1991-01-09January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
265
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on January 9, 1991, at 9:00 A.M., Room 7, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.6 and 5.7 on the consent agenda
and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Copy of Supts. Memo No. 261 from Joseph A. Spagnolo, Jr.,
Superintendent of Public Instruction, entitled "1990-92 Revised Standards of
Quality Funding", was received for information. (Mr. Bowie commented that
this memorandum formalizes what the County already knows which is the extent
of 1991-92 budget cuts of $1.3 million in education. Mr. Bain said last week
the Planning District Commission met with state representatives and discussed
the proposed budget cuts. Delegate Earl V. Dickinson thinks that the State
may put a cap on the amount of the cut which means that Albemarle County would
not lose as much. It is hoped that some of the $200 million in reserve
contingency will be given to localities for education. The full 12 percent
reduction is the worst case scenario.)
Item 5.2. Memorandum dated December 21, 1990, from Mr. Mike Schlemmer,
Fire Prevention Officer to Mr. Ray Jones, Deputy County Executive, re:
Hydrant at Earlysville Forest, was received for information as follows:
"I talked with Britt Grimm, Chief of Earlysville Fire Department,
about the hydrant in Earlysville Forest. Chief Grimm advised that he
had been in contact with the president of the homeowners association.
The Fire Department advised that they would use it and check it if the
homeowners wanted them to, but they were not going to have a monthly
routine. I think two major reasons, are, they cannot commit to main-
taining one without doing others and the liability factor in case the
hydrant malfunctions. Chief Grimm will be sending out a letter on
this to the homeowners association in the near future."
Item 5.3. Memorandum from Mr. Peter J. Parsons, Recycling Coordinator,
dated December 27, 1990, entitled "Solid Waste Update," was received for
information.
Item 5.4. 1990 Crime Statistical Report for the Albemarle County Police
Department, was received for information. (According to the report there was
a decrease in five of seven Part I crime classifications. There was a de-
crease in burglaries which had been increasing over the past three years. The
increase in larcenies covers increases in both larceny from vehicles and
shoplifting.)
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
266
Item.5.5. Letter dated January 2, 1991, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, giving a monthly update on highway improvement projects
currently under construction and the quarterly report of projects under
design, was received for information.
(Mrs. Humphris asked if anything will be done about the railroad under-
passes at the ends of Route 601 (Route 250 W to Route 29 Bypass - widen to
four lanes). She thinks those are extremely dangerous locations. Mr.
Roosevelt said no planning has begun on this project, but the Highway Depart-
ment does intend to do something about the underpass as well as the roadway.
He is concerned that including the railroad bridge in the construction will
greatly increase the cost of the project. The only funds available are
Secondary Improvement Funds. Mrs. Humphris said she does not think it makes
sense to have a four-lane stretch of road that is one-half mile in length.
Mr. Roosevelt said he agrees, but if the underpass is included, the cost of
the project will probably double. In addition, because of the limited secon-
dary funds available, the July, 1995 construction date will be moved even
further forward in time. Mrs. Humphris asked if it would make more sense to
put the turn lanes where they are needed instead of four-laning the road. Mr.
Roosevelt said if the Department determines that the project is too expensive
to undertake at its scheduled time, then it will undoubtedly consider some
sort of intermediate improvements.)
Item 5.6. Authorize Chairman to sign deed transferring the Ivy Landfill
property to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. By the above recorded vote,
the Board authorized the Chairman to sign the following deed by the above
recorded vote:
THIS DEED made this day of January, 1991, by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a Virginia political subdivision, and the CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE, a Virginia municipal corporation, Grantors, and the
RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY, a public body politic and corporate
created under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee,
WITNESS ETH :
Whereas, by Organizational Agreement dated November 5, 1990, the
Grantors jointly agreed to create the Grantee Authority and to trans-
fer to it all the real property constituting the Ivy Land Fill in
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
Whereas, the Grantee has been duly organized pursuant to the laws
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, can legally hold title to the property
and commence the operation of the same and it is now desired to convey
the property to it pursuant to such Organizational Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of $1.00 and
other good and valuable consideration, receipt of all of which is
hereby acknowledged, the Grantors hereby GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL
WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority all that
certain tract or parcel of land situated in the Samuel Miller Magiste-
rial District, Albemarle County, Virginia, fronting on the northwest-
ern side of State Route 637, consisting of 302.15 acres, more or less,
being the land shown on a plat entitled "Continental Can Company, Inc.
'Douglas Tract' Composite Plat," on file in the office of the County
Engineer, Albemarle County, Virginia, less and except therefrom 0.21
acres conveyed to the Diocesan Missionary Society of Virginia by deed
dated December 16, 1961 of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 374, Page 340; 10.54 acres
conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia by certificate dated May 5,
1967, of record in such Clerk's Office in Deed Book 428, Page 544, as
confirmed by order dated January 28, 1970, recorded in Deed Book 468,
Page 589; and 1 acre conveyed to Diocesan Missionary Society of
¥irginia by deed dated February 1, 1974 of record in Deed Book 548,
Page 203. The property hereby conveyed is in all respects the same as
conveyed to the County of Albemarle by deed dated November 25, 1974,
of record in Deed Book 567, Page 1 and in which a one-half undivided
interest was conveyed to the City of Charlottesville by deed dated
January 27, 1975, of record in Deed Book 569, Page 50.
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
267
This conveyance is made subject to all easements and conditions
currently of record effecting the same which have not expired by
passage by time or operation of law and to any other matters which may
be apparent upon examination of the premises.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF each of the Grantors has caused their name to
be signed hereto by their duly authorized representative.
Item 5.7. Authorize County Executive to sign Appalachian Power Company
Contract. By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Execu-
tive to sign the agreement entitled "VIRGINIA PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AGREEMENT FOR
THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRICITY FROM APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, dated this 9th day
of January, .1991 between APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY and Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: November 14, 1990.
Mrs. Humphris had read November 14, 1990, page 1-16 (end Item #8) and
found them to be in order with one correction.
Mr. Perkins had read November 14, 1990, pages 16 (Item #8) 30 and found
them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the
minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Crozet Growth Area, Comprehensive
Plan Road Alignments (Deferred from December 12, 1990).
Agenda Item No. 7b. Tabor Street (Route 691) Park Road (Route 1204)
Project (Deferred from December 12, 1990).
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following memorandum dated January 3, 1991:
"Review of potential new roads/road improvements in Crozet was com-
pleted with the December 19 field visit by the Board of Supervisors,
YDoT staff and County staff. To recap, five alternatives were re-
viewed. Cost estimates were provided for these alternatives. Align-
ment adjustments for Alternative 5 were also discussed. Based on this
field visit, I am providing the following which I believe represents
the consensus of the Board:
Do not further pursue Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 using public
funds.
Continue to show Alternative 4 on the Crozet land use map for
possible developer construction should that area develop.
o
Continue to show Alternative 5 as well as the remainder of the
Route 240/Route 250 Connector on the Crozet land use map.
Conduct additional alignment study of a more western intersection
of the connector with Route 250 and a more eastern intersection
with Route 240. Based on this analysis, present a final align-
ment proposal to the Board for review.
