to leasing. Mrs. Patsy Moore said the School
Board was able to fund a $500.00 raise in the teacher base salary across-the-
board and allow a four percent merit pool without "credit carding" buses. We
are in a recession and the School Board felt that to borrow money to give
raises is deficit spending. This is a fiscally responsible budget~ If the
buses had been added to the lease arrangement, the debt would have totalled
$3.5 million, and the School Board felt it could not continue to spend while
carrying that debt load.
Mrs. Humphris agreed with Mrs. Moore. She thinks it is fiscally sound.
~o one can count on the economy being better next year. Mr. Bowerman asked
about the one percent deleted from the merit pool. Mrs. Humphris said she
understands what they did. She has never been convinced that the whole idea
Df commonality is truly workable. She has never understood why, in order to
live the classified employees a raise, all the administrators have to have a
raise also. She understands why the School Board limited the merit pool to
four percent, and feels it is something this Board needs to talk about and
~ecide how to handle for General Government employees.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the School Board is considering moving any of the
~acilitators out of the County Office Building into the classrooms. Dr.
?askel said that at the last meeting of the School Board, he was requested to
]o a feasibility study on the reassignment of at least four people to the
:lassroom, he impact of this on services, and on the Board's unfunded priority
~f reducing the pupil/teacher ratio. Mrs. Humphris asked if that has implica-
;ions on this budget. Dr. Paskel said it would not.
Mr. Perkins asked about the budgets for the individual schools. Dr.
?askel said the total allocation is shown on Page 57 of the "Operating Budget
)verview" as. one lump sum of $2,539,689. It is shown this way because the
~llocation formula is still being tested. A group of parents, teachers and
)rincipals will make a recommendation to the Superintendent on a way to
listribute that amount to the schools in an equitable manner.
Mr. Tucker said it would be helpful for him to know if the Schools had
)lans for any of the carryover funds from this current year. At the moment,
.t is predicted that $240,000 will be carried forward. Dr. Paskel said
tothing was budgeted in the 1992-93 budget for any carryover funds.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the 326 additional children under "Assumptions" is
ased on the March enrollment figures. Dr. Paskel said "yes". Mr. Haury said
;26 is the planning assumption that will be sent to the state as the actual
March 18, 1992 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
M.B. 40, Pg. 251
arrivals at school on September 30. Then there is a time frame between
September 30 and~March 31 where t~e state waits, for .enrollments to drop. In
the enrollment ~6j~ecti0n ~'acke~s~!~hat are done for long-range planning, it
shows the September enrollments. The Average Daily Membership, which is the
March figure, is what is reported to the state for the recovery of funds°
Mr. Haury said the School Board did not really look at the $240,000
projected carryover because no one knows what is going to happen with monies
from the State Department of Education. There is good reason to hesitate and
believe the County will not get all of the money it expects. Also, some of
the money in the $240,000 was held back as part of the reserve from school-
based accounts. The School Board wanted to make it perfectly clear that some
of the schools would not be able to spend that money if the School Board saw
fit to release it. Being conservation, they put in a "zero" for carryover
because they did not know what would be coming from the state, and some of
that money belongs to the schools.
Mr. Bowerman asked how much of the $240,000 is in school-based accounts.
Dr. Paskel said about 95 percent of that amount is in school-based accounts.
The schools.were directed to set aside 15 percent of all cost centers, then,
as the financial picture cleared a little, two-thirds of that amount was
released. He hopes conditions will improve so they can release to the schools
the balance of that amount so it can be wisely encumbered, and the items
delivered before the end of the fiscal year.
Returning to the subject of transportation, Mr. Bain said he has opposed
lease/purchase of buses from the beginning, but the last couple of years it
did provide a way to help fund the School budget without the Board of Supervi-
sors having to raise other revenues. If this practice is continued, FY 1992-
93 will be the third year for school buses. He also does not want to switch
over from that practice and take away from other accounts he feels are
critical. Mr. Marshall asked what Mr. Bain felt would be lost. Mr. Bain said
he feels that #i, #2 and #6 are very critical. The Supervisors can discuss
the merit pool, but he would drop it to four percent for General Government
employees if there is interest in retaining commonality. He is very concerned
about the teacher base salary and that is not even included in what is being
discussed.
Mr. Martin said he agrees with Mr. Bain that #1, #2 and #6 are very
important.
Mr. Marshall said he is "sitting on the fence."
Mr. Bain said there are both General Government and School funds which
total about $850,000 less the $173,000+ leaving $675,000. If the Board gave a
60/40 or 65/35 split on those funds, the Board fund a good number of items
without having to make a rate adjustment on taxes. He said the Board would
barely be "holding the line", but he thinks the Board can come close to doing
this year what he is willing to live with. The problem comes from items in
General Government which the Board has not yet discussed, "big ticket, items.
He is not ready to make any decision today, but that is "where he is at".
Mrs. Humphris said although this Board decides how much money will be
provided, the School Board must decide how the money will be spent.
Mr. Tucker said it is helpful for him to hear these comments. Next
week, staff can provide some further guidance as to how this budget might be
funded, either through use of carryover fund, or from Fund Balance monies. He
does not normally like to use these funds for anything except non-recurring
items.
Mr. Bain said he does not want to lease/purchase school buses for
another year. If the Board can fund some of the School Board's priority
items~ he wants to get back to "pay-as-you-go" on the school buses.
Mr. Marshall said he agrees. When he was elected, he said he was
opposed to any tax increase, but on the other hand, he wants to fund educa-
tion. If staff can find a way to do that without having a tax increase, and
without going into debt for these buses, he would greatly appreciate it. Mr.
Tucker said he is not talking about a rate increase whatever the recommenda-
tion is.
Mr. Bowerman asked which items Mr. Martin had mentioned. Mr. Martin
said he is 'interested in #1, #2a, #2b and #6. Mr. Bain agreed. Mr. BOwerman
said the Board would have to consider the implications of #6 later because it
affects General Government employees.
Mr. Perkins said the Board will need to look at #6. This is a system
which allows for a merit pool and vested increases, and these things work on
percentages, and he does not think it is fair to a lot of people. He has
heard talk out in the community that some people get $5,000+ increases, while
truck drivers, etc., get only $200+ increases. This is a time of a slow
economy, and people in the private sector get either minimal or no increases,
and there are no bonuses for these people either. He feels the Board must
look at this idea, and he does not believe there can be five percent bonuses
year after year. The economic situation changes.
March 18, 1992 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 252
(Page 6)
Mr. Tucker said it is not appropriate from a commonality standpoint to
have the School System in one percentage pool and GeneralGovernment in
another.
Mr. Marshall asked why the Board cannot look at just classified employ-
ees. Mr. Perkins said the answer he has always gotten is that it would mess
the system up. At Westvaco, where he works, they have a system similar to the
- County's,~'bu-t if the scale moves up, he does not necessarily move up with the
scale. His salary is based on what he does. Mr. Tucker said it is difficult
to do with the County's present system, but it would not be impossible.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board has been told that with the present system,
every grade is in relation to what the job does and what it earns in the
private sector versus the one above it, and the one below it. If you change
one of them because you feel it is not a fair wage for that one class, then
you effect the one immediately above it. The County just looked at the salary
scale in terms of what the private and the public sector are paying. Mr.
Tucker asked if the Board was suggesting having a separate system for classi-
fied personnel and a separate system for administrative personnel.
Dr. Hastings said there are two separate issues here. No adjustment is
proposed to the scale this year. What is being discussed is a merit pool, and
if the Board chooses to have two different amounts of merit pools, one for
classified and one for administrative staff, that can be done. It would only
take some new programming.
Mr. Bain said he thinks Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins are thinking about
increasing just the grades for classified employees. Dr. Hastings said the
entire pay plan was amended just a year ago, and there was a lot of emphasis
given to positions such as: bus drivers, custodians, teacher assistants.
Custodians were brought up 20 percent in terms of their pay increase. Most
administrative pay grades rose only one or two percent.
Mr. Bowerman said if the Board members have a concern, he would suggest
that the item be sent to the Personnel Committee for study. Mr. Marshall said
he would like to look at a way to differentiate between classified and admini'
strative employees. Mr. Tucker said a different merit pool for administrators
is possible, but to have an entirely different scale for administrators is a
much harder.
At 2:15 p.m., discussion of the School budget stopped. Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Bain left the room at this time.
Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC). Requested, $7,310; recom-
mended, $7,310.
Mr. Tucker said the contribution to PVCC is based on a formula that
calculates jurisdictional shares on the percentage of total enrollment in the
prior two years and the inflation rate during the same period. Albemarle
County's percentage of total enrollment was 44.3 for FY 1989/90 - FY 1990/91.
Albemarle's FY 1992-93 contribution of $7,310 represents 44.45 percent of the
total local share of $16,500. The County Executive recommended funding at the
requested level.
There was no recommendation for any change.
Social Services, Kathy Ralston present. Requested, $3,943,301; recom-
mended, $3,943,301.
Mr. Huff said the Social Services Department provides seven broad
categories of direct service: Adult-5 Protective Services, Adult Services,
Child Protective Services, Employment Services, Family Services, Foster Care,
Adoption, and, Intake Services. Services are also purchased in Foster Care
Placement and Companion Care. The total budget of the Social Services
Department is broken down into the following six divisions: Virginia Public
Assistance (VPA) Management, VPA Benefit Program, VPA Service Programs,
Employment Services Program, Medicaid, and, Energy Assistance.
Mr. Huff said the total budget increases by $82,690 (3%) over FY 1991-92
ith a 1.2 percent increase in compensation, a one percent increase in fringe
enefits, a 6.6 percent increase in operations, and a 67 percent decrease in
capital expenditures. The low increase in compensation costs reflects the
elimination of two eligibility workers who, although state funded for six
months of the current year, will not be funded by the state in FY 1992-93.
Mr. Huff said certain things have created a significant impact on this
budget for next year. Under "Service Programs", there was a mandated increase
of $124,716 in Foster Care due to the increasing number of children. But,
even with this, by cutting other areas, the total budget shows only a $93,000
increase.
Ther~ are also .other increases: In Transitional Day Care, a $5200
increase, and in the Fee Child Care Program, a mandated $55,000 increase.
There was also an increase in the rental rate for Social Services in the
County Office Building. The state reimburses the County for a portion of
administrative costs which are charged to rent. They reimburse the County
March 18, 1992 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
M.B. 40, Pg. 253
about 80 percent of the old rental rate, which was $5.80 sq. ft. There were
significant increases throughoutthe divisional budgets for SocialServices
and most of that%~increase is for rent.
Mrs. Humphris noted that three of the divisions had requested computers.
She asked how critical this item is to operations. Mr. Huff referred the
Board to the County Executive's listing of "Funding Priorities", and said this
is Item No. 9 "Match for State Funded Social Services Computers - $19,100."
The state would provide 80 percent and the County would need pay only 20
percent to have computers for the services division workers so that all the
manuals and forms they use would be on computer. The state is putting a lot
of money into computerization next year, and that is why the computers are
ranked as #9. Normally, purchase of computers is ranked much lower. Mr. Huff
also referred to #36, "Computer Equipment - Social Services - $11,538.'t These
computers would be for the management division so that records could be trans-
ferred to computer.
Mr. Martin askedabout the two eligibility worker positions which are
being eliminated. Ms. Ralston said these positions had been funded 80/20
state/county. The County could get federal funds for these positions on a
50/50 match. Mr. Martin asked what will happen to their caseload. Ms.
Ralston said it will be redistributed to the other workers. Mr. Huff said
those positions had been unfunded in the budget for a number of years. The
state funded them for six months with no assurance that they would fund them
for longer than that six months. The people hired were hired with that
assumption.'
Mr. Bain asked the County's share of the two positions. Ms. Ralston
said it would be about $10,000. Mr. Huff asked if the 8oard wanted to add the
cost of these positions to the list of unfunded items which will be discussed
at the end of these work sessions. Mr. Tucker said he would rather wait and
see what the final outcome of the Social Services budget from the state. He
asked if the Board wanted Items #9 and #36 added to the Board's list. There
was a consensus to put Item #9 on the Board's list.
Senior Center. Requested, $9,600; recommended, -0-. Ms. White said the
Senior Center is a program that serves the elderly of the community to ensure
a good quality of life and to prevent or delay dependency by providing a
program of education, information, recreational, volunteer, health and social
activities. The four core programs, education and recreational, health and
nutrition, volunteer program, and physical fitness provide regularly scheduled
exercise and fitness classes, health screenings' and instruction on health and
nutritional issues, as well as numerous educational lectures and classes.
Ms. White said the Senior Center moved into a new facility located in
the county in the fall of 1991, increasing its available space from 3500 to
14,800 square feet. The have requested $9600 to help pay half of the pro-
jected utility costs, which increased from $3700 o $19,000 in FY 1992 due to
the new building. Although the Senior Center initially planned to ask the
City of Charlottesville to share these same expenses, a formal funding request
was not submitted. The Senior Center is currently negotiating with the City
to provide certain services, but a fixed contribution from the City has not
been determined.