4. Have VDoT proceed to Location Public Hearing for Alternative 5.
Program Six Year Secondary Road Improvement funds for spot
improvements to Tabor Street at its intersections with Route 240
and High Street as outlined by ¥DoT (in summary dated December 18,
1990, from D. S. Roosevelt)."
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
268
Mr. Cilimberg said that Alternatives 1 and 2 are for a Park Road/Route
240 West connector, Alternative 3 is the Tabor Street upgrade, and Alternative
4 is the Park Road/Route 240 East connector. Those four alternatives were
presented at the Location Public Hearing. The first three alternatives were
opposed by a lot of citizens that lived in the area. The fourth alternative
is very costly due to the overpass necessary at the CSX Railroad. At the
December 12 Board meeting, an Alternative 5 was presented which would essenti-
ally connect the eastern end of Park Road to part of the Route 240/250 connec-
tor and then continue the road southward to Route 250.
Mr. Roosevelt said although these two agenda items are being considered
together, the Board should recognize that the connector road is a separate
issue from the recommendation for improvements in the general Crozet area.
His request today is for a resolution of the Board's feeling concerning the
proposed improvements. If the proposal is what the Board wants, he suggests
that the Board adopt a resolution to not pursue Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4;
consider as an alternate location (Alternative 5) a line from east of Park
Road to Route 250 which generally follows the Route 240/250 connector road
alignment shown in the County's Comprehensive Plan; proceed to a Location and
Design Public Hearing on Alternative 5 at such time as funding is available
and proceed with spot improvements on Tabor Street in accordance with recom-
mendations as outlined in his report dated December 18, 1990. He will discuss
the availability of funds when the Six Year Plan is revised later this year.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Route 691 project (0.4 Mi E Route 240 to Route
240 - Park Road) is a part of this project. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department
intends to use some of the funding in the Route 691 project to do the spot
improvements on Tabor Street. The remainder of the funds allocated to the
Route 691 project would be temporarily transferred to other projects until the
Six Year Plan is reviewed. He thinks that the Department will proceed with
the spot improvements and then include Alternative 5 in the revised Six Year
Plan.
Mr. Bain asked if there is adequate space to include a left turn/right
turn lane a part of the spot improvement where Tabor Street connects with
Route 240. Mr. Roosevelt responded "no", not without acquisition of
right-of-way. The right-of-way at this point is 40 feet and not sufficient to
build the pavement and shoulders. If the Board wants the Department to pursue
a left turn lane as part of the spot improvement, that will increase the cost
of the project. Mr. Bain said he does not want that, he just wanted to know
if there was enough space.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
adopt the following resolution concerning the location and design of Tabor
Street (Route 691) and Park Road (Route 1204) project:
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a Loca-
tion and Design Public Hearing to consider the proposed location and
design of Tabor Street (Route 691) and Park Road (Route 1204) from the
intersection of Route 240 to the intersection of High Street or Park
Road in Albemarle County (Project #0691-002-234, C501); and
WHEREAS, approximately 60 people attended the public hearing, and
most of the people expressed opposition to the information presented;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Board hereby makes the following
recommendations to the Virginia Department of Transportation, concern-
ing the proposed project:
Do not pursue Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4;
Consider as an alternate location (Alternative 5) a line
from east of Park Road to Route 250 which generally follows
the Route 240/Route 250 connector road alignment shown in
Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan;
Proceed to a location and design public hearing on Alterna-
tive 5 at such time as funding is available;
Proceed with spot improvements on Tabor Street in accordance
with recommendations as outlined in the report from D. S.
Roosevelt, dated December 18, 1990.
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
269
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Highway Matters: Route 654 (Barracks Road) Project.
Mr. Cilimberg said the location of the Barracks Road project is from the
end of the existing four-lane section and west of the Route 29/250 bypass.
The staff has met with YDoT and discussed the plans in detail. At the Loca-
tion and Design Public Hearing, there was general concern expressed of the
impact this project would have on properties in the area. The staff has
discussed with Mr. Roosevelt the impacts and alternatives. Considering the
impact to residential properties on the south side of Barracks Road, the staff
recommends that planting of appropriate screening/vegetation along residential
frontages be a part of the project. It is the staff's opinion that this be
considered on a case-by-case basis because it will not likely be possible on
all properties due to the location of cut/fill for the road or utility ease-
ments in relationship to dwelling units.
Mr. Roosevelt said at the November 14 Board meeting, he gave each Board
member a copy of the public hearing handout. He sent a copy (on file) of the
results of the public hearing to the Board for information. He is recommend-
ing that the Board support the location and design presented at the public
hearing. He feels that any other design that adequately takes care of the
traffic would do the same amount of damage to the adjacent properties as what
is being recommended. The Department feels that its recommendation best
handles the traffic in that corridor.
Mrs. Humphris said for the Board's information, at the location public
hearing she talked at length with Mr. Tom Farley and discussed with him the
misgivings that she had about the way in which the public hearing was adver-
tised. She had concerns that the people in the Canterbury Hills area had no
idea that the improvements to Barracks Road would affect them in the way that
they will. After the November 14 Board meeting, she called a lot of the
people to try to get them to understand the effects of the project and to
attend the public hearing. Mr. Farley was interested in her concerns and
asked how the County notified adjacent landowners. He indicated that in the
future he would be willing to work out a system whereby the Highway Department
could possibly use the County's facilities to notify landowners.
Mrs. Humphris said a major part of the public hearing which is not
included in Mr. Roosevelt's report is concerns expressed by the Huntwood
Homeowner's Association. For the Board's information, Mr. Roosevelt indicated
on the maps the location of the Huntwood property. Mr. Roosevelt said the
work the Department is planning would require an easement for relocation of a
power line and a guide wire needed across the street. The Association also
expressed concern about the additional lane west of Georgetown Road. Mr.
Roosevelt said the issue regarding the easement has been resolved. Virginia
Power has indicated that they will not need the easement nor have to cut the
trees in front of any Huntwood property. Mrs. Humphris explained that the
proposal was for a major pole on the southside of Barracks Road which would
cut into that very attractive little pine tree area at the entrance of
Huntwood. The people felt they were being unfairly impacted and that it
should be changed.
Mrs. Humphris asked what the impact would be for those people in Huntwood
who are making a left turn to go east into town. Mr. Roosevelt said the plan
calls for construction of two lanes westbound from Georgetown ending at the
entrance to Huntwood. One of the lanes will function as an acceleration lane
out of Georgetown Road to allow traffic going west to accelerate and then
merge back into westbound traffic and then also function as a deceleration
lane for traffic turning into Huntwood. There currently is a 50 foot deceler-
ation lane into Huntwood. Again, this lane will allow eastbound traffic to
get out of the main flow and make a right turn into the development. This
will not act as a through lane. Mrs. Humphris asked if there will be a right
turn only lane from Georgetown into Huntwood. Mr. Roosevelt said "no", his
vision is that the two lanes out of Georgetown will be double left turn lanes
because 85 to 90 percent of the traffic on Georgetown turns left and proceeds
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
270
into town. The right hand lane on Georgetown is to function as both a left
turn and a right turn lane. For example, if the lead car comes to the inter-
section and wants to go right, it will be able to do so in a protected area,
accelerate and then merge back into the normal flow of traffic. Mrs. Humphris
said the people coming out of Huntwood will be crossing two lanes of traffic
to make a left turn to go east. Mr. Roosevelt said "yes", but it will not be
two lanes of through traffic. If the Board is concerned about extending this
lane, that can be taken care of by having an exclusive right turn lane at this
location. The negative impact to that would be that traffic turning right out
of Georgetown would have to get into the through lane of traffic when the
light is red just as it does now. Mrs. Humphris said considering that the
same situation already occurs further east on Barracks Road and is not work-
ing, she does not see how the change at this location will work. She does not
think it will work. Mr. Roosevelt said the way to take care of that concern
then is to make that an exclusive right turn lane. Mrs. Humphris said the
amount of traffic that turns right out of Georgetown is so small that she does
not think it will be a major hindrance and the benefit would be to safeguard
those people who live in Huntwood. Mr. Bain said he agrees with Mrs. Humphris.