Ms. White said the Senior Center serves anyone over the age of 55 in
Planning District 10 and projects a membership of 2350 in 1992. All members
pay a $20 membership fee with scholarships offered to those who cannot afford
the cost of membership.
The Program Review Committee did not recommending funding. Some of the
reasons follow:
It had been suggested on prior occasions that the Senior
Center look at increasing its membership fees, but the fee
was only minimally raised from $16 to $20.
20
The Senior Center had been asked on prior occasions for
socio-economic data on its membership, but it is only now
developing a survey form to collect this information.
Without knowing the financial need of the participants, the
Committee cannot justify the expenditure of public money on
this program.
TheCounty Executive does not recommend funding for the Senior Center.
However, should the Board choose to fund this agency, the County Executive
recommends that it be contingent upon similar City funding.
There.was no suggestion made for a change in the County Executive's
recommendation.
Central Virginia Child Development Association (CVCDA), Ilene Railton
present. Requested, $7,700; recommended, $7,560.
Ms. White said the CVCDA proposes to diminish the gap between child care
services in the community and the growing need for those services, and to
achieve a higher level of provider competence. Funding is recommended at a
March 18, 1992 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
M.B. 40, Pg. 254
three percent increase, putting $5000 into Day Care Provider Training, and
$2560 into Information and~Referral Services. The~Program Review Committee
felt there is areal need for Provider Training and they suggested that more
of the County's funding go into that item.
There was no suggestion for any change.
Family Services, Cathy Bodkin present. Requested, $5100; recommended,
$51oo.
Ms. White said Family Services is a nonprofit agency that provides
counseling and services to individuals with the cost charged on a sliding
scale basis. They also provide a Parenting Center which provides an educa-
tional training resource to parents. In FY 1991-92, Albemarle County first
funded Family Services by providing a ten-week series of intenSive group
counseling sessions directed at parents who needed to develop skills in coping
with their children,-parents who were identified by Social Services as either
abusive parents, or potentially abusive parents.
Ms. White said Family Services asks the County to fund this item again
in FY 1992-93. Funding in the amount of $5100.00 is recommended.
There were no suggestions for any changes.
Children & Youth Commission (CAYC), Rory Carpenter, present. Requested,
$16,515; recommended, $16,515.
Ms. White said CAYC was establish in December, 1990. Since that time,
they have been exercising tasks and responsibilities set before them (see
report in the Board's minutes during February, 1992). At this time, there is
one full-time staff director, and one part-time planner. Funding is 46
percent from the State Department of Youth and Family Services, while the
City/County split the remaining portion 50/50.
Ms. White said the request from Albemarle County is for $16,515, an
increase of $1000 over FY 1991-92. This is Albemarle County's share of the
total baseline budget of $61,330. The increase will be used to fund a 2.5
percent increase in salaries, and a $650 increase in printing, telephone and
postage costs.
Funding is recommended of the baseline budget request.
District Home. Requested, $32,000; recommended, $32,000.
Mr. Tucker said the District Home in Waynesboro provides ambulatory and
nursing home services to indigent persons. It is operatedjointly by the
County, the City of Charlottesville, and fiVe other jurisdictions in the
Shenandoah Valley. Most of the costs are borne by the State, but the remain-
ing costs are distributed among the jurisdictions according to their actual
use of the facility. Full funding of the requested $32,000 is recommended.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many County residents are in the Home. Mr.
Tucker said it varies from month-to-month, but at this time there are between
12 and 15.
There was no recommendation for any change.
(Note= At 2:45 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 3=01 p.m.)
Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA), Gordon Walker present. Request-
ed, $95,401; recommended, $92,030.
Ms. White said JABA provides planning, advocacy, and service coordina-
tion for people over 60 in Planning District 10. The FY 1992-93 request of
$95,401 is a 6.77 percent increase over FY 1991-92. This reflects a 4.5
percent inflation factor on their base, and an additional request of $2280 to
expand their Outreach Program to provide tax relief information to the
elderly.
Ms. White said funding is recommended at a baseline increase of three
percent for a total of $92,030. There are.eight programs into which this
money is divided:
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
A general support program which gives them administrative
assistance - approximately $8500
Adult day care center - $34,500
Esmont day center - $10,800
Congregate meals program - $4000
Home-delivered meals - $13,400
Home safety program - $11,000
RSVP program - $5800
Transportation program which uses JAUNT to take residents to
the Carver Center for meals - $4000.
March 18, 1992 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
M.B. 40, Pg. 255
Ms. White said no funding was recommended for the additional outreach
program to assist' elderly clients with tax relief forms.. ~t was felt that
this could be incorporated into their current program, and that they do not
need to develop additional sites or increase personnel to do this. They were
encouraged to give out this information at the same time that they distribute
other information.
Mr. Walker was present and said that to allow for maximum access to the
tax relief program, additional outreach services are needed. Over the last
couple of years it has been mentioned that there are many senior citizens who
could benefit from the program, but they are unaware of it. There are also
people who are disabled and not able to get away from their home, who need a
home visit. The advantage of having JABA be the provider of the service is
that JABA's staff can also discuss other services which are available. Me
said it would be difficult to do that with his existing staff.
Mr. Bain asked~if County staff had discussed who else might be able to
provide that service° Ms. White said JABA deals with the elderly more than
other agencies. Social Services could probably help. Mr. Bowerman asked if
there is any reason why the person has to come to the County Building to
apply. Ms. White said only if they need someone to help fill out the form.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that could be done through the outreach problem.
Mr. Bain said the problem he has experienced is that: 1) there is no
knowledge of the existence of the program, 2) it is "big brotherism", and they
don't wan= to get involved, and, 3) they don't feel comfortable to come in and
talk with County staff, and don't want to disclose financial information.
Mr. Martin said he would like to add.this item to the list. Mr.
Marshall asked if someone at the Senior Center could help. Mr. Walker said
JABA has seven retired persons who volunteer to help people with health
insurance counseling, and they are giving all the time'they have. JABA tried
using volunteers on the tax relief program but it was not effective.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the distribution of the "Silver Linings". He
said it is primarily done by mail to clients, people who donate money, elected
officials, people who request a copy, and civic organizations. JABA has a
mailing list of approximately 8000. Mrs. Humphris said it is an excellent
publication. The Senior Center also has a news letter and if the two were
ever to merge, the letter would get to a huge percentage of the population of
Albemarle County.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks there is a consensus to add this item to the
Board's list.
JAUNT, Linda Wilson present. Requested, $176,011; recommended,
$150,775.
Ms. White said JAUNT is a public service corporation owned jointly by
Albemarle, Charlottesville, Fluvanna, Nelson and Louisa. They provide three
basic services which are: demand responsive transportation in the urban and
rural area, including services to the elderly and disabled; rural to urban
commuter work runs; and, JAUNT also provides RideShare (carpool matching)
service. The County is required under the 504 regulations and the new
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations (handicapped access) to
provide service which is comparable to that of the Charlottesville Transit
Service which serves Albemarle County along Route 29 North. In 1989 the Board
of Supervisors voted to subsidize JAUNT services to the disabled not only
within the required mile radius, but for the entire urban area.
Ms. White said the increase in the JAUNT budget is due to four factors.
1) They have increased demand-response ridership in the urban area. Also,
part of the request includes a fare deduction in the urban area from $2.00 to
$1.20. That is to meet new ADA mandates that JAUNT'S fare should be no more
than twice the fare of the current operating bus line (CTS fare is 60 cents).
Even though fares were increased last year, the demand has still not gone
down, in fact it has increased.
Ms. White said there is a 16 percent increase in JAUNT'S administrative
budget due to the fact that they are about to sign a lease/purchase agreement
for a new building. The building will be started in the Spring, and will be
ready to move into in November. They are hoping that in the next year the
full cost of the building will be reimbursed through federal and state grants.
For the next year, they offered four options to help meet the ADA
mandates:
Option I = lower fare from $2.00 to $1.20 ($176,010);
option II = lower fare from $2.00 to $1.50 ($167,043);
Option III = lower fare from $2.00 to $1.75 ($158,759); and
Option IV = maintain current fare at $2.00 ($150,775).
This is the option recommended by staff because the ADA regulations
don't go into effect until 1993-94, and JAUNT'S operating costs should be down
significantly if the grants are received for the building. It is possible
that the fare reduction may need to be made in 1993-94, and staff feels that
would be a better year to do that.
March 18, 1992 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 10) .
M.B. 40, Pg. 256
There was no recommendation for a change in this budget.
Madison Hous~i Liz Courain present.
$3,900.
Requested, $3,860; recommended,
Ms. White said Madison House is a nonprofit corporation which organizes
- and implements volunteer services in the Albemarle/Charlottesville communities
using student volunteers from the University of Virginia. Two programs which
use their services are the Migrant Aid Program and Albemarle Housing Improve-
ment Program.
Ms. White said the Program Review Committee recommended a medium level
funding increase of three percent which is the amount of $3,900.
There was no recommendation for a change in this budget request.
Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE), Carti Lominack present. Requested,
$57,180; recommended, $35,930.
Ms. White said SHE provides temporary emergency shelter for victims of
domestic violence, as well as a 24-hour hotline, weekly self-help groups for
victims and a group of abusers, parenting training program, children's
program, agency training, and community education.
Ms. White said the requested increase for this year is for an additional
$25,045 which would be a 78 percent increase in funding. The request is for
an additional staff person ($6640), the third year of a salary scale-increase
($5655), an increase in the County's share which is based on additional
services, and a new local share formula ($9825), and approximately $3000 to
make up for a shortfall in anticipated fundraising for FY 1992-93.
Ms. White said the Program Review Committee recommended medium level
funding (3%) increase, and an additional $2830 to fund the third and final
year of salary adjustments.
Ms. Lominack thanked the Board for consistently providing funding to the
Shelter over the years it has been in existence (13 years). The recommen-
dation from the Program Review Committee will create a shortfall in funds.
She believes it is important to note that the Shelter is not just a residen-
tial facility, but it does offer other programs. The local share formula did
change this.year because of the recommendation from the Program Review
Committee. Because of the increased awareness that there is a shelter, they
are finding that there are a number of unmet needs in the community. The
budget they draft and present is based on the assumption of a 100 percent
funding from all localities. Also, during the last fiscal year, their
fundraising efforts increased, and they increased their fundraising revenues
by 47 percent, to almost $60,000. Mrs. Lominack then read a letter from an
Albemarle County citizen who had used the services of the Shelter.
Mr. Martin suggested that this item be added to the Board's list. Mr.
Marshall concurred.
Outreach Counseti'ng, Alan Segar present. Requested, $23,000; recommend-
ed, $22,075.
Ms. White said Outreach Counseling Services~ Inc., is a private, non-
profit agency that provides counseling to low-to-moderate income youth and
their families in Albemarle County. Outreach Counseling provides community-
based, nonresidential preventive services that are specifically designed to
reduce the need for and higher cost of residential treatment for youth.
Outreach Counseling delivers clinical counseling services directly in the
homes of these youth.
Ms. White said the request for $23,000 is a 7.3 percent increase over FY
1991-92. This increase reflects the amount needed to fund the agency's
services as a result of a change in the fee structure. In FY 1990-91, the
program served 20 County youth and 90 family members, and they anticipate
serving the same number in FY 1991-92.
Funding is recommended at a medium level increase (3%). As was dis-
cussed the other day with Community Attention, it was the recommendation of
the Program Review Committee that final appropriation of the funding for
Outreach Counseling be deferred until Outreach, Community Attention, and
possibly Region 10 consider merging their counseling services to at-risk
youth. Ms. White said she knows such talks are taking place at this time.
Mr. Segar introduced the President of the Outreach Counseling Board, and
said he was not able to talk for the Board today. There has not been enough
time for his full board to be apprised of the recommendation.
Mr. Segar said that basically it does not appear there can be a formal
organizational merger between Community Attention and Outreach Counseling.
Largely because Outreach has private funding sources which would have to be
given up if it merged with Community Attention. There would be $10,000+
savings in administrative overhead by such a merger, assuming both could be
March 18, 1992 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 11)
M.B. 40, Pg. 257
housed in a facility which Community Attention or the City owns, but that
option was passed over in January. A formal organizational mergerrdoes not
look viable'at this point, because:they would lose more than they would gain.
They are continuing~toi.talk abOut putting into place some joint programming,
sharing of staff, various things, and that could in place by the beginning of
the next fiscal year.
Mr. Segar said he had thought, until late yesterday, that they would be
in the same position with Region Ten. However, yesterday he was told it might
be possible to retain their private sources of funding. Because Region Ten
owns a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, they think that the sources of funds
now coming to Outreach could be funnelled through the nonprofit that they own,
so the viability of merging with Region Ten still exists. Aside from that,
they are doing some reorganization, and they hope the cap on Medicaid might be
lifted. Outreach has made only an initial overture to Family Services. They
are in the last stages of negotiations to merge with CVCDA. Their director
and board president suggested that Outreach wait until that is concluded in
April before starting a merger with Outreach. Mr. Segar said a merger with
Family Services offers many possibilities, but does not accomplish the
elimination of a nonprofit provider of home-based services. The ultimate goal
is to reduce the number of providers and merger with Region 10 would accom-
plish that goal, but merger with Family Services would not.