Mr. Bowie also agreed with the proposed change.
Mr. Bain asked if the Highway Department plans for the right hand lane to
be right turn only. Mr. Roosevelt said that traffic could continue straight
through, but he thinks that more than half of the traffic is making a right
turn and he does not think that removing that one option would reduce the
level of service at the intersection. Mr. Bain said that is his concern. Mr.
Roosevelt said the lane will be signed as a right turn to try to influence the
traffic to make that as a right turn and the left lane to go straight through.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if there will still be a standard right turn into
Huntwood after passing Georgetown Road. Mr. Roosevelt replied "yes".
Mr. Bowie asked if the Highway Department intends to provide planting and
appropriate screening. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department will have to pay
these property owners, as part of the damage to their property, for the loss
of the landscaping. He thinks it would be better for the Department to pay
them for the loss of the landscaping and let them decide what they want to
replace on the property and where they want to put it rather than the Depart-
ment making that decision. If the Department undertook the landscaping, it
would require an easement onto the properties. Rather than include landscap-
ing as part of the project, he thinks the Department should do as it normally
does and pay the homeowners for the loss of the landscaping and let them
decide what they want to do.
Mrs. Humphris said one of the major impacts will be to the property at
the curve of Westminster Road because there will be a 16 foot median strip to
prevent a left turn from Westminster Road. The plans calls for right turns
only off of Westminster Road. Mr. Roosevelt said traffic will not be able to
turn left from Barracks Road onto Westminster Road. Mrs. Humphris said the
homeowners closest to Georgetown Road have invested significant funds over the
years to provide professional landscaping to protect themselves from the
highway and now in order to get sight distance this landscaping is being
removed. These people cannot understand the need for sight distance when
traffic cannot turn left. There has never been a recorded traffic accident at
this location. She does not think there is a need to cut off that whole
corner to provide sight distance.
Mr. Roosevelt said this situation has to do with liability. The advice
the Department receives from its legal scholars in the Attorney General's
office is that the best way to protect the Department from any liability for
design is to have standards and to be sure that the standards are met when
improvements are made. The standards adopted by the Department are recognized
nationwide and are not something that they made up themselves with regard to
sight distance. The requirement for sight distance in this area for this
design speed is the ability to see that far even for right turns. The loca-
tion and design engineer has the responsibility of waiving or reducing these
standards. There may have been no accidents at this location, but if one
should occur, the Department has been advised that the location and design
engineer or whoever makes this decision can be held personally liable for the
damage and for injury to persons. If the Board feels strongly about this
issue, it can include it in the resolution for the Department to consider~ but
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting) 272L
(Page 7)
if he were in the position of putting his personal liability on the line in
order to save trees, he would not have to think twice. Mrs. Humphris said
this has to do with people who have lived here for 30 years who have put
everything into their property and now because of a perception of liability
the Department says these trees have to go.
Mr. Bain suggested including in the motion that the Department provide as
much relief as possible on sight distance to preserve these people's landscap-
ing.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
adopt the following resolution to endorse the proposed location and design of
Route 654 (Barracks Road), asking the Department to take into consideration
the Board's concern about preserving existing screening as much as possible
and the recommendation that there be only a single through lane west on
Barracks Road from Georgetown Road:
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a Loca-
tion and Design Public Hearing to consider the proposed location and
design of Route 654 (Barracks Road) from 0.09 mile west of Route 656
(Georgetown Road) to the intersection of Route 1406 (Surry Road/West
Park Road) in Albemarle County (Project #0654-002-242, C501); and
WHEREAS, approximately 25 people attended the public hearing, of
which eight people made comments concerning the information presented;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Board does hereby endorse the
project as proposed by the Virginia Department of Transportation, with
the recommendation that there be only a single through lane west on
Barracks Road from Georgetown Road; and
FURTHER that the Department of Transportation work with the
homeowners to preserve existing screening as much as possible.
Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7d. Highway Matters: Request to abandon certain rights
of way in Rosemont and Ragged Mountain Farm (Deferred from December 12, 1990).
(Mr. Bain said his firm represents one of the applicants and he will
abstain from discussion of the item. He then left the meeting room at 9:51
a.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg said in November the Board held a public hearing on a
request for the abandonment of several roads in the Ragged Mountain/Rosemont
area. There were some objecting property owners adjacent to the Rosemont
property and the Board asked that the applicant and those property owners get
together to work out a solution. Yesterday he received a telephone call and
information from Mr. Mike Boggs, representing the applicant, outlining the
steps he has undertaken and a proposal to resolve the problem. Board members
have received a letter dated January 9, 1991 (on file) with attachments
summarizing what the applicant has done over the last month and outlining two
possible alternatives. To his knowledge the objecting property owners have
not agreed to either of the alternatives. Mr. Boggs is requesting that the
Board consider the requests as follows:
"Revised Primary Request: We hereby request the Board of Supervisors
to abandon all public rights-of-way according to our previous petition
subject to the following condition: Haiey, Chisholm & Morris, Inc.,
shall record a document acknowledging that Rock Mill Land Trust shall
have all pre-existing rights that existed prior to the public rights
being abandoned over the rights-of-way that previously existed along
its common border with Rosemont, across Parcel 13 and out to ¥SH 681.
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
272
Alternative Request: We hereby request that the Board of Supervisors
abandon all public rights-of-way as shown on attached maps (on file)
marked Appendix 'X' and 'Z', this being a major portion of our pre-
vious request of record. This would leave intact a public right-of-
way serving Rosemont's common border with Rock Mills, as shown on
attached map (on file) marked Appendix 'Y'."
Mr. Michael Boggs addressed the Board and said they have attempted to
resolve the issue. They are proposing %o abandon all of the public rights and
allow the Smiths to absolutely maintain every right that they currently have
along their common border and out to Route 681. This abandonment would not
harm their property or take anything away from them that they now have. This
would take care of the problem of the general public, hunters and all others
who currently trespass on the property. They are trying to work with the
Smiths' but there are five members and they all have children and it is hard
to get that many people to agree on anything. He wants to protect their
rights.
Mr. Bowie asked what specifically is being offered to the Smiths. Mr.
Boggs said they are insuring that the Smiths would have every right they have
today for access through their property and over the old public roads, even
after the abandonment.
Mr. Sydney Smith of Rock Mill Land Trust said Mr. Boggs has not come up
with anything except "half baked" ideas. There have been no offers made.
They have had public access for over 75 years. Mr. Boggs is the new man on
the block and there is no reason now to change what has always been.
Mr. Steve Blaine, representing the Smiths, said the offers that were
previously made by Mr. Boggs had nothing to do with access until yesterday.
There have been offers to swap land and to purchase timber rights. These
offers may have been made in good faith, but they have not been acceptable to
the Smith family. He just received a copy of this proposal today and has not
yet formed a conclusion.
Mr. Bowie said the applicant has absolutely guaranteed eternal access
over the same right-of-way. If there is still conflict, he suggests that this
item be deferred until later in the agenda to give Mr. Boggs and Mr. Blaine
time to discuss it. Mr. Blaine said he does not think it can be resolved
today because he has to contact other family members. This proposal does not
guarantee anything, it just says the Land Trust will have all pre-existing
rights. If the rights are by virtue of it being a public right-of-way and the
Board takes action to abandon that public right-of-way, it has wiped out all
existing rights. He needs to consider the character of what is being pro-
posed. Also, he does not think the Board could dictate or enforce a private
agreement between Rock Mills Land Trust and Rosemont.
Mr. St. John said it is his opinion that in order to preserve the rights
that Mr. Smith currently has, the Board would have to grant to the owners of
the Land Trust and their successors a 30 foot wide easement to run with the
land for ingress and egress over the road shown. In his opinion that would
give the Smiths' everything they currently have.
Mr. Bowie said he would recommend that the Board move this item until
about 3:45 p.m. on the agenda and let the attorneys get together and talk it
over. He does not think there is any reason to continue arguing the issue
here during the Board meeting.
Mr. Hiram Ewald said nothing has changed since he was previously before
the Board. He still thinks that his family has some access to'that road and
he is surprised they have been excluded. He thinks it would be premature to
proceed with the abandonment without further discussions.
Mr. Blaine said he could not get authority to act on the proposal today
so it would not do much good to defer it to later in the meeting.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
defer the request to abandon certain rights of way in Rosemont and Ragged
Mountain Farm until February 13. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bain.
(Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 10:07 a.m.)
273
Agenda Item No. 7e. Highway Matters: 1986 Road Study of Roads not in
the State System, and status report on Hawkwood Court.
(Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 10:08 a.m.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following memorandum dated January 2, 1991:
"At your meeting on December 12, 1990, you heard comments concerning
the upgrading of Hawkwood Court, a road for which a bond amount held
by the County is inadequate to complete the road to Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation's (VDoT) standards for acceptance. The status
report on this roadway follows.
During this discussion, you also asked for an update on the 1986 Road
Study Report prepared by the Department of Engineering. This 1986
report identified 14 roadways in the County which could be considered
for inclusion in the VDoT Secondary roads system. More than one half
of the roads existed prior to 1968, when bonding requirements were
first required. The remaining roads for which bonds were originally
required have been released or partially released due to State law
requiring release of the bonds once 90 percent of the road is com-
plete. The Board selected four of these roads as top priority, to
pursue improvement to State standards.
On September 3, 1986, the Board adopted a resolution of intent to
appropriate up to one-half of the cost of these four roads into the
State Secondary System provided the other half of the funds was raised
by the property owners along the roadways. The status of those four
roads is as follows:
Dunromin Road - Completed. Accepted into system on October 30,
1987.
Peyton Drive - Project bid October, 1989. An extension of
Commonwealth Drive is currently being designed in lieu of the
reconstruction of Peyton Drive. Once bids are received on
extending Commonwealth Drive a decision will be made on whether
to reconstruct Peyton Drive or extend Commonwealth Drive.
o
Milton Drive - Design completed and approved by VDoT on July 5,
1989. Updated cost estimate was approximately $125,000. Home-
owners decided not to pursue project due to costs and the road is
now privately maintained.
North Berkshire Road $3,800 (one-half of project cost) was
appropriated in May, 1987, however, no response has ever been
received from homeowners, therefore, no action has been taken.
(Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 10:10 a.m.) No further
direction or action from the Board on the remaining ten roads, which
are maintained privately, has been taken at the current time. They
include: Norwood Lane (near Earlysville - six lots); Greenfield Court
(North of Rio Road and will be impacted by Berkmar Drive Extd.);
Clarke Lane (Carrsbrook four lots); Penn Park Lane (Rio Heights - 14
lots); Rockbrook Drive (Adjacent to Stonehenge - seven lots); Wendover
Drive (Key West - 16 lots); Mountain View (Sherwood Farms 18 lots);
Shannon Drive (Shadwell Estates seven lots); Pinewood Drive (south
of 250 East near Shadwell Estates - eight lots); Mechunk Road (Mechunk
Acres 17 lots).
If the Board wishes to pursue these roads, staff would need to update
the cost estimates we currently have as well as determine if the
property owners wish to participate in any funding of the improve-
ments.
U ~
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
274
STATUS REPORT
Laurel Ridge Subdivision
Hawkwood Court
September 24, 1985
May 4, 1989
Date bond last reduced from $8365 to $4840.
Tom Lanahan declared personal bankruptcy
before May 4, 1989 according to a letter
dated May 4, 1989 from George St. John to Mr.
Callaghan, Attorney for Mr. Lanahan.
November 20, 1989
The certificate of deposit in the amount
$4840 was cashed and deposited into a County
account. The reserve account number is
1000-0984.
December 12, 1990
Bids received from A. G. Dillard, Inc.,
Virgil P. Humphreys & Sons Excavating, and
Robert L. Vess Excavating. The low bid was
for $8580 from A. G. Dillard. This bid must
be accepted by January 12, 1991.
The asphalt plant will close December 20, 1990, until after the first
of the year, at which time S. L. Williamson, Inc. will decide whether
to reopen or not depending on the weather."
Mr. Tucker said there are several options with regard to Hawkwood Court.
The Board can consider the bond as the property owners' share and then appro-
priate the $3740 or the Board could ask the property owners to put up half of
the $3740.
Mr. Bowie said in 1986 this seemed to be a good idea, but it was a dismal
failure. The costs for upgrading these roads were wrong and eventually were
so high that it was almost impossible for the average person to contribute.
He thinks that Hawkwood Court is different from these other roads and he would
recommend that the Board do nothing on the other roads unless the people come
in and make a request.
Mr. Bain said the Board does not have to act today. The contractor has
extended his bid until February 12. There are only six property owners
involved and he has been in contact with a spokesperson. He thinks that the
Board needs to review the procedure on the road bonds at some time in the
future. He understands that in this case the bond was reduced before even one
house was occupied. He thinks the County should pay at least half the cost
for Hawkwood and see if the property owners are willing to pay the other half.
Mr. Bain then offered motion to defer Hawkwood Court until February 6 so
that he could meet with the property owners to see if they are willing to pay
half the cost necessary to upgrade Hawkwood Court to bring it into the State
System. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(At 10:17 a.m., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at
10:33 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 7f. Highway Matters: Route 29 North Rehearing Request.
Mr. Bowie said the County's deadline to request the rehearing is February
20. It is his understanding that Mr. St. John has received quite a bit of
information. The Board has seen nothing in writing and will need something on
which to vote.