There was no suggestion for a change in the budget recommendation.
Legal Aid Society. Requested, $12,915~ recommended, $10,720.
Ms. White said that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Legal AidSociety
(CALAS) provides free civil legal services to low-income persons in Planning
District 10. They have two different direct service programs: advice-
consultation or full representation. The requested amount is a 24 percent
increase which reflects a $970 (8%) increase to cover health benefit and step
salary increases, plus a one percent increase in this year's share based on
increased services.to Albemarle County residents over the last five-year
period. The remainder of the requested increase of $1540 reflects the amount
needed to bring Albemarle County in line with the local share formula which
has been unfunded for several years. Funding is recommended at the baseline
level, but the difference has been placed on the unfunded priority list as
#21.
There was a representative from Legal Aid present, but she did not
identify herself for the record. She said that 15 years ago, CALAS had a
staff of 15. In 1988, staff dropped to eight. However, the number of clients
needing service has not decreased. In 1988 they averaged 143 new, eligible
clients per month. In 1991 they averaged 243 new, eligible clients per month.
Because of the lack of staff, CALAS's service has been moving toward an
"emergency clinic" type of operation where clients receive one-half hour or so
of advice only. The other level of service is full representation, and CALAS
will take a case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The amount of full
representation has decreased as the number of eligible clients has increased.
In order to meet the advice-consultation component, CALAS used the services of
100+ local volunteer attorneys. In addition to that, in the current year,
CALAS is using $90,000 in contributions of time, money, law books for Virginia
tax credits to neighborhoods assistance act. They also got $10,000 in books
and cash to fund their law library. (Mr. Martin left the room at 3:46 p.m.)
Even with all of this, they cannot handle all of the eligible applicants
coming through the door. For the first time in the program's history, the
Board of Directors of CALAS decreased the income eligibility guidelines. This
will mean that 600 otherwise eligible applicants will now not be found
eligible.
This lady then gave three case histories of people who had been helped
by CALAS. (Mr. Martin returned at 3:49 p.m.)
Mr. Bowerman noted that the additional funding is #21 on the priority
list.
United Way Child Care Scholarship Program.
mended, $23,450.
Requested, $60,710; recom-
Ms. White said this program helps low and moderate income working
families in Planning District 10, through direct fee subsidies to pay for
child care thus enabling the parents to maintain employment. Two years ago, a
teen program was funded which also provides direct fee subsidies to encourage
Albemarle County teen parents to stay in and finish high school. United Way
is requesting $60,710 from Albemarle County, which is an increase of 51
percent over the 1991-92 allocation. This is basically to double the number
of scholarships from the present number of 10 to 20. They also requested
$13,335 for the Teen Mother program. That is to serve nine teen mothers.
There is a ~aiting list of 17 from United Way, and the Department of Social
Services has a waiting list of 54 for the same type of day care payment.
Ms. White said funding is recommended at $23,450 for 10 scholarships to
Albemarle County as recommended by the Program Review Committee. Funds for
March 18, 1992 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 12)
M.B. 40, Pg. 258
the teen mother program will be directed to another agency which specializes
in direct services for teen pregnancy.
Ms. White noted that a few months ago, staff made a report stating that
the Teen Mother program was not able to find enough teen mothers to serve. It
was recommended that another program be found to receive those funds next
fiscal year. Discussions are under way between United Way and the Department
of Social Services in an effort to obtain 50 percent Federal matching funds.
Negotiations are going on between Albemarle County's Department of Social
Services, the State, United Way and the City of Charlottesville to be able to
pool all of the local money put into child care scholarships, and have United
Way distribute those scholarships in order to get 50 percent more Federal
dollars for a grand total of about $340,000.
Mr. Wade Tremblay, Volunteer Chairman of the Child Care Scholarship
Committee, and Ms. Jewel King, Program Administrator, were present. To date
the program has been aimed at typically single-family households just above
the poverty.level. The parent is required to either be employed full-time, or
enrolled in a full-time career enhancing institution. There has been a very
extensive waiting list, but now it appears that should the Federal program
work as they feel it may, it would almost double their money.
Mr. Bain asked if there will be an answer to the Federal money question
by the beginning of the fiscal year. Mrs. White said it is Federal money that
is available, and the Department of Social Services should know by April. Mr.
Wade said they have been told it may be June before an answer is received.
Also, there are some differences in the way the program is administered.
There were no suggestions for a change in this budget.
AIDS Support Group, Emily Dreyfus present. Requested, $5,000; recom-
mended, $5,000.
Ms. White said the Aids Support Group has two different programs: 1) to
help people with the HIV infection and their family and friends with the
emotional, practical and educational support they need; and, 2) the Peer-Hype
Outreach Program which is specifically directed at the at-risk teenagers.
Last year they requested that this would be a one-time request hoping
there would be some state and private foundation money. Those moneys did not
materialize and they are present to ask for continuing help with the program.
Both the Program Review Committee, and the Children & Youth Commission, which
both reviewed the program, felt they needed another year to get the program
going.
Mr. Perkins asked why funding was not received from other sources. Ms.
Dreyfus said they lost a couple of state grants° They had been funded by the
Virginia Department of Health for two years, but the Health Department does
not like to fund consecutive years. They did get notice recently that they
will get funding from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation.
Ms. Dreyfus introduced Ms. Tammy Cavanaugh, who is in charge of the
Peer-Hype Program. Ms. Cavanaugh said they started in the schools in October.
They had contact with a group called SHOUT and decided to do workshops for
Albemarle. They took children from both Charlottesville and Albemarle and did
AIDS presentations at the schools. They had 126 kids sign up for the program,
and since Magic Johnson had just let it be known that he has the HIV virus,
the schools asked them to come back the second time. There were 22 kids who
were interested in educating their peers, so they took these children to
train. They recently conducted training on AIDS 101 and drugs, and 15 kids
were present. On March 28, there will be another training session on sexual
aggression as well as learning about SDT's and how to talk to your parents.
There is also a group of kids in Charlottesville, Albemarle, Fluvanna and
Louisa who will combine to do one big event, probably a play.
There was no suggestion for a change in this budget.
Thomas Jefferson Health District, Dr. Susan McLeod present. Requested,
$510,880; recommended, $510,880.
Mr. Tucker said the Health Department provides comprehensive medical,
clinical and environmental protection services to the citizens of the City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle, Greene, Nelson, Louisa and Fluvanna counties.
Medical and clinical services are provided primarily to medically indigent
individuals. The Health Department requested an increase of $14,880 (3%)
which includes full year costs for additional sanitarians only partially
funded in FY 1992.
mended~r. Tucker said full funding of the baseline budget request is recom-
Dr. McLeod said there has been a major restructuring of the environ-
mental health program throughout the district over the past year. Positions
were added, but most are not yet filled. This is being done to address
concerns in programs where a good job has not been done; food service inspec-
tions, inspection of motels, day care centers, and a variety of other uses
March 18, 1992 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 13 ) .i.'~C?,~.~.:~i_.,..~ ?-..?i~:i.?.~%~,-'
M.B. 40, Pg. 259
where the department has responsibility for sanitation. A separate group of
people is being developed to work on those program, thereby'separating out
people who spend all of their time doing well and septic permits.
Until September 1990 they only did well permits at the same time as when
a septic tank was being installed. Now, all-wells require permits from the
Health Department. Over the past year, those were twenty-five percent of the
applications received. There was a nine percent decrease from Calendar Year
1990 to Calendar Year 1991 in septic tank applications, but at the end of 1991
and the first two months of 1992, that has rebounded. Hopefully, they will
soon have their newly-created positions .filled and trained in the rest of the
district, so that they can bring people back to the main office to work full
time.
Mr. Perkins asked if there is a charge for septic inspections or well
permits. Dr. McLeod said that state law sets a fee of $50.00 for a septic
tank application, and $25.00 for a well application. Those are waived for
replacement situations. A number of jurisdictions in other parts of the state
have their own local~fees that are added on top of that. She has talked with
Building Inspections and Mr. Bob Brandenburger about how to coordinate and
make things easier on builders, and not overload them on having to do lots of
speculative work, but not require people to have completed all of the drawings
they have to for building permits. Create some sort of two tier system that
might become a fee system to be done in conjunction with the Health Depart-
ment.
Mr. Marshall asked the waiting period for a well permit. Dr. McLeod
~aid, in Albemarle County, it takes three to four weeks before her staff goes
to the site, and a week to ten days after that to get the permit. It takes
twice that length of time in Nelson and a couple of other counties.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to the total of the Health Department's budget.
Dr. McLeod said it is about $3,375,000. Mr.'Perkins asked how much of that
total is state money. Dr. McLeod said there are two categories of state
money, that which comes for specific projects, and about $75,000 for the
special category. The district matched money which is $1.7 million this year,
will be less than that next year. The big cut is in moneys designated for the
dental program. This was part of the nine percent agency cut in the Gover-
nor's original budget. The idea was that the dental programs, which are
primarily for school children, could earn more revenue and not take as much
state money to support them. One million dollars was cut out of the program
statewide, which was $20,000 for Albemarle County. The problem is that the
program is operated entirely out of trailers at the site of the school.
However, there are a number of dentists in the area who see Medicaid patients,
and that is where the Health Department is expected to earn revenue.
Mr. Marshall asked if there is a charge for shots. Dr. McLeod said all
Df the charges for medical services are established by the State Board of
Health. Generally, they are very low. For childhood immunizations and shots
needed for school, there is no charge. The vaccine is provided free, but the
cost of administering it comes out of the budget. For flu shots and travel
immunizations, there is a charge for the cost of the shot plus a nominal fee
of $3.50 for administration. Most of the other charges are set on a sliding
scale with people who are at 200 percent of the Federal poverty level.
There was no further discussion of this budget request.
Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
For the new members of the Board, Mr. Bowerman called attention to the
Program Review book, and noted the amount of information on each agency which
is not in the big budget book. He urged them to review this information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Adjourn. At 4:14 p.m., with no further business to
come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Chairman
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 1
M.B. 40, Pg. 260
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on March 18, 1992, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David Po Bowerman, Mrs. Char-
lotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and
Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: None~
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public°
Mr. Randy Layman spoke on behalf of the waste haulers in and expressed
concerns about the proposed 40 percent increase in tipping fees at the Ivy
Landfill. The haulers do not understand how the tipping fee went from $19.25
per ton to $32.00 per ton and now the proposed 40 percent increase would make
the cost $45.00 per ton° He added that they have been told that there will be
another $20.00 increase during the next fiscal year. Mr. Layman said prior to
the $45.00 rate increase adjustments were supposedly made to the fees to cover
closure plans, construction of new cells and other indirect expenses. During
these times of recession, there is a limit to how much the homeowner can
afford to pay or is willing to pay for trash disposal.
Mr. Layman said there has been a big increase in illegal dumping
throughout the County. He went on to say that there are approximately 30 to
40 percent of County homeowners who do not use the haulers~ services, and it
is clear that they are not using the Landfill~ therefore~ they are not paying
their fair share. He does not think those people are disposing of their waste
legally. He remarked that tipping fees'were supposedly implemented so that
each citizen of the County would pay his or her fair share~ but 60 percent of
the homeowners are bearing the whole burden. The haulers and homeowners feel
strongly that the tipping fee is an injustice to those people who dispose of
their waste legally°
Mr. Layman asked the Board to consider paying for this increase using
funds from the general revenue. That would allow all citizens to legally
dispose of their waste, whether the haulers~ services are used~ or the
citizens haul the waste. Hopefully this would encourage the people who are
dumping illegally to bring the waste to the proper places. He then went on to
express concerns about line item costs in the Joyce Engineering report, i.e.,
engineering costs of $2,353,000, $160~000 for a public convenience area,
$400,000 for a new entrance~ etc. Most of the homeowners use the hauler~s
recycling program and not recycling centers, but costs for recycling centers
are coming out of the tipping fees. He had customers who recently gave up his
services because they could go to the recycling center free. He mentioned
that $140,000 is earmarked for the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day
yet less than 500 citizens of both the City and County take advantage of it.
Mr. Layman said he thinks the fair way to handle the issue of solid
waste is to create an incentive for the homeowners so that they can be
encouraged to dispose of their waste properly° He thinks the way to do this
is to pay for these expenses using funds from the general revenue. The
homeowners pay for this service when they hire the haulers.
Mro Tucker said staff will attemp~ to respond to some of Mr. Layman's
concerns at-the April 1 Board meeting. He added that he would ask staff from
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority attend the April 1 meeting and provide an
explanation of the line item costs from the Joyce Engineering Report.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Item 5.10, and to accept the
remaining items on the consent agenda as information. There was no further
discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins~ Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 11 and
March 3, 1992, received as information.