Mrs. Humphris suggested that Mr. St. John be given time to review the
information he has been given and that he prepare a statement for review by
the Board at the January 16 meeting. Mr. St. John said he has had discussions
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting) 275
(Page 11)
with individual Board members, but is still uncertain about what the Board
wants in the request. Mrs. Humphris said the Board needs a response to
Secretary Milliken on the reasons for the rehearing. It was her feeling that
the letter would be a brief, strong statement of the reasons for requesting
the rehearing and any new material that the Board has will be presented on
February 21. She did not envision this letter as being lengthy since the
Board does not have to present its entire case at this time. Mr. Bowie said
he is concerned that the staff not spend a week preparing a statement and then
it not be what the Board wants.
Mr. St. John said he does not believe the Transportation Board committed
any procedural errors in making a decision. The only way to get the Transpor-
tation Board's attention is to show why this Board thinks they need to modify
their decision and in order to do that this Board needs to tell them what
modifications it is seeking. Mrs. Humphris said the request for the rehearing
is February 21, not now. All that was asked for 30 days in advance was that
they be supplied with any new information. It was simply a request.
Mr. St. John said he has not seen any new material in the information he
has received. The argument needed to get the rehearing will be based on what
is in the existing record. He cannot write a creditable legal memorandum if
the Board just intends to emphasis things that are already in the record.
Mrs. Humphris reemphasized her point that the argument does not take place
until February 21. Mr. Bain said he does not think the Transportation Board
will consider a rehearing if no information is sent to them prior to February
21. He also does not think the Transportation Board will vote for the rehear-
ing if the Board's entire position is given to them on February 21. Mrs.
Humphris said there are certain topics that need to be included in the request
for the rehearing, things that were omitted by the Transportation Board, but
this Board does not have to argue its case now. Mr. Bain said he thinks that
as much information as possible should be sent in advance of February 21.
Mr. St. John said again he has read all of the information given to him
by various sources and he does not see any new material or any procedural
errors omitted. He does not think the Board will get a rehearing by simply
saying mistakes were made and not provide any new information.
Mr. Bowerman said his concern is that everything in the Draft Environmen-
tal Impact Statement (DEIS) pointed in certain directions regarding the CATS
Plan, Meadow Creek Parkway, improvements to Route 29 and other elements of the
Plan, which in the year 2010 would provide a "B" level of service on Route 29.
The decision of the Transportation Board in Manassas left him confused. The
Transportation Board accepted an alignment for a roadway that their own report
said would not be needed for 20 years and might not be needed then. The
Transportation Board has not clarified to this Board and this community the
order in which they will undertake the improvements, whether they want the
right-of-way for Alternative 10 because they want to build it immediately in
spite of everything else in the report or whether they are willing to con-
struct the rest of the CATS Plan and then hold this corridor in abeyance. The
intentions of the Transportation Board need to be clarified. Mr. St. John
said he thinks that is the kind of information that should be in the request
to the Transportation Board.
Mr. Bowie said he is not too sure that arguing further about statistics
in the study will make any difference in getting a rehearing. It is a legal
decision. He does not think there is much of a chance that the decision will
be overturned unless there is some dynamite new evidence which he has not
seen. He does not know if it is necessary to rehash statistics. Again, he
does not know of any new information. His biggest concern after six years of
involvement is the disappearance of the CATS Plan when everyone has said that
none of the proposed improvements work without it.
Mr. Tucker said in December the Board transmitted a letter to Secretary
Milliken asking for verification on certain items; the CATS Plan was one of
those items. To date a response has not been received.
Mr. Bain said the issue with the CATS Plan is whether it will be done or
not.
Mr. St. John said this discussion has provided him with the guidance he
needs to prepare his legal memorandum. It is his feeling that after reading
various materials, the decision on the Route 29 North project did not include
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
276
specific approval of or reaffirmation of the Meadow Creek Parkway and other
CATS projects because those projects are not part of the Route 29 project that
was the subject of the hearing in Manassas. The project voted on in Manassas
included the Route 29 North base case, three interchanges and the bypass, that
project did not include a decision on the CATS Plan.
Mrs. Humphris said there are a number of points which are going to have
to be made that are important to Albemarle County and the taxpayers of the
Commonwealth of Virginia. It needs to be pointed out that the Transportation
Board have approved a future road which their own staff justifies by saying
"it is the best guess" at a present cost of $109 million; the cost of the CATS
and Meadow Creek Parkway is a fraction of that. The Transportation Board is
asking the County to preserve a corridor that for the most part is already
built out. By its action the Transportation Board has paralyzed the corridor
for an indeterminate time, taken away the value of people's property with no
idea that the road will ever need to be built or that in 20 years the road
might not need to be built somewhere else. Every study has shown that if the
CATS Plan is completed, there is no need for a bypass. The Transportation
Board has totally ignored the Meadow Creek Parkway. The County has been
trying to protect and preserve its watershed for the past 20 years. There is
a "Catch 22" in the Transportation Board's recommendation. The Transportation
Board says the County has the right to restrict access to a northern and a
southern terminus. If that is done, the road will carry so little traffic as
to not be a reasonable expenditure of taxpayers dollars. If access is allowed
along the way, i.e., Barracks, Hydraulic, you run the strong risk of allowing
and promoting development in the watershed. She feels that the Board can make
a strong case on February 21.
Mr. Bowie said all of what Mrs. Humphris said may be true, but he has
heard very little that has not been said in public hearings or written in
letters, and the Transportation Board still made its decision. The Board can
include all of that information in its presentation, but he does not know what
good it will do to ask the Transportation Board to listen to everything it has
previously heard. He has no problem with including in the statement whatever
information is available, but thinks that there should be a clarification of
"when they are going to build and what they are going to build and when they
are going to build it."
Mr. Bain said an issue he thinks needs to be addressed is inclusion of
the Meadow Creek Parkway as part of the primary funds. Not even in the next
ten years will there be enough secondary funds to build the Meadow Creek
Parkway which in essence defeats the project. Mr. St. John asked if it was
the Board's suggestion that some of the money planned for the bypass be used
'to make the Meadow Creek Parkway a primary project. Mr. Bain said "yes",
otherwise the project will not be.
Mr. St. John said he needed this kind of guidance. Mr. Bowie said
discussion on this item will be continued next week.
Agenda Item No. 7g. Other Highway Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from
the Public and Board Members.
Mr. Perkins asked for an update on his request concerning trees hanging
over the road toward Mint Springs Valley. Mr. Roosevelt said the trees were
trimmed in the past two weeks.
Mrs. Humphris asked the prognosis for the path on Georgetown Road that
has been wiped out due to construction. Mr. Roosevelt said the path will be
replaced by the end of February, but if the weather continues to freeze, that
date would go forward.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:00 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: Foster Well Company Office/Shop Site Plan
Amendment.
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting) 277
(Page 13)
(This appeal came before the Board in a letter dated October 31, 1990,
from Mr. Donald W. Foster, Owner/President, Foster Well Company, requesting a
waiver of Section 32.7.5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to use a private
well for water.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the purpose of this appeal is for a waiver of Section
32.7.5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which was not granted by the Planning Commis-
sion. The property is located in the Albemarle County Service Authority
service area and the Commission felt the public water line is reasonably
available for use. This is an existing use and has been developed in basic
accordance with the site plan as amended and approved by the Planning Commis-
sion. The site plan also dealt with parking and landscaping modifications
which were also approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant requested
a waiver due to the cost and the potential effect on the existing structure of
connecting to the water line. There is a well on the site that the applicant
has been using. It is his understanding that the applicant has since
ted a line, but has not physically connected to the public water system. (Mr.