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 261
Page 2
Item 5.2. Memorandum dated March 9, 1992, from Mr. Leonard Walker,
stating that the next Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day will be held on
Saturday, May' 30, 1992, at the University Hall parking lot.
Mrs. Humphris expressed concerns about the cost of this program consi-
dering the limited number of people who use it. Mr. Tucker said the Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority is also looking at the feasibility of continuing the
- program because costs have escalated. When the program started it cost
$40,000, and now the program cost $140,000.
Item 5.3. Letter dated March 9, 1992, from Secretary John F. Milliken,
Department of Transportation, re: Millington Bridge project, received as
information. Secretary Milliken thanked the Board for its letter on Milling-
ton Bridge and indicated that he has asked his staff to review the letter and
provide a recommendation how to proceed.
Item 5.4. Supts. Memo No. 5 dated March 11, 1992, from Mr. Joseph A.
Spagnolo, Jr., Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Mr. Vincent C.
Cibbarelli, Deputy Superintendent for Administrative Services, State
Department of Education, entitled: "Aid to Localities Appropriation, 1991-92
Report on General Assembly Actions Affecting 1991-92 Budgets (HB/SB 31),"
received as information.
Item 5.5. Supts. Memo No. 6 dated March 11, 1992, from Mr. Joseph A.
Spagnolo, Jr., SUperintendent of Public Instruction, and Mr. Vincent C.
Cibbarelli, Deputy Superintendent for Administrative Services, State
Department of Education, entitled "Aid to Localities Appropriation, 1992-94
Biennium," received as information.
Item 5.6. Letter dated February 27, 1992, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that certain
sections of Route 606 were abandoned and new sections added to the State
Secondary System effective February 21, 1992, received as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated January 15, 1992~ the
following addition to and abandonment from the Secondary System of
Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective February 21~ 1992:
ADDITION LENGTH
Route 606 - Section two of new location Route 606
from Station 11+75 to Station 10+00 (Route 743),
Project 0743-002-235,C501 0°03 Mi
ABANDONMENT
Route 606 - Section one of old location Route 606
from Station 11+75 to Station 47+50 (Route 743),
Project 0743-002-235,C501 0.05
Item 5.7. Memorandum dated March 10, 1992, from Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development entitled "Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Proposal, Towers Land Trust," received as information.
Item 5.8. Letter dated March 11, 1992, from Secretary John G. Milliken,
Department of Transportation, re: upcoming preallocation hearings_of the
Commonwealth Transportation Board, received as information.
Item 5.9. Memorandum dated March 10, 1992, from Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development, re: ZMA-89-23. River Heights
Associates - Status of Proffers (Greenway system along the Rivanna River and
open space dedication), received as information.
Item 5.10. Statements of Expenses to the State Compensation Board from
the Finance Department, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for
the Month of February, 1992, were approved as presented by the vote shown
above.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-91-57. First Gold Leaf Land Trust/United Land
Company. Public Hearing on a request for outdoor display & storage of autos
on 15 ac zoned HC and EC. Property on E side of Rt 29 approx 0.2 mi S of
inters of Rt 29/Carrsbrook Dr. TM45,Plll,lllA&lllB. Charlottesville Dist.
(Deferred from December 18, 1991.) (Applicant requests deferral.)
Mr. Bowerman stated the applicant requests deferral of SP-91-57. Mr.
Tucker suggested the petition be deferred to May 20, 1992.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to defer
SP-91-57 until May 20, 1992. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.40, Pg. 262
Page 3
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowermano
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this was the date the applicant requested deferral
to. Mr. Tucker said the applicant had requested deferral until further
notice, but it has been the Board's policy to defer an item to a specific date
and not leave it indefinite. Mr. Bain recalled that information had been
received from the applicant requesting a four month delay. Mr. Cilimberg
added that he thinks it will take four months for the application to be
resubmitted and reviewed. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the motion be amended
to defer SP-91-57 until July 15, 1992.
Mr. Bain then amended his motion to defer SP-91-57 until July 15, 1992.
Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.'
Agenda Item No. 7. Benton Downer: Request concerning septic system
problem on property at the corner of Routes 250 and 240 where The Galerie
Restaurant was located (Deferred from January 15 and February 19, 1992).
Mr. Bain said he would not participate in discussions on this request
due to reasons he stated at previous meetings.
Mr. Bowerman said Board members have received a letter requesting
deferral of this item; no date was specified. He asked if staff would suggest
a date. Mr. Tucker suggested the request be deferred until sometime in May°
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the applicant has been granted a six month
temporary pump and haul permit with certain conditions that must be met within
that time period. Mr. Tucker then suggested that since the applicant has a
six month permit, the request be deferred until June 17, 1992o
Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
defer Benton Downer's request concerning a septic system problem at the
Galerie Restaurant located at the corner of Routes 250 and 240 until June 1~7,
1992e Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-91-55. Charles & Shelvie Morris. Public Hearing
on a request for a single-wide mobile home on 17.0 acs zoned RA. Property on
NE side of Rt 608 approx 1.4 mi NW inters of Rts 645/608. TM36,P41&41B.
Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10,
1992o)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report (on file). He said that
except for the cleared area for two sheds, a house and the mobile home site~
this property is heavily wooded. There is one house visible from the mobile
home site. One letter of objection to the mobile home was received. Staff
recommends approval of SP-91-55 subject to the following conditions:
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
2. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed with thirty days of the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy;
3. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and
approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of
Health, if applicable under current regulations;
4. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening
to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator° Required screening shall be maintained in good
condition and replaced if it should die; and
5. The mobile home shall be occupied only by Charles and Shelvie
Morris or their family.
Mr. Cilimberg said at its meeting on March lOg 1992, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of SP-91-55 subject to the first four
conditions recommended by staff.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing and asked the applicant for
comments.
Mrs. Shelvie Morris asked the Board to approve the application. She
said that her son and his wife will live in the trailer.
Mr. Bowerman then asked if any member of the public wished to speak.
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.40, Pg. 263
Page 4
Mr. Kevin Cox said he is present to support this requestx as well as,
SP-92-04~ which will be heard later. He asked that the request be approved as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
No one else from the public wished to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the
public hearihg.
Mr. Bain asked when the Housing Committee Report would be available for
Board review. Mr. Cilimberg said it is his understanding that the Committee's
work will be completed in late March, and the report will come to the Board
shortly thereafter.
Mr. Martin felt the Board should approve the request as recommended by
the Planning Commission. He does not think it is necessary to add a condition
restricting occupancy. It is obvious to him after reading the minutes of the
Planning Commission that the two members of the Commission who are on the
Housing Committee are in support of deleting that restriction. It makes sense
that the Supervisors agree to do the same. If this Board does not support the
recommendations of the Housing Committee, then changes can be made at a later
time.
Mr. Bain said he did not think the Board should change its policy until
after reviewing the Housing Report. He felt the condition should remain as
part of the approval° If the recommendation is different in the report, then
the Board can make that change, if it agrees, after reviewing ito Mr~
Bowerman agreed°
Mr. Martin said he personally does not feel this restriction should be
made a condition on this mobile home request or any future request. He does
not need to see the Housing Report to make a change.
Mrs. Humphris said she understands Mr. Martin's feelings on the matter,
but she thinks that assumptions are being made. The Commission is assuming a
lot when it assumes that the recommendations of the Housing Report will become
the policy of this Board. That report will be thoroughly, reviewed by the
Board and public before any policy is established. This Board has acted on
the same policy regarding occupancy of mobile homes for many years and until
that policy is formally changed, she thinks the Board should continue to
adhere to it.
Mr. Martin said even if no report was forthcoming~ he would vote to
delete the restriction. He feels that affordable housing is an important
issue, and he thinks that being able to rent a trailer in an area such as this
is important to people.
Mr. St. John provided some of the history that lead the Board to
instituting this restriction on mobile home permits. He mentioned that there
are letters from the County Attorney's office dating back to 1976 stating that
approval of these permits can be limited to a family member as an inducement
to grant the permit. He added that he does not know of any situation where
this restriction has been enforced or where the County has attempted to
enforce it. In addition, he has always thought this would be a hard condition
to enforce.
Mr. Martin remarked that it is not his intent, at this time, to change a
Board policy because he thinks a change in policy should be done when all of
the information is available. He feels comfortable with approving this
request as recommended by the Commission, based on the location of the mobile
home and the Commission's position°
Mr. St. John pointed out that by Mr o Martin~s action, this would be a
change in policy. He explained that the next time the Board heard a mobile
home application, it would have to be treated in the same manner.
At this time, Mr. Bain moved approval of SP-91-55 subject to the five
conditions recommended by staff. Mrs~ Humphris seconded the motion.
Mr. Bain said when the Housing Report is presented to the Board, the
Board can consider changing its policy at that time. He does not think that
changes should be made for individual requests without it being a policy
decision.
Mrs. Humphris concurred. She supports the motion because without the
added condition, a precedent would be established that leaves this Board
without a policy.
Mr. Perkins asked if this was a written policy that governs mobile home
requests. Mr. St. John responded "no," but by the Board being consistent, it
became an unwritten policy. Mrs. Humphris said she feels comfortable with the
added condition because it causes no hardship on the family, and she thinks
the Board should deal with the issue when all of the information is available.
Mr. Marshall called a question. Roll was immediately called and the
question carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. 'Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, 'Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 40, PG. 264
Page 5
Mr. Bowerman then asked that roll be called on the motion to approve
SP-91-55 subject to the five conditions recommended by the staff. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Tucker asked the County Attorney what would happen if the Board
decides to change its policy and allow rental of mobile homes, after reviewing
the Housing Report. He wondered if a new policy would automatically remove
this condition, or if all the permits would have to be acted Oho
Mr. St. John replied that the Board could adopt a single resolution to
have this particular condition removed from all mobile home special use
permits that have been issued.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
2. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base
of the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30)
days of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy;
3. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage
facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and approval by the local office
of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable
under current regulations;
4. Maintenance of existing vegetation~ landscaping and/or
screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfac-
tion of the Zoning Administrator° Required screening
shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if
it should die; and
5. The mobile home shall be occupied only by Charles and Shelvie
Morris or their family.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-91-10o Holly Memorial Gardens~ Inc. Public
Hearing on a request to rezone 6.75 acs from R-1 to C-1. Property on E side
of Rt 29 approx 2/10 mi S of Timberwood Blvd. TM32,P42G. Site is in EC
District. Site shown in the Comprehensive Plan in the community of Hollymead
for Community Service. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
March 3 and March 10~ 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report (on file). Mr. Cilimberg said
this site surrounds on three sides parcel 42H which is zoned HC. Parcel 42H
nearly divides the parcel under review into two separate parcels. Parcel 42H
is undeveloped and wooded. The southern portion of the property under review
is wooded with deciduous trees. The northern portion of the site is being
cleared and graded in conjunction with the development of townhouses in Forest
Lakes. The applicant has submitted the following proffers to reduce the
negative aspects of the rezoning:
"January 27, 1992
Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Planning Dept.
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
Dear Bill:
On behalf of Holly Memorial Gardens, Inc., I have been authorized
to request that the Highway Commercial (HC) zoning classification
originally sought be changed to Commercial (C-l). Also. I have
been authorized to proffer the following:
A fifty foot (50') buffer zone along the residential portion
of Forest Lakes adjoining TMP 32-42G.
'A restriction of 430 vehicl~ trips per day per acre for any
allowed use of the property with the C-1 zoning classifica-
tion.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED)
J. Thomas Gale, L.S."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Comprehensive Plan makes specific recommendations
for the development of Hollymead. Based on the recommendations a commercial
zoning-designation is considered appropriate for this area. Mr. Cilimberg
noted that the staff supports the Department of Transportation's recommenda-
tion to provide unified entrances on this section of Route 29. However~ the
applicant is unable to provide this proffer. The adjacent properties are not
under the control of this applicant. At the time of development of this site
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 54.B. Pg. 265
Page 6
or adjacent sites, staff may require the provision of access easements which
may reduce the total number of possible entrances to Route 29~ It is staff's
opinion that this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Zoning Ordinance and that the positive factors outweigh the negative factors°
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-91-10 subject to acceptance of the
applicant's proffers.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February
11, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-91-10 subject to acceptance
of the applicant's proffers, as outlined above.
Mro Bain asked if this could be a controlled entrance and if the
frontage along this property is 1000 feet. Mr. Cilimberg did not think the
frontage was 1000 feet. He said in a request such as this, staff tries to get
all the property owners to agree to provide joint access through site develop-
ment plan. If an agreement for a joint access cannot be reached, the alterna-
tive is to provide access with easements to adjacent properties. It is desir-
able to limit entrances on Route 29 in this particular area. Mr. Cilimberg
noted that the crossover in this area has already been closed.
Mr. Bain then asked if someone submits a plan with one access in the
middle of his or her property, can that person be required to provide an
easement across the adjoining property so that there would be a maximum of two
total accesses for the entire property. Mr. Cilimberg answered, "yes," as
allowed by site plan provision for safe and convenient access in the Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. Bain asked if the buffer are, referred to in the proffers, is
undisturbed. He also wondered if utility lines would disturb that buffer.
Mro Cilimberg said staff recommends an undisturbed buffer area~ but it needs
to be clarified by the applicant. Staff is currently working with the various
utility companies to coordinate where the lines must go prior to development
so as to retain the undisturbed buffer areas°
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened.the public hearing.
Mr. William Roudabush, of Roudabush, Gale and Associates, Inc., came
forward to represent the applicant. He stated that if this property is
rezoned to be compatible with the adjacent Forest Lakes, it is more likely
that a unified plan of development will emerge out of the planning that takes
place in the area. This plan will provide the opportunity for joint access
easements and cross easements between the properties. He pointed out that
there has been a cooperative effort taking place between the owners of Forest
Lakes and the owners of this property. Mr. Roudabush noted that part of the
original tract of land was purchased by Forest Lakes representatives~ He
explained that there was a lake adjacent to Forest Lakes and the townhouse
development. Forest Lakes representatives purchased that lake to be used as
stormwater detention. The lake was originally built to be used for irrigation
for Hollymead~s cemetery but when County water lines were installed, use of
the lake was abandoned. This was seen as an opportunity rather than build
another detention pond. He went on to say that this applicant sold a strip of
land, located between the old cemetery and the lake~ to Forest Lakes and the
stream channel connecting those two lakes is being upgraded as part of the
townhouse development to provide stream improvement where the channels were
eroded. Mr. Roudabush said that a lot of rip rap is being installed in order
to meet the Engineering Department's criteria for stream channels. He
mentioned that all of this took place as a cooperative effort between the
property owners. He thinks that with this rezoning a better plan of
development will come out of the whole area. He does not believe that this
property would be used for R1 development because it is surrounded by
commercial land, Forest Lakes and a highway commercial tract in the middle of
the area. T~ere is no plan of development at this time, even though he is
sure the Supervisors would be more comfortable if there was one. He
reiterated that he thinks a better plan of development will be forthcoming
when this property is eventually developed°
Mr. Bain asked if the applicant would agree to including in his proffer
that the 50 foot buffer would be undisturbed. Mr. Roudabush responded "yes".
He added that the buffer will be landscaped instead of natural. A landscaping
plan has been submitted to the County.
Mr. Martin pointed to an area on the map behind the Board and asked if
this area was part of the buffer area. Someone was doing bulldozing in the
area. Mr. Roudabush replied "yes". He added that it is currently possible to
see the new townhouses from Route 29, but the new buffer will be used as a
landscape buffer so that the townhouses will not be visible°
There was no one else from the public who wished to speak, so Mr.
Bowerman closed the public hearing.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Martin to approve ZMA-91-10~ as
proffered in letter dated January 27, 1992, addressed to Mr. Bill Fritz,
Senior Planner, Albemarle County Planning Department, from Mr. J. Thomas Gale,
L.S., Roudabush, Gale & Assoc. Inc.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Martin if he was agreeable to adding the
language~ "landscaped buffer" to the applicant's proffer. Mr. Martin
responded °'yes".
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 266
Page 7
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant agrees to the insertion of the word,
"landscaped," in. the proffer.
Mr. Roudabush answered, "yes."
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkinsw Bain and Bowerman.
None.
(The proffers are set out below:)
1o A fifty foot (50') landscaped buffer zone along the
residential portion of Forest Lakes adjoining TMP 32-42G.
2o A restriction of 430 vehicle trips per day per acre for any
allowed use of the property with the C-1 Zoning classification.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-91-13o Woodbriar Associates. Public Hearing
on a request, to update & amend conditions of existing PRD to allow use of pvt
rds & to revise Application Plan to show areas for future townhouse develop-
ment in Briarwood. Property on W side of Rt 29N approx 1 mi N of North Fork
Rivanna River is zoned PRD. Property located in Piney Mountain Village is
recommended for medium density residential (5-10 du/ac). TM32G~P1 &
TM32G~PA,Sec3o Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3
and March 10, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report (on file). Mr. Cilimberg said
the applicant is proposing to amend the conditions of approval of ZMA-79-32 to
allow for the utilization of private roads to serve two proposed sections of
townhouses. To date 188 lots in Briarwood have been approved and recorded.
He noted that the Engineering Department concurs with the applicant's
justification for private roads. The applicant has agreed to the conditions
of approval recommended by staff° These conditions and the application plan
have been revised to reflect the current development status of the Briarwood
PRDo This amendment does not increase the level of development over the 661
units originally approved with ZMA-79-32. He went on to say that staff
supports the inclusion of the townhouses in the PRD and endorses them as a
greater mix of dwelling types in a residential area. Mr. Cilimberg also
discussed the issue of double frontage lots proposed in the townhouse
sections. The applicant is requesting a waiver of that provision. Staff
supports the applicant's request in consideration of the justification and the
provision of landscaping to insure adequate privacy for the units from the
streets. He said that the staff also supports the private road request as
necessary to serve the townhouses. The staff recommends approval of ZMA-91-13
subject to the following list of agreements:
Approval is for a maximum of 661 dwellings subject to
conditions contained herein. Locations and acreages of
various land uses shall comply with the approved plan. In
the final site plan and subdivision process open space shall
be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved°
Primary recreation areas to be owned and maintained through
a homeowners association approved by the County Attorney.
Off-street parking and access shall be limited to the
recreational area shown on the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended
Application and Phasing Plan revised February 7~ 1992~ and
the means to limit such access shall be part of the site
plan review;
No grading permit or building permit shall be issued in any
area until final site plan and subdivision approval for that
area has been obtained~
3. Albemarle County Service Authority verification of adequate
sewer capacity owned by Woodbriar Associates and allocated to
serve the Briarwood development before approval of each phase;
4. All road plan and entrance plan approval shall be obtained
prior to any final site plan or subdivision approval. All
roads shall be designed and constructed to Virginia Department
of Transportation specifications and dedicated for acceptance
into the State Secondary Road System except the private roads
shown on the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasing
Plan with a (PR) label;
5. No grading or construction on slopes of 25 percent or
greater except as is necessary for road construction as
approved by the County Engineer. Any lot which is
unbuildable due to slope shall be combined with a buildable
lot and/or added to common open space subject to Planning
Commission approval;
Fire Official approval of fire protection system including~
but not limited to: fire flow rates~ hydrant locations, and
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 8
M.B. 40, Pg. 267
emergency access provisions. Such system shall be provided
prior to issuance of any certificate of .occupancy in the
area to'be served;
7. Albemarle countyservice Authority approval of plans for
water lines, sewer lines, pumping station and manholes and
appurtenances which are to be constructed at the expense of
the developer;
8. Staff approval of recreational facilities to include: one tot
lot with Phase 3C and one tot lot with Phase lB; the dedication
of open space with the approval of Phases 4 and 5 for the passive
recreation area which shall include construction of walking/'
jogging trails; and, the primary recreation area south of Camelot
shall be built or bonded for its construction prior to final plat
approval for Phase 6. This recreation area shall be built prior
to completion of Phase 6 and shall consist of a baseball/
multi-purpose field, two basketball courts, playground equipment
and picnic facilities. All recreation facilities shall be
installed by the developer;
9. Sidewalks shall be provided along the southerly side of
Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive and
along the westerly side of the entire length of Briarwood
Drive;
10. County Attorney approval of amended Homeowners~ Association
agreements prior to final approval of Phase lB or 3C to
include provision for maintenance of the private roads~
11. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, pedestrian
ways, recreation areas, roads and other improvements are to
be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain
in its natural state;
12. No more than two phases shall be under simultaneous develop-
ment, the development shall proceed in the following order:
Phase 3A, 3B, 3C, the completion of Phase 7, iA, lB, 4~ 5~ 6
and 8.
13. Lots along Camelot Drive and St. Ives Road are to be deve-
loped with single-family detached dwellings and shall have a
minimum lot width of 65 feet. All other lots shall be deve-
loped with single-family attached units including townhouses
-in Phases lB and 3C;
14. Briarwood Drive shall be built or bonded for its entire
length from Austin Drive to Route 29 prior to any final plat
approval for Phase iA. Briarwood Drive shall be completed
to its intersection with Route 29 prior to approval of Phase
lB. The eastern portion of Briarwood Drive through the
commercial area shall be designed to Category VI standards
with a four-lane cross-section;
15o The mix of dwelling unit types shall be as shown on the
Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasing Plan~
16. Site plan approvals for Phases 4 and beyond shall be contin-
gent upon evidence that dwelling units in the earlier phases
have substantially met the County's goals and the deve-
lopers~ assurances that moderate income housing has been
provided;
17o Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with Section
32.7.9.8 along the front of-townhouse units which constitute
double frontage lots; and
18. Administrative approval of future site plans and plats to be
in accordance with the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application
and Phasing Plan provided no waivers or modifications of
ordinance regulations are required°
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission~ at its meeting on March 3~
1992~ unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-91-13 subject to the list of
agreements recommended by staff, with an amendment to #10. He added that at
the Commission meeting, there was some discussion regarding the maintenance
responsibility of the road. The Commission amended the language to read as
follows:
10. County Attorney approval of amended Homeowners~ Association
agreements prior to final approval of Phase lB or 3C to
~nclude provision for maintenance of the private roads, such
maintenance shall be the responsibility of the homeowners in
Phases lB and 3C, respectively.
Mr. Bain commented that maintenance of a private road could be expen-
sive because there will not be many townhouse owners. He asked if this issue
has been studied to get an idea of the costs and maintenance of the roads over
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 54.B. 407 Pg. 268
Page 9
a ten year period. Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff has not done a study of
'what the cos=s could be. Although a site plan has been submitted, he is not
sure if plans for the private roads were submitted. He went on to say that
this situation does not look out of the ordinary in terms of private roads
serving townhouses and compared to other projects that are served by private
roads.
Mr. Martin mentioned that the developer still owns many of the lots in
the subdvision and asked if that would make an difference in the responsible
for maintenance of the road. Mr. Cilimberg said that could have some signi-
ficance as far as who pays for the maintenance of the road over the life of
the project. Until all the lots are sold, the developer will be as respon-
sible as the other homeowners for maintenance of the road°
Mr. Bain expressed concern about other areas in the County where road
maintenance is costing the homeowners a lot of money° He discussed a problem
with one particular road where it was approvedv bonded and released, and now
the homeowners are left with the burden of paying a lot for the maintenance.
He would like to find a means to make sure that homeowners are not left with
the burden of having to pay more than was expected for the upkeep of a road.
Mr. Bowerman asked the County Engineer about the standards by which
these roads will be built. Ms. Higgins said the roads would have to meet
private road specifications. She added that currently staff does not have
plans to review for this project. Mr. Bain asked how long the County can hold
a bond. Ms. Higgins said the bond is released upon final inspection of a
private road.
Mr. Martin asked if there is a time limit on when a road has to be paved
if people are occupying dwellings. Ms. Higgins said the developer has to
obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Bowerman stated that often the
developer will wait to do the final paving after all the other details are
complete. Mr. Martin asked about the provision cf snow removal on private
roads. Mr. Bowerman said until 51 percent of the homes are owned, snow
removal is the developer's responsibility.
Mr. Marshall asked what is the purpose of the bond. Mr. Tucker answered
that the purpose of the bond is to insure that the road is built. Mr.
Marshall noted that if there is a bond and improvements are needed to the
road, the developer can be forced to make them. Mr. Martin commented that it
is a matter of timing as to when the road will be completed. He said that
this makes a lot of difference to the people who are living on the road.
Mr. Marshall asked if Board members are thinking that a time limit
should be set as to when the road should be finished. Also~ if Board members
are considering using County funds to finish a road, if the developer does not
do it by a certain time. Mr. Tucker answered that this is already being con-
sidered. Mr. St. John stated that the County is already involved in complet-
ing roads when they are not done in a timely manner. Me explained that every
bond has a deadline. Mr. Tucker commented that the bond could be extended.
Mr. St. John responded that the County does not have to extend the bond, and
there is a deadline written on the face of every bond. He said the burden is
on the developer to show good reason why the bond should be extended. He went
on to say that if the developer wants to extend the bond, then the County
usually does so, in order to remain out of building roads. He added that, on
the other hand, if members of the public are having problems with potholes,
etc., the bond can be called, and the money can be used to fix the road. Mr.
Marshall said he does not understand why the County does not force the issue
because that is the reason for bonds. He knows that Board members do not want
the County to get into the road building business. However, if homeowners are
to be considered, then the County will have to get into the business, if the
developer is not willing.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing°
Mr. Tom Muncaster, of Muncaster Engineering and Computer Applications,
stated that the applicant agrees with the conditions outlined by the staff.
He pointed out that a developer does not like a pave the road until everything
is finished because, if not, construction trucks will tear up the road. He
anticipates that when the units are finished, the road will be paved within
the next two months. He said that Mr. Wendell Wood, the developer, is also
present at the meeting, if there are questions.
Mr. Bowerman asked what will be the selling price of the townhouses.