St. John returned to the meeting at 11:03 a.m.) Apparently the issues of cost
and effect on the structure were overcome by the applicant, however, the
applicant still wants use of the existing well system for the trucks used in
the business and plans to use the public water for the bathroom and other
water uses in the building. The Zoning Administrator has ruled that a waiver
is still required for use of the well even though public water will be used at
the facility. It is also the Zoning Administrator's opinion that if the Board
were to grant the waiver, a special use permit would be required due to the
volume of water usage expected from the well, approximately 4000 gallons per
day. The action being requested of the Board today is a waiver to allow the
continued use of the well for other than domestic uses in the building.
Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks that the Board needs to consider the
extenuating circumstances, whether this is occurring elsewhere and if this use
is allowed what precedent it would set. The staff was not able to identify
any current industrial uses that used both a well and public water.
Mr. Bain asked how many buildings on DobleAnn Drive are connected to
public water. Mrs. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, said she does not
know about some of the older buildings, but Eades Construction Company, across
the road from this site, is connected to public water. Mr. Bowie said if the
older businesses are not connected to public water and came in for a modifica-
tion to their site plan, they would be required to hook up. Mrs. Patterson
replied that is correct.
Representing the applicant, Mr. Larry MacIlwaine, handed to the Board a
copy of documents establishing Mr. Foster's intent to drill a well for this
purpose and the County's approval of that well. The first document is the
sewage disposal system construction permit which until September 1, 1990, was
a joint use document for both well and septic system. It clearly indicates
that a Class III-B well was going to be installed on the property and page 2
of the document shows the location of that well. The next document is the
sewage disposal construction permit and it indicates that Mr. Foster was
drilling a well on the site for a joint use system. The last document is an
inspection by the Albemarle County Service Authority which indicates that the
quality of the water is satisfactory. Mr. Foster purchased this property
prior to the construction of the road that the property faces. At that time
Mr. Foster was unaware of the subsurface conditions. When the road was
constructed, it became apparent that there was a massive rock area that under-
lies not only the road area but Mr. Foster's property. Mr. Foster then got
opinions as to his ability to connect to the existing water system. The
indication was that connecting to the system would exceed $10,000 and would
entail significant blasting. A letter has been received from Faulconer
Construction indicating that blasting may in fact cause some damage to the
structural foundation of the existing building. Nonetheless Mr. Foster has
made a significant effort to find another alternative route to connect to
public water. It was his intention all along to have a dual system. Mr.
Foster has successfully negotiated an easement with Mr. Charles Pietsch, the
owner of the parcel of land at the end of the cul-de-sac. The water line has
been extended down the road and to the end of the cul-de-sac. The water line
has not been brought to Mr. Foster's boundary line. What he has been able to
do is construct a line that circumvents the rock. The line is waiting for
final connection. Mr. Foster never had any intention to avoid his public
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
responsibilities to connect to the public water.
278
Mr. Foster uses significant
amounts of water in connection with his business. He is asking the Board to
allow him to continue to use the well which has already been constructed as a
supplement to the public water. Mr. Foster is the only one in this particular
area using a well. Mr. Pietsch's land is served by public water as are all of
the other properties that have been developed along the road. This is a
hardship situation in the sense that the well has already been constructed.
He does not think Mr. Foster will be drawing excessively on the underground
water source.
Mr. Bowie asked if the water line has been constructed. Mr. MacIlwaine
said the water line has been constructed, but it has not been connected at
this time. It took quite some time and effort to find an alternative route
that would not cause damage to the foundation of the building.
Mr. Bain asked how accurate is the usage figure of 4000 gallons of water
a day. Mr. MacIlwaine said the figure will vary, but the 4000 gallons is for
peak hour periods during the summer.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Donald Foster, the applicant, said when
the Albemarle County Service Authority extended water service to this area,
they made it accessible to every lot except his lot. The only way he can
connect to the system without paying $10,000 is to cross the road, get an
easement and connect on Mr. Pietsch's property. This will mean that his water
meter will sit on somebody else's lot.
Mr. Bowie again asked if the water line has been connected or if it is
just a ditch that has been dug. Mr. Foster said the ditch is there with a
pipe in it, but the water line has not been physically connected.
Mr. St. John said he does not think the record makes it clear what Mr.
Foster is seeking. Mr. Cilimberg said it is the Zoning Administrator's
determination that Mr. Foster needs a waiver of Section 32.7.5.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow for the well to continue in operation. Mr. St. John asked
if the Zoning Administrator has cited Mr. Foster for violation of the Zoning
Ordinance. Mrs. Patterson said there is quite a bit of history to this
application. She has cited Mr. Foster for several violations of the Zoning
Ordinance including occupying the building without a Certificate of Occupancy
and one of the items to be completed before she will issue the Certificate of
Occupancy is the resolution of this matter. That is why Mr. Foster is before
the Board.
Mr. St. John said the Planning Commission condition states "A certificate
of occupancy will not be issued until connection to public water is made."
The condition does not state anything about disconnecting from the existing
well. He asked if it was the Zoning Administrator's ruling that not only does
Mr. Foster have to connect to public water but also disconnect from the
private well in order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Patterson
replied "yes". For clarification, Mr. St. John asked if Mr. Foster does not
mind connecting with public water, but does not want to disconnect from the
existing well. Mrs. Patterson replied that is correct.
Mr. Foster said that he never would have drilled a well if the County had
not given him a permit. Mr. Bain commented that thr permit was granted by the
Health Department and not the County.
Mr. Paul Shoop, Director of Engineering for the Albemarle County Service
Authority, said there is more of a problem involved. If Mr. Foster's system
stays in operation and he also connects to public water there is the potential
that he will be putting water back into the system which is not allowed. Mr.
Foster said the systems are completely separate.
Mr. Tucker said the County does not have a mandatory connection policy,
but this is before the Board because it is a requirement of the plat.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the size of the water line is sufficient to cover
all of the water needs of this business. Mr. Shoop said the Service Authority
extended a 12-inch water line to Route 649 which was intended to serve all of
this community. A six-inch water line was extended for fire protection needs
and is located near the applicant's property. The Service Authority does
oppose this request because of the precedent. The water line is sufficient to
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
279
meet the applicant's needs. He is not sure what size line Mr. Foster has
trenched, but at issue now is whether Mr. Foster gets a five-eighths inch
meter for specific domestic needs or whether a one-inch meter is installed to
provide for all needs of the business. (Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 11:25
a.m.) Mr. Bowerman asked if all of the water needs could be met by a one-inch
meter through the trench. Mr. Shoop replied "yes". Mr. Foster asked if this
line could provide 4000 gallons of water in 30 minutes. That is what he is
getting with a $1900 pump. He does not think it can be done. He has worked
it out on paper. He is hauling water to drill wells. The Service Authority
cannot give him the water he needs as quickly with a one-inch meter or what-
ever it is proposing. Mr. Shoop said without taking a look at the specific
elevations, typically a one-inch meter could provide 70 gallons of water a
minute. Mr. Foster said it is humanly impossible to pump 70 gallons of water
through a one-inch meter line a minute. Mr. Shoop said the applicant may have
to install a larger line, but typically 70 gallons of water can be delivered
in a one-inch meter.
Acting as Chairman, Mr. Perkins asked the pleasure of the Board. Mr.
Bain said by the Planning Commission not granting the waiver, it means it is
already there because it is part of the ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said that is
the staff's and Zoning Administrator's interpretation. Mr. Bain asked if
there is anything in the Zoning Ordinance making it mandatory that the appli-
cant refrain from using the well. Mr. St. John said that is a ruling of the
Zoning Administrator.
Hearing no motion, the Chairman ruled that the conditions of the Planning
Commission stand.
Agenda Item No. 9. Telephone Surcharge Ordinance, set public hearing for
adoption of.
Mr. Tucker presented the following memorandum dated January 3, 1991:
"Staff has received a proposed agreement with Centel (on file in the
Clerk's office) for the development and operation of the Enhanced 911
locator system, and an update of the costs for the project. The
agreement requires your approval, and the updated costs require a
resolution to hold a public hearing on the adoption of an ordinance to
levy a telephone surcharge to fund the system.
In general, the agreement defines the responsibilities of Centel and
the County, along with the City, in developing the system, maintaining
and operating it, providing for system failures should they occur, and
listing the equipment involved. The agreement projects the start-up
date of the system (referred to as the 'cutover' date) for August 1,
1992.
The costs for the system are $2,118,000 for Centel capital costs,
$308,525 for County locator (address) system, and $303,350 in annual
operating costs. These costs calculate to be $1.39 per month per
subscriber for thirty-six months to pay the capital and locator costs,
and 40¢ per month per subscriber to pay the operating costs once the
capital costs collections have been completed. The City's costs per
subscriber will be the same for operating expenses, but will be less
per month for the capital costs due to their not having to develop a
road name and numbering system for their streets.
Staff requests your authorization for the Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors to sign the Centel agreement, and recommends you set a
public hearing on February 6, 1991, to consider adoption of an ordi-
nance (attached) levying a surcharge on telephone subscribers.
Additional information on this project is provided below.
Background
In 1987 you authorized the staff to proceed with the development of an
Enhanced 911 project through the 911 Board. City Council also author-
ized the project to proceed. Enhanced 911, you will recall, is an
automated locator system which determines the location of a caller
requesting emergency services without that caller having to provide
any information concerning their location.
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
280
The approval to proceed authorized the 911 Board to develop the
project, and authorized the County to enter into an agreement, along
with the City, with Centel to establish the system. Subsequent to the
approval, advances of $70,000 from the General Fund have been made to
commence the development of a locator system in the County. That
$70,000 is intended to be restored to the General Fund from the user
surcharge.
The 1987 approval was based upon a telephone surcharge being imposed
for the capital and operating costs, when final costs were known.
Surcharges on telephone subscribers are authorized by State code for
E-911 programs.
The monthly surcharge would commence once Centel has been notified of
the adoption of the ordinance authorizing the surcharge. It would
continue for thirty-six months once started at the start-up cost rate,
and then be adjusted downward to the operating rate. The operating
rate will be reviewed annually for accuracy, and will require periodic
adjustment to match operating costs.
Your authorization to execute the agreement, and your adoption of the
resolution of intent setting the public hearing are requested."
Mr. Way asked if the operating cost for the first three years is included
in the $1.39. Mr. Tucker said initially the cost will be included, but there
will be no operating costs until the cut-over date in 1992.
Mr. Bowerman asked what is included in the operating costs. Mr. Tucker
said the costs are to operate the Center for the E-911 system and for main-
tenance of that equipment. There is some equipment the County will actually
need in the Planning Department for updating addresses, for new development
and for streets added to the Secondary System.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Wayne Campagna, Director of the 911 Center, is
present and can answer any questions. He has reviewed the capital costs and
concluded that there are not adequate funds for the renovation of the E-911
Center which will be necessitated by the new computer equipment. To provide
that kind of renovation the Board may have to add an additional ten cents to
the $1.39 or just extend the 36-month period for another two and one-half
months. Ail of these figures are estimates and will be monitored on a monthly
basis as revenues come in. The reason this is provided in the State Code is
because this is an actual user fee. The people who use the service will pay
for it. This will be paid for by everyone who has a phone; In terms of some
of the other localities, Rockbridge County has just started and its surcharge
is $1.36, Farmville and Prince Edward County have a surcharge of $1.79, and
Buckingham County and Rappahannock County have a surcharge of $2.00. 'He does
not think this proposed surcharge is totally out of line with other areas. He
suggests that the Board hold a public hearing on this ordinance on February 6.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to set a
public hearing for February 6, 1991, on an ordinance entitled "Enhanced
Emergency Telephone Service Tax".
Mr. Bowerman asked for a breakdown of the operational costs. Using the
information provided, the operational costs appear to be a little more than
$200,000 per year. (Mr. Bowie returned at 11:43 a.m., but did not take the
chair.) Mr. Campagna said the operational costs are for the Automatic Number
Identification (ANI) routing equipment itself, which is the public safety
answering point; the maintenance of the phone system; the power supply; the
printers; and printers at remote locations that feed information to the three
rescue squads, all of the volunteer fire departments, and the police depart-
ments. In addition, the Police Department will have a full scale work station
which will allow them to pull data out of the system related to the computer
aid dispatch function of the E-911 system involving tracking; this involves
recording, all complaint information, the number of calls for service, the
amount of time expended on calls for service, and providing a recording system
of the workload required of each of the agencies. Mr. Bowerman asked if that
is all being done now. Mr. Campagna said it is done manually, it is not done
by computer and it does not encompass everything that this system will be able
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
281
to provide. The costs are also to cover maintaining a 24-hour logging r
within the Center which records every radio frequency, and every telephone
line that is used in an emergency situation. In addition, at each dispatching
console there has to be a 15- to 20-minute recording call check device so that
the dispatcher or call taker can play back recorded information on either
telephone conversation or radio transmission in case there is some bit of
communication that was missed. Mr. Bowie asked if any of this equipment
currently exists. Mr. Campagna said the Center currently has the equipment,
but this is an expansion beyond what their equipment is capable of handling.
Mr. Bowerman said he is still confused because that should all be included in
the $2.1 million capital costs. He is trying to determine what the $303,350
annual operating costs will cover. Mr. Campagna then explained what new
equipment would be provided and said maintenance for the equipment, after
initial installation, will be $25,283 per month which is the $303,350. Mr.
Tucker said it is for a lot of sophisticated equipment. Mr. Cilimberg com-
mented that the County's part of the system is not included in the figures.
Mr. Bain requested that a breakdown of the $25,283 per month costs be
available at the public hearing. Mr. Bowerman said the costs seems high.