Mr. Wood responded that the selling price of the townhouses will be in the mid
$70,000 and $80,000 range°
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to
speak. No one came forward.
At this time, Mr. Martin offered motion to approve ZMA-91-13, subject to
the 18 agreements (set out below) approved by the Planning commission° Mr0
Bain seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs.'Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None°
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 10
M.B. 40, Pg. 269
(The agreements are set out in full below:)
1. Approval is for a maximum of 661 dwellings subject to
conditions contained herein. Locations and acreages of
various land uses shall comply with the approved plan. In
the final site plan and subdivision process open space shall
be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved°
Primary recreation areas to be owned and maintained through
a homeowners association approved by the County Attorney~
Off-street parking and access shall be limited to the
recreational area shown on the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended
Application and Phasing Plan revised February 7, 1992, and
the means to limit such access shall be part of the site
plan review;
2. No grading permit or building permit shall be issued in any
area until final site plan and subdivision approval for that
area has been obtained;
3e
Albemarle County Service Authority verification of adequate
sewer capacity owned by Woodbriar Associates and allocated to
serve the Briarwood development before approval of each phase~
Ail road plan and entrance plan approval shall be obtained
prior to any final site plan or subdivision approval° All
roads shall be designed and constructed to Virginia Department
of Transportation specifications and dedicated for acceptance
into the State Secondary Road System except the private roads
shown on the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasing
Plan with a (PR) label~
Se
NO grading or construction on slopes of 25 percent or
greater except as is necessary for road construction as
approved by the County Engineer. Any lot which is
unbuildable due to slope shall be combined with a buildable
lot and/or added to common open space subject to Planning
Commission approval;
6°
Fire Official approval of fire protection system including~
but not limited to: fire flow rates, hydrant locations~ and
emergency access provisions.. Such system shall be provided
prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy in the
area to be served;
7o
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of plans for
water lines, sewer lines, pumping station and manholes and
appurtenances which are to be constructed at the expense of
the developer;
Staff approval of recreational facilities to include: one tot
lot with Phase 3C and one tot lot with Phase lB; the dedication
of open space with the approval of Phases 4 and 5 for the passive
recreation area which shall include construction of walking/
jogging trails; and~ the primary recreation area south of Camelot
shall be built or bonded for its construction prior to final plat
approval for Phase 6. This recreation area shall be built prior
to completion of Phase 6 and shall consist of a baseball/
multi-purpose field, two basketball courts, playground equipment
and picnic-facilities. All recreation facilities shall be
installed by the developer~
9e
Sidewalks shall be provided along the southerly side of
Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive and
along the westerly side of the entire length of Briarwood
Drive;
10.
County Attorney approval of amended Homeowners' Association
agreements prior to final approval of Phase lB or 3C to
include provision for maintenance of the private roads, such
maintenance shall be the responsibility of the homeowners in
Phases lB and 3C, respectively;
11.
Only those areas where a structure, utilities, pedestrian
ways, recreation areas, roads and other improvements are to
be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain
in its natural state;
12.
No more than two phases shall be under simultaneous develop-
ment, the development shall proceed in the following order:
Phase 3A, 3B, 3C, the completion of Phase 7, iA, lB, 4, 5~ 6
and 8.
13.
Lots along Camelot Drive and St. Ives Road are to be deve-
loped with single-family detached dwellings and shall have a
minimum lot width of 65 feet. All other lots shall be deve-
loped with single-family attached units including townhouses
in Phases lB and 3C~
March 18, 1992 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Page 11
14.
15.
16.
17o
18.
M.B. 40, Pg. 270
Briarwood Drive shall be built or bonded for its entire
length from Austin Drive to Route 29 prior to any final plat
approval for Phase lA. Briarwood Drive shall be completed
to its intersection with Route 29 prior to approval of Phase
lB. The eastern portion of Briarwood Drive through the
commercial area shall be designed to Category VI standards
with a four-lane cross-section;
The mix of dwelling unit types shall be as shown on the
Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasing Plan;
Site plan approvals for Phases 4 and beyond shall be contin-
gent upon evidence that dwelling units in the earlier phases
have substantially met the County's goals and the deve-
lopers' assurances that moderate income housing has been
provided;
Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with Section
32.7.9.8 along the front of townhouse units which constitute
double frontage lots; and
Administrative approval of future site plans and plats to be
in accordance with the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application
and Phasing Plan provided no waivers or modifications of
ordinance regulations are required.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-92-04. Robert & Doris Oliphant. Public Hearing
on a request for a single-wide mobile home on 5.0 acs zoned RA located on E
side of Rt 640 approx 3/4 mi N of Rt 20~ TM48,P77A. Rivanna Dist. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized staff report (on file). Mr. Cilimberg said no
dwellings are currently on the site. The location for the proposed mobile
home has been cleared and the septic system has been installed. No dwellings
are visible from the location of the proposed mobile home and the mobile home
will not be 'visible from the public road. Staff has identified eight mobile
homes within one mile of this property including one on property adjacent to
this site. One letter of objection regarding this request was received. Mr.
Cilimberg said the staff recommends approval of SP-92-04 subject to the
following five conditions:
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable require-
ments for district in which it is located;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of
mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy~
4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to
the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by
the local office of the Virginia Department of Health if
applicable under current regulations~
5. Landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the satisfac-
tion of the Zoning Administrator. Required screening shall
be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should
die;
6.Mobile home is to be located as shown on plat initialed WDF
and dated February 24, 1992; and
7. The mobile home shall be occupied only by Robert and Doris
Oliphant or their family°
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commissionv at its meeting on March 10~
1992~ unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-04 subject to the first six
conditions recommended by staff.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Mrs. Doris Oliphant, the applicant, presented pictures of the area. She
said the mobile home will have a natural buffer to screen it from the road.
She stated that it is her intent to occupy the mobile home. She noted that
this property has been in her family for 45 years°
'Mro Kevin Cox spoke next. He said that the Zoning Ordinance is the
implementation for this Board's policy~ and the Zoning Ordinance does not
specify applicant or owner occupancy. He said that 85 percent of the single-
wide mobile homes that are approved in this County are approved without that
condition. He said that when he mentioned the fact that 15 percent of the
special use permits were having this condition put on them, the action that
this Board should have taken was to not use the condition again until a
decision was made, rather than to continue with the inconsistency. The
applicants that are forced to come before this Board and plead to live in a
mobile home must do so because someone in connecticut or Maryland complained.
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. Pg.27!
Page 12
That is what triggered the two public hearings on mobile home requests
tonight. In addition it appears to him that this Board has a de facto policy
of adopting conditions that are unenforceable on a minority of the applicants.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed°
At this time, Mrs. Humphris moved approval of SP-92-04, subject to the
seven conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins~ Bain and Bowermano
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable require-
ments for district in which it is located;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of
mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to
the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by
the local office of the Virginia Department of Health if
applicable under current regulations;
5. Landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the satisfac-
tion of the Zoning Administrator. Required screening shall
be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should
die;
6.Mobile home is to be located as shown on plat initialed WDF
and dated February 24, 1992; and
7. The mobile home shall be occupied only by Robert and Doris
Oliphant or their family.
Agenda Item No. 12. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend and reenact
Chapter 7, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Code of Albemarle, to
comply with changes in the Code of Virginia, Title 10, Chapter 5, Article 4~
Section 10.1-560-571 and to conform to the recently adopted fee schedule°
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10, 1992.)
Mr. Tucker said the Board previously held a work session on the proposed
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. The ordinance was then referred
to the Planning Commission for its input. The Planning Commission did make
several recommendations. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board proceed with the
public hearing and then deal with the changes recommended by the Commission.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. No one came forward to
speaks so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing°
Mro Tucker stated that the first change that the Commission recommended
was with the definition of "erosion impact area". He said~ however~ that the
proposed definition was taken directly from the Code of Virginias and the
staff recommends that no change can be made to the definition. The second
item was the definition of "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan". The
Commission recommends inserting language that would state~ "in connection with
land disturbing activity or an erosion impact area,~v instead of~ '~on a
construction project."
Thirdly, Mr. Tucker called attention to Item B on the second page in
Section 7-3, Approval Requirements for Certain Activities and Conditions,
where the language reads "regardless of size of area." The Commission
recommends this language not be changed~because it would change the definition
of an erosion impact area. Mr. Tucker pointed out that he previously
recommended this language not be changed so that it would conform with the
Code of Virginia. Mr° Tucker then addressed the next change, which is Item C
on page three of the same section 7-3. It was recommended to change the time
period in Item C from 60 days to 30 days, but the Commission recommends that
the language be changed back to 60 days. The County Attorney has indicated
that there is no authority in enabling legislation that limits a time period
such as this one, so the staff is supportive of the Commission's recommenda-
tion.
Mr° Perkins referred to page three and the section that deals with the
"clearing of agricultural areas greater than 10,000 feet.~" He asked why this
regulation is included in this ordinance since the County Attorney has
indicated that this matter is covered under another policy. It used to be a
customary practice to have fall plowing for crops, but the fields might not be
used until the following May. This is a good practice for this part of the
country. He thinks that this particular language should be stricken because
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 272
Page 13
if land that is greater than 10,000 feet is cleared for other than agricul-
tural uses, it should be reseeded within 30 days.
Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer, responded that the reason this section
is included in the ordinance is because there are cases that apply to it. She
recalled a recent situation where there'was an area that was cleared, but it
was not reseeded. She said in that case there was severe damage to an adja-
cent pond, and it was possible to enforce the Erosion Control Ordinance. She
stated that this area had been cleared and had not been reseeded during the
whole summer~ She added that this was brought to the staff's attention when a
staff member responded to a complaint. She noted that if land is definitely
for agriculture use, it does not mean that this ordinance has to be imposed,
but it does give the County staff the authority to do so, if necessary. She
said that this is the only case now where this particular part of the
ordinance is being enforced, but it was the only way that the County staff
could do something about that complaint. She noted that when the land had not
been reseeded for 60 days, the staff felt as though this was a land disturbing
activity, so this definition was used to enforce the ordinance. She said the
landowner's reasoning was that eventually the land would be reseeded, and
goats would be put on the property, and eventually the land would be
agricultural.
Mr. Perkins stated that land could be cleared and seeded the first of
November, but the grass that is sown probably will not germinate until the
following spring. He said the land could set bare for four or five months,
even though the landowner has done everything that he needs to do. Ms.
Higgins replied that there is no one searching the County to see whether or
not these types of situations are occurring. Mr. Perkins responded that this
is his whole point.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Perkins if it is a best management practice to
till the land and leave it setting unti% the following spring. Mrs. Humphris
stated that it used to be that farmers would plow in the fall when fertilizer
was cheap. Mr. Perkins said there is little plowing done in the fall anymore,
but he thinks that the problem is deciding what land is agricultural related.
Mr. St. John remarked that Mr. Perkins had wondered by what authority
this section was included. He said that there was no authority for it to be
included in this ordinance, and there is no authority to control agricultural.
disturbance of the soil. He believes, however, that this language could be
used, and the position could be taken that land that sets for 60 days without
anything done to it is not agricultural, and, therefore, it would not fall
under the exemptions. He acknowledged that this is a shaky position, and that
it will take a worse case scenario before this section of the ordinance will
be enforced. Me went on to say that this section of the ordinance is
available for situations when it is felt that something has to be done° He
noted, however, that enforcement of this section takes a lot of discretion°
He gave an example of a bona fide farmer who has other fields and is obviously
in the farming business, but he has one field that he has fall plowed. He
said that if the farmer does not put a cover crop on this one field, and
County officials take him to court, the County will lose the case. He added,
though, that in situations such as this one, the farmer would not be
challenged.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it sounds to him as though the only time this
section of the ordinance is enforced is when damage is being done to someone
else's property. He said if that is the case, then there is a reasonable
rationale to keep the language. Mr. Perkins said he would support retaining
the language.
Next, Mr. Perkins referred to Number Two on page five and read that,
"Clearing and grubbing of stumps and other activities directly related to
selective cutting of trees is permitted by law." He asked what this means
because he is confused by the words, "selective cutting of trees." MSo
Higgins replied that this section relates to approval of subdivision plats.
She said that this will allow a permit to be issued for a subdivision plan
that has not received final approval, but the contractor needs to get started.
She said that the staff can inform the developer that if he meets certain
conditions, the site plan can be approved. In the meantime~ Ms. Higgins said
that the clearing and grubbing of stumps, etc., can begin. Mr. St. John
commented that this section does not have anything to do with forestry
operations.
Mr. Bain then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Martin~ to amend and
reenact Chapter 7, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Code of
Albemarle, to comply with changes in the Code of Virginia, Title 10~ Chapter
5~ Article 4~ Section 10.1-560-571 and to conform to the recently adopted fee
schedule.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES= Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:)
AN ORDINANCE
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 14
M.B. 40, Pg. 273
TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 7, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
Article I. In General.
Sec. 7-1. Purpose of chapter.
The purpose of this chapter is to conserve the land~ water~
air and other natural resources of the county, to promote the
public health and welfare of the people in the county by esta-
blishing requirements for the control of erosion and sedimenta-
tion, to establish procedures whereby these requirements shall be
administered and enforced, and to implement and as pursuant to the
Code of Virginia, title 10, chapter 5, article 4, section
10.1-560-571. (6-18-75, Sec. 2; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-2. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by
this section:
Aqent. The engineer, surveyor~ contractor or other person
authorized by the landowner to act in his behalf.
Applicant. The landowner or his agent who submits plans and
specifications to the county for issuance of an erosion control
permit..
Conservation standard or standards. The regulations, guide-
lines~ techniques and methods for the control of erosion and
sedimentation as shown in the handbook (see definition of "hand-
book'" which follows) or Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Regulations.
Director of enqineerinq. The director of engineering of the
county or his designated agent.
Erosion impact area. An area of land not associated with
current land disturbing activity but subject to persistent soil
erosion resulting in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring
properties or into state waters° This definition shall not apply
to any lot or parcel of land of one (1) acre or less used for
residential purposes or to shorelines where the erosion results
from wave action or other coastal processes.
Erosion and Sediment Control ~lan. A document which describes
the potential for erosion and sedimentation problems in connection
with land disturbing activity or an erosion impact area and
explains and illustrates the measures which are to be taken to
control those problems. The plan has a written portion known as a
narrative and an illustrative portion known as a map or s~te plan.
Erosion control permit. A permit issued by the county pursu-
ant to this chapter.
Handbook. The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Hand-
book, as the same shall be amended from time to time.
Land disturbinq activity. Any activity so defined by the
Code of Virginia in Title 10~ chapter 5~ article 4, section
10.1-560, as the same may be amended from time to time.
Permit holder. The landowner or other person authorized to
act as agent for the landowner.
Subdivision. As defined in chapter 18 of this Code.
(6-18-75~ Sec. 4; 7-9-80; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-3. Approval required for certain activities and conditions.
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this
section, it shall be unlawful for.any person to engage in any land
disturbing activity until he has submitted to the director of
engineering an erosion and sediment control plan for such land
disturbing activity and until that plan has been reviewed and
approved and an erosion control permit issued to the person by the
director of engineering. It shall also be unlawful for any person
willfully to fail to conform to plans and specifications so
approved in performing such activities.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person who owns land in the
county hereby defined as an erosion impact area willfully to
suffer or permit any portion of his land to remain in such condi-
tion that soil erosion and sedimentation causes reasonably avoid-
able damage or harm to adjacent or downstream property~ roads~
streams, lakes or ponds. The director of engineering, on his own
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 274
page 15
initiative or upon complaint of any citizen, shall notify the
owner of any such land that such condition exists, and may require
such owner to submit an erosion and sediment control plan to
control such erosion and sedimentation. If such owner fails or
refuses to submit such plan to the director of engineering within
the time specified in such notice, or if he fails or refuses to
provide the controls required by the plan approved by the director
of engineering within the specified time period after notice of
such approval, he shall be deemed.to have violated the provisions
of this section and shall be subject to the provisions of section
7-8 for such violation; provided, that the director of engineering
may, for good cause shown, extend the period of such compliance
for a reasonable time. In addition to all other remediesf the
director of engineering may, upon proper finding~ proceed in
accordance with section 7-6(c).
(c) Any person owning, occupying or operating private agri-
cultural, horticultural or forest lands shall not be deemed to be
in violation of this chapter for land disturbing activities from
the tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural
or forest crops, livestock feed operations or products or engi-
neering operations under section 10.1-560(7,9) of the Code of
Virginia; provided, that such person shall comply with the pro-
visions of this chapter when grading, excavating or filling.
Clearing of agricultural areas of greater than ten thousand
(10,000) square feet when such areas are not tilled and planted
with agricultural, horticultural or forest crops within sixty (60)
days shall be deemed to be land disturbing activity. The dis-
turbance of land areas greater than ten thousand (10,000) square
feet for the construction of farm structures, including but not
limited to agricultural structures or roads not associated with
tilling, planting and harvesting~ is not exempt from the require-
ments of this chapter. In no case shall the construction of any
roads, other than those used exclusively for access to tilling,
planting and harvesting fields, be exempted from the requirements
of this chapter.
(d) Any person whose land disturbing activities involve
lands which extend into the jurisdiction of another local erosion
and sediment control program and who chooses to have a conserva-
tion plan approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation
Board shall notify the director of engineering of such plan
approval by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board.
(e) Whenever a land disturbing activity is proposed to be
conducted by a contractor performing construction work pursuant to
a construction contract, the preparation, submission and approval
of the required erosion and sediment control plan shall be the
responsibility of the owner of the land.
(f) No permit shall be issued by any administrative officer
of the county for the construction of any building or other
development requiring a permit, nor shall any subdivision plat be
approved relating to land subject to this chapter unless and until
the requirements of this chapter have been complied with.
(6-18-75, Sec. 5; 2-11-76; 4-21-76; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-4. Submission of plans and specifications.
(a) Any person who applies for approval of an erosion and
sediment control plan and issuance of an erosion control permit
pursuant to section 7-3 hereof shall submit with his application
to the director of engineering an erosion and sediment control
plan with specifications for temporary and permanent controls of
soil erosion and sedimentation in such detail as the director of
engineering shall deem reasonably adequate, considering the nature
and extent of the proposed land disturbing activity. A certifi-
cation is required stating that all requirements of the plan will
be followed. Unless otherwise specified by the director of engi-
neering, four (4) copies of all plans and specifications shall be
required.
(b) Ail plans and specifications submitted pursuant to this
chapter shall be in accordance with provisions of the handbook;
provided that the director of engineering may require such addi-
tional information as may be necessary for a complete review of
the project. The foregoing notwithstanding, in the case of any
approved subdivision which is subject to the provisions of this
chapter, the director of engineering may allow, in lieu of an
erosion and sediment control plan for the construction of build-
ings on individual lots in such subdivision, the provision of a
contract satisfactory to him and to the county attorney, executed
on behalf of the owners of individual lots; provided, that an
approved plan exists for the development of such subdivision,
including all land disturbing activities in connection with the
development of such subdivision other than construction of build-
ings on individual lots. Such contract shall ensure that the
construction to be performed on such lot shall be so performed as
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 16
M.B. 40, Pg. 275
to provide protection from soil erosion and sedimentation to a
degree satisfactory to the director of engineering and shall be
executed prior to the issuance of a building permit for such
construction.
(c) Ail plans and specifications submitted pursuant to this
chapter relating to land within any public drinking water supply
watershed, in addition to all other provisions of law, shall be in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.1, Article II, of
this Code, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
(d) Upon the submission of any plan submitted pursuant to
sectioh 7-3 of this article, the applicant shall pay to the county
a fee of forty dollars ($40.00) to cover the cost to the county to
review and to act upon soil erosion plans for residential or agri-
cultural sites; and one hundred dollars ($100.00) to review and
act upon such plans for all other sites. For each erosion control
inspection necessitated by this plan, a fee of thirty dollars
($30.00) shall be paid by the applicant. The maximum fee charge-
able under this section, inclusive of inspections~ shall not
exceed one thousand dollars ($1000.00).
(6-18-75, Sec. 6; 10-22-75; 4-21-76; 11-10-76; 3-2-77;
4-17-85~ 2-11-87; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92)
Sec. 7-5. Review of plans and specifications.
(a) After submission, all plans and specifications required
by this chaPter shall be reviewed by the director of engineering
in order to ascertain whether all items required by the handbook
are shown thereon where applicable° Regular meetings will be held
to review and discuss submitted plans with the applicant.
(b) The director of engineering shall proceed to review the
plans and specifications to ascertain whether they are in compli-
ance with the conservation standards of the handbook and there-
after approve or disapprove the application as submitted, or
notify the applicant of any changes 'necessary for approval.
Commen~s concerning any required changes to the plan will be
furnished to the applicant within seven (7) calendar days of the
regular scheduled meetings; provided that, in any event, the
director of engineering shall approve or disapproved in writing,
the plans and specifications within thirty (30) calendar days
after application is made.
The foregoing notwithstandinge except as specifically pro-
vided herein, the director of engineering shall not approve, and
no erosion control permit shall be issued for any activity which
is necessitated by, or which is to be done in connection with any
use, change in use~ development, subdivision of land or other
action for which a subdivision plat or site development plan is
required by law, unless and until such subdivision plat or site
development plan shall have been approved as provided by law. For
purposes of this section only, such subdivision plat or site
development plan shall be deemed approved if it shall be approved
conditioned upon the issuance of such erosion control permits as
may be required pursuant to this chapter.
Erosion control permits may be issued for the following
activities in accordance with law prior to the approval of a site
development plan or subdivision plat under the conditions set
forth hereinafter:
(1) The correction of any existing erosion or other
condition conducive to excessive sedimentation which is occasioned
by any violation of this chapter or by accident, act of God or
other cause beyond the control of the owner; provided, that the
activity proposed shall be strictly limited to the correction of
such condition~
(2) Clearing and grubbing of stumps and other activity
directly related to selective cutting of trees, as permitted by law;
(3) Installation of underground public utility mains,
interceptors, transmission lines and trunk lines for which plans
and specifications have been previously approved by the operating
utility and approved by the county in accordance with Code of
Virginia, section 15.1-456~ if necessary~
(4) Filling of earth with spoils obtained from grading,
excavation or other lawful earth disturbing activity;
(5) Clearing, grading, filling and similar related acti-
vity for temporary storage of earth, equipment and materials0 and
construction of temporary access roads; provided, that in each
case, the area disturbed shall be returned to substantially its
previous condition, with no significant change in surface con-
tours, within thirty (30) days of the completion of such instal-
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.40, Pg.276
Page 17
lation or temporary use or within thirteen (13) months of the
commencement of any land disturbing activity on the site which is
related thereto, whichever period shall be shorter; and
(6) Borrow, fill or waste areas in accordance with
sections 10.2.1.18 and 5.1.28 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(c) In the event that the plans and specifications so sub-
mitted shall be approved, the director of engineering shall
require, prior to the issuance of an erosion control permit, a
performance bond with surety or other security of a type satis-
factory to the director of engineering in an amount determined by
the director of engineering to be sufficient for completion of the
controls specified in the plans and specifications, including,
without limitation, maintenance during the execution thereof,
should the person receiving the permit not complete the controls
as required. If the director of engineering takes such conserva-
tion action upon such failure by the permittee, the director of
engineering may collect from the permittee for the difference
should the amount of the reasonable cost of such action exceed the
amount of the security held. Within sixty (60) days of the
achievement of adequate stabilization of the land disturbing
activity, such bond, cash escrow, letter of credit or other legal
arrangement, or the unexpended or unobligated portion thereofs
shall be refunded to the applicant or terminated.
(d) The director of engineering may change an approved plan
and require the submission of amended plans and specifications in
the following cases:
(1) Where inspection has revealed that the plan is
inadequate to satisfy applicable regulations7 or
(2) Where the person responsible for carrying out the
approved plan finds that because of changed circumstances or for
other reasons the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out,
and proposed amendments to the plan, consistent with the require-
ments of this article, are agreed to by the plan approving autho-
rity and the person responsible f6r carrying out the plan.
(6-18-75, Sec. 7; 2-11-76; 4-21-76; 6-2-76; 7-9-80; 7-8-81~
2-11-87)
Sec. 7-6. Inspections.
(a) The director of engineering and his respective desig-
nated agents shall provide for periodic inspections of land dis-
turbing activity and shall have the right to enter upon property
at all reasonable times for the purpose of making investigation
and inspection relating to compliance with the provisions of this
chapter. The owner, occupier or operator shall be given notice of
the inspection and the opportunity to accompany the inspector.
(b) If it is determined under subsection (a) of this section
that the permit hOlder or his agent has failed to comply with the
plans the director of engineering or his designated agent shall
immediately serve upon the permit holders in writing, a notice to
comply, stating a reasonable time for such compliance. Such
notice shall be served by registered or certified mail to the
address specified by the permit holder in the permit application~
or by hand delivery to the site of the permitted activities and
presented to the agent or employee of the permittee supervising
such activities, as per section 10.1-566 of the Code of Virginia,
instructing that corrective measures be taken immediately when
immediate action is necessary to prevent erosion or sedimentation
problems. Such notice shall set forth specifically the measures
needed to come into compliance with such plan. If the permit
holder 'fails to comply within the time specified, he may be
subject to revocation of the permit and shall, in addition, be
deemed to be in violation of this chapter~
(c) In the event that the permit holder shall fail to comply
with a notice as provided in subsection (b) of this section, upon
finding that such action is reasonably necessary to protect the
public health, safety and welfare, the director of engineering may
cause the necessary measures to be taken and shall proceed to
recover the expenses of such action as provided in section 7-8.
(d) Upon receipt of a complaint from the designated enforce-
ment officer of a substantial violation of either section 10.1-563
or 10.1-566 of the Code of Virginia, the director of engineering
may issue an order requiring that all or part of the land disturb-
ing activities permitted on the site be stopped until the speci-
fied corrective measures have been taken. Where the alleged
noncompliance, is causing or is in imminent danger of causing harm-
ful erosion of lands or sediment deposition in waters within the
watersheds of the Commonwealth, such an order may be issued
without regard to whether the permittee has been issued a notice
to comply as specified in subsection (b) of this section° Other-
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 18
M.B. 40, Pg. 277
wise, such an order may be issued only after the permittee has
failed to comply with such a notice to comply. The order shall be
served in the same manner as a notice to comply and shall remain
in effect for a period of seven (7) days from the date of service
pending application by the enforcing authority or permit holder
for appropriate relief to a court of competent jurisdiction. Upon
completion of corrective action, the order shall immediately be
lifted. Nothing in this section shall prevent the director of
engineering from taking any other action specified in section 7-8.
(6-18-75, Sec. 8; 2-11-76; 4-21-76; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-7. Review by board of supervisors.
Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the director of
engineering in disapproving plans and specifications submitted
pursuant to this chapter, or in the interpretation of the regu-
lations of this chapter, shall have the right to apply for and
receive a review of such action by the board of supervisors. In
reviewing the director of engineering~s action~ the board shall
consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person,
the director of engineering and such other persons as shall be
deemed by the board to be necessary for a complete review of the
matter. The board may affirm, reverse or modify the director of
engineering's action and the board's decision shall be final,
subject only to review by the circuit court of the county by
appeal taken pursuant to section 10.1-568 of the Code of Virginia.
For the purposes of this section,'the term "person aggrieved"
shall be limited to the applicant, owners of adjacent and down-
stream property and any interested governmental agency or officer
thereof. (6-18-75, Sec. 9; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-8. Penalties and leqal remedies°
(a) Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof shall be
subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1000.00) or
to imprisonment not exceeding thirty (30) days, for each violation
or to both such fine and imprisonment.
(b) In addition to any criminal penalties provided under
this chapter, any person who violates any provision of this
chaptgr may be liable to the county in a civil action for damages.
(c) Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in
this section, any person violating or failing, neglecting or
refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other remedy obtained
pursuant to this section shall be subject, in the discretion of
the court, to a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars
($2000.00) for each viotatione
(d) With the consent of any person who has violated or
failed, neglected or refused to obey any regulation or order of
the director of engineeringv the plan approving or permit issuing
authority may provide, in an order issued by the plan approving
authority or permit issuing authority against such person, for the
payment of civil charges for violations in specific sums~ not to
exceed the limitation specified in subsection (c) of this section.
Such civil charges shall be instead of any appropriate civil
penalty which could be imposed under subsection (c). (6-18-75~
Sec. 10; 2-11-87)
(e) In addition to any other remedy, the director of engi-
neering may institute any appropriate proceeding, either at law or
in equity, to prevent violation or attempted violation of this
chapter, to restrain, correct or abate such violation, or to
prevent any act which would constitute such violation; provided~
that in order for the director of engineering to obtain injunctive
relief to prevent or restrain violations hereof, it shall not be
necessary to show that there does not exist an adequate remedy at
law.
Sec. 7-9. Authority of director of enqineerinq to establish
administrative procedures.
The director of engineering shall have the power to establish
reasonable administrative procedures for the administration of
this chapter. (4-21-76; 2-11-87)
This ordinance shall be effective on and after April 1, 1992.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Fiscal Policy Committee.
Mr. Tucker said, at the Board's direction, staff deleted references in
the Fiscal Impact Analysis Committee work program that related to economic
development until the Committee's work is completed. The outline previously
provided to the Board has been redrafted for review, a timetable has been
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 407 Pg. 278
Page 19
provided for the Committee's work and a draft advertisement has been provided
for selection of committee members.
Mrs. Humphris called attention to the draft advertisement for committee
members. She read the last sentence of the first paragraph of the advertise-
ment which stated, "Membership is open to any County resident who possesses an
unbiased view of the impact of growth and who will bring an objective perspec-
tive to the task." She knows a lot of people in the County, but she does not
know of anyone who would think that he or she might fit that description, and
could honestly apply for the appointment. She suggested that the sentence be
changed to state that, "Membership is open to any County resident who will
bring an objective perspective to the task." This Board can choose the
members as best it can from the applicants.
Mr. Marshall asked if the committee name could be changed. He thinks
that the Fiscal Impact Analysis Committee has a negative sound~ and he
suggested that the name be changed to Economic Development Committee°
Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bowerman were not in favor of changing the
committee's name. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that this will actually be a
Fiscal Impact Committee. He stated that there might be a positive fiscal
impact, a negative fiscal impact or a neutral fiscal impact. He said that the
committee will be specifically addressing the fiscal consequences of develop-
ment. The name of the committee does not appear to be negative to him.
Mr. Bain called attention to the recommended work outline. He said that
the first goal which "incorporates all planning and growth factors relevant to
Albemarle County's current and future growth management" is very important.
He said that all of these things have to be done before the end result is
reached. Mrs. Humphris remarked that the information has to be obtained, and
fiscal information is what is needed. She concurred with Mr. Bowerman that
impact can be positive, negative or neutral, and there is no guarantee what
the outcome of this committee's work will be.
Mr. Bain next called attention to number two under the specific
responsibilities of the committee. He asked what is meant by the word~
"demographic." Mr. Cilimberg replied that demographic information usually
centers around socio-economic types of indicators, such as income. He sai~
that it also centers around population growth trends and employment trends°.
Me added that the first chapter of the Comprehensive Plan has some demographic
information translated into policy positions of the County.
Mr. Bain then talked about number four shown under the committee's
specific responsibilities. He asked if identifying scenarios, to which number
four refers, will be something that has been experienced already and is
currently in place. He asked how various land use/economic scenarios for
model application can be identified. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this is more
of a macro approach than as it relates to specific projects. He said the
model is centered around general trends and growth. He added that the history
is related to land use patterns, economic change and changes in revenue and
expenditures for the County. He went on to say that when scenarios are
applied to that model for the future, the mixture of land use and rate of land
use growth will be considered~ as well as the rate of economic growth°
Mr. Tucker commented that there was a 1972 Fiscal Impact Study done on
Hollymead before it was developed to give some idea of the fiscal impact of
the County's first Planned Unit Development. He is interested in examining
the 1972 study now to see how it corresponds to what has actually happened.
Mr. Bain next referred to number two on page three of the Executive
Summary, and read the second bullet which stated~ "Familiarize the committee
with other policies and methodologies in use in other localities.'~ He asked
what other policies in other localities related to this statement. Mr.
Cilimberg answered that Loudoun County went through this procedure approxi-
mately two years ago in updating its Comprehensive Plan, and several scenarios
were used for growth and plan layouts. He said that it will be possible for
committee members to relate to counties which have done similar things.
Mr. Martin commented that number four on page three, refers to deve-
loping a Fiscal Impact Methodology, and page five shoWs the possible costs
involved. He does not think that some type of methodology or software is
needed that will produce information as to whether or not certain types of
growth are wanted or needed. He thinks that a point needs to be reached where
it is decided if there is a type of growth that is needed and what strategies
will be used to achieve that growth. He added that if there is certain growth
that is not needed~ then strategies need to be developed to keep that growth
from happening.
Mr. Tucker stated that one of the things that was discussed when the
Fortune 500 Company was considering this area was that everyone was supportive
of a business that would provide jobs to people in this community and the
surrounding area that would not be a fiscal drain or liability for the County°
He does not think that this particular question can be determined unless there
is some type of model that will show whether or not there will be a fiscal
drain or whether there will be positive revenue generated.
Mr. Bowerman responded that part of the modeling that will be done is
the current employment conditions and the size of the unemployed force, etc~
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 20
M.B. 40, Pg. 279
He said that is why the model is needed. He added that things are going to
change and be dynamic over time, and it is desirable to consider what is
occurring with the reality of the situation in that time period°
Mr. Martin remarked that he thinks it is too complicated an issue~
because every place and every company will be so different that it would be
impossible to develop a model. He wants to move forward, but he hopes that
this $60,000 is not used later to indicate that something cannot be done
because it is costing $60,000.
Mr. Bain stated that he is willing to spend $60,000, but he wants to
justify that expenditure. He believes that the staff is indicating that it
may or may not take $60,000 to get to the end result. He said that it will be
necessary to wait and see what type of costs are involved.
Mr. Perkins agreed with Mr. Mart~n. As he mentioned before, there is a
wealth of resources available, i.e., University of Virginias Virginia Tech~
William and .Mary and Virginia Commonwealth University; certainly there should
be some computer experts° He thinks that these institutions should be consi-
dered first to see what type of help they can provide.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that the staff did not want the Board to think that
this analysis could be done free. He said that the staff hopes that it will
not cost much money, but whatever is done, if the project moves forward~ it
will have to be bid.
Mr. Perkins responded that he would rather bid the project to the
University of Virginia or one of the other colleges rather than to have an
outside consultants. He has not been p%eased with the results that have been
received from any consultants. Mr. Tucker said the staff wanted to make sure
that the Board is aware that there will be some costs involved.
Mr. Bain asked if the planned time frame could be accelerated. He would
like to move the process along and have the information back to this Board by
December~ 1992.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the time frame will involve how quickly the
committee can identify who will be working with the committee. He said that
the time frame will also depend on how long it takes to develop the software~
if there is a model involved. He explained that the three to six months time
frame is based on a model that has been refined for Albemarle County and was
based on the model in Loudoun County. He said that this model cost Loudoun
$150s000 because Loudoun paid all of the development costs° He added that the
reason that it will cost the County $60,000 is because the County will pay for
the model and some refinement of the local situation. He noted that it took
Loudoun more than a year to develop the model, so if someone is selected to
work on this project who does not already have a model, it may take a longer
period of time for completion than the time specified.
Mrs. Humphris asked when the analysis of the job market would be
considered. She noted that the job information has to be obtained to work
with the fiscal information. Mr. Tucker said this will not be the final
document and not the most definitive work program that the committee will be
using. Mrs. Humphris said she wanted to make sure that this project does not
get finished without consideration of the job market analysis.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is any way that there could be two parallel
studies ongoing at the same time. He said that if fiscal impact modeling
deals with one issue and the labor force and labor characteristics are another
issues why couldn't the study of these two things be paralleled, assuming that
there are resources to do them. Mr. Martin concurred and asked how a fiscal
impact can be determined, if the job market is not considered.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Board action is needed to adopt the outline for
the Fiscal Impact Analysis Committee recommended by the County Executive. Mr.
Tucker replied that this is a general work outlines but it will be refined as
time goes on. He said that the Board needs to approve this general work
outline and advertisement for committee members.
At this time, Mr. Martin moved approval of the general outline and
advertisement for the Fiscal Impact Policy Committee.
Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. She noted a typographical error in
bullet five of page two and asked that the word~ "bys" be inserted after the
words ~'supported."
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes:
ber 11 and October 16, 1991~
There were none read.
June 12s September 4, Septem-
March 18, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 407 Pg. 180
Page 21
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker reminded Board members about a joint appointment with the
City of Charlottesville to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) and
the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA). Mr. Bowerman stated that Dr. F.
Anthony Iachetta's appointment these two authorities will be expire in May.
This is a two year term and Dr. Iachettta is eligible for reappointment. He
has talked with the Mayor of the City of Charlottesville who indicated that he
does not have a problem with Dr. Iachetta being reappointment.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. Humphris~ to
reappoint Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority and the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for another two year term beginning May 1~
1992o
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to appoint Mr. John K.
Plantz to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging to fill out the unexpired term of
Mr. A. J. Baglioni, Jr.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bain then discussed collection of solid waste. He thinks that a
committee needs to be formed, with possibly a liaison from this Board, to look
at the issue of solid waste collection, with a time limit of four months. He
thinks that haulers need help with certain issues. Also, a need assessment of
the different areas should be done and if service districts are necessary. He
asked staff to report back to the Board in a couple of weeks on formation of a
committee. Haulers could be contacted to see if they agree that this type of
committee would be helpful to them.
Mro Bowerman said he has received offers from Delegate Way and Senator
Robb to accompany County representations to Culpeper for the Preallocation
hearing on March 31 to discuss various primary road needs in Albemarle County.
Ne suggested that a copy of the Board's statement be sent to them for
information. In addition, Senator Robb mentioned forming a coalition of
common interests, i.e., Orange, Madison, Nelson, and Albemarle Counties~ as
well as the City of Charlottesville, relative to Route 29 to attempt a unified
approach to the traffic problem. Mr. Bowerman liked Senator Robb's idea and
asked other Supervisors for their opinions.
Mrs. Humphris responded that she thinks this is a superior idea.
Mr. Marshall felt the County should take advantage of all of the help
that it can get.
Agenda Item NOo 16. Adjourn to March 23~ 1992~ at 1:00 P.M.
At 9:24 P.M., Mrs. Humphris offered motion to adjourn to March 23~ 1992~
at l:00 P.M. Mr. Bain seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.