Once the system is in operation, he cannot understand what will cost $25,000+
per month. That is a lot of money for just repair and maintenance even for
sophisticated equipment. The current system is highly automated but does not
cost that much. He thinks it is important to know.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Perkins called for the roll to be
called. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(At this time, Mr. Bowie assumed the Chair.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Status Report on Southside Transfer Station Project.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated January 3, 1991:
"At the Board's direction, three public meetings (November 20, Decem-
ber 3 and 4, 1990) were held in southside Albemarle to discuss solid
waste collection issues with citizens of that area and provide an
opportunity for the citizens to express their opinions to staff to be
summarized and reported to the Board of Supervisors. A public notice
was widely circulated in the area and advertised through a variety of
public service means. Despite adequate lead times and wide circula-
tion of the notice, attendance at the meetings was very sparse. A
total of ten citizens that had no personal involvement in solid waste
collection or disposal attended the three meetings.
The majority opinion of this small cross section of southside Albe-
marle citizens was that the County should not construct the Southside
Transfer Station and give the private collection industry an oppor-
tunity to expand into the southside Albemarle area. This activity
would of course be in conjunction with the closure of the Keene
Landfill and the green box collection area at the entrance to the
landfill. Adequate notice of the closure of this collection area (at
least 60 days) must be provided on-site and advertised prior to its
closure. Staff expects that closure of this site will be a very
difficult and drawn out affair at best. Staff also recommends that
capital funds remain in the Southside Transfer Station fund for at
least two years or until this course of action is proved to be suc-
cessfUl. Several people advocating deferral of construction of the
Southside Transfer Station lived in close proximity to the site and
had opposed construction of the facility since first proposed.
A minority opinion was also expressed that many low/fixed income
citizens would not be able to afford the cost of waste disposal and
the County's policies (i.e., increased tipping fees at the landfill
and collection through private haulers) would work a severe hardship
on these persons.
One individual requested the construction of 'green box sites' in all
rural areas of the County.
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
282
Another related area of concern that you may wish to consider is the
burning of household refuse by residents. This burning is currently
permitted under Sections 9-1, 9-21, 9-22 and 9-22.1 of the Albemarle
County Code. Imposition of tipping fees at the landfill and the
elimination of a free and easy disposal site in southside Albemarle
will undoubtedly lead to increased burning of refuse in southside
Albemarle and county-wide. While not objectionable in rural areas,
burning of refuse as permitted by the County Code could be very objec-
tionable in developed residential areas. You may, therefore, wish to
consider modification to the Code to address the issue of burning
household refuse in small lot subdivisions."
Mr. Way said he has nothing additional to add. He reluctantly agrees
with the report. He thinks it is important that funds remain for the transfer
station just in case the County finds that this will not work.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the subject of burning in small subdivisions
should be considered at another time, however, he thinks it could be handled
by allowing people to request a burning ban just as is done with leaf burning
and dogs.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Board needs to take action or is this just a
report for the Board. Mr. Tucker said the staff needs some direction on how
to handle the current large green box that is at the Keene Landfill. When and
if the Board wants to close that box and what is the target date. At least a
60 day notice will need to be given of any date the Board chooses.
Mr. Tucker said he also would like to give the County Engineer an oppor-
tunity to talk to some of the haulers. He wants to make sure that the haulers
feel that their services can cover the area.
Mr. Bowerman asked if private haulers are allowed to dump at transfer
stations. Mr. Richard Moring, County Engineer, replied "no".
Mr. Bowie said the Board needs to decide today on a date to remove the
green box. Mr. Bain said he thinks the end of the fiscal year would be a good
date. If it can be done earlier, then that is fine. Mr. Way agreed.
Motion was them offeredbyMr. Balm to authorize the removal of the green
box collection area at the entrance to the Keene Landfill by the end of the
1990-91 fiscal year. Mr. Way said he would suggest that when the green box is
removed that the County continue to keep some money available for somebody to
clean up the area.
Mr. Bowie suggested that the whole issue be resolved by the end of the
fiscal year, get it closed and provide re-education. Mr. Moring said the
Board also needs to consider that as long as the County is providing a free
place for people to dispose of the trash, the people will use that area.
Mr. Way suggested that the green box .be removed by June 1 and that would
give another month of operating funds to see what happens. Mr. Bain amended
his motion to authorize the removal of the green box collection area at the
entrance to the Keene Landfill by June 1, 1991. Mr. Bower~mn seconded the
motion.
Mr. Way emphasized that adequate signage be posted to inform the people
when the green box is to be removed. There being no further discussion, roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Concerning burning in small lot subdivisions, Mrs. Humphris asked if the
consensus of the Board is that it wait until people bring them the problem an¢
then address the issue. She thinks the Board should take the initiative
before it gets to be a problem. Mr. Bowie said he is concerned about address-
ing something that is only a conceived problem. He then suggested that the
staff check on something similar to the dog leash ordinance being expanded to
include open air burning and that the information be provided at the February
13 meeting.
283
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff is studying the issue of transfer stations
and §teen boxes. Mr. Tucker said staff has done some work on it. The Keene
Transfer Station was to be the initial transfer station. During review of the
Comprehensive Plan, staff looked at six different areas in the County that
could have green boxes. No funding or program for implementation of any of
those has started, but a master plan and general location plan has been done.
There are a lot of problems that have to be considered with transfer stations,
i.e., recycling, tipping fees, etc.
Mr. Bain said if the Board finds this is a major problem in six months,
then he feels the issue can be addressed at that time, but the Board will have
to rely on the private haulers to educate the people.
Mr. 5owie said he agrees with Mr. Bain. He does not think the County is
walking away from the problem and will just have to wait and see what happens.
Mrs. Humphris said she is looking at this optimistically. The haulers
are trying to work together and they realize the situation. She trusts
private enterprise and if there is a profit to be made they are going to be
seeking new customers and hauling trash in the most efficient way. She thinks
that for now the Board needs to leave private enterprise alone and let them
work on it. She also believes that the vast majority of the residents are
responsible citizens and will assume this responsibility.
Mr. Bowie agreed and said he thinks that most of the people will comply
with the system. There was no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 10. Personnel Policy: Acceptable Attendance, revision
of.
Dr. Carole A. Hastings, Director of Personnel/Human Resources, presented
the following memorandum dated December 4, 1990:
"Attached please find a revision to the Sick Leave/Acceptable Atten-
dance policy. As you know, the current policy was approved in Novem-
ber of 1989 and was the first time that attendance standards were
defined. In June, 1990, classified and administrative employees were
evaluated for the first time on their attendance. The 1990 to 1991
school year would have been the first year that career ladder teachers
were affected by the attendance standard. In September, the School
Board removed acceptable attendance as a sole criteria that could
disqualify a teacher from the career ladder. Thus no career ladder
teachers were removed from the career ladder due to attendance pro-
blems. On September 25, the School Board referred the policy back to
the Joint Personnel Policy Committee with the purpose being to address
concerns raised by teachers. Classified employees also expressed
concern about having attendance factored into their evaluations and
thus affecting their score.
The attached revision is the result of the Joint Personnel Policy
Committee's work on this issue. Essentially, the change does the
following:
1)
deletes the present standards that specify acceptable attendance,
a monitoring range, and unacceptable attendance;
2)
deletes the current limitations on leave granted for death in the
immediate family;
3)
places the responsibility for monitoring attendance on the
principal/department head.
If an employee misses more than four percent of their available work
time due to sick leave over a three year period, the principal or
department head will have to assure their evaluator that they have
investigated the situation and taken appropriate action if necessary.
Finally, although this is not a policy decision, the Committee recom-
mends that attendance not be factored into the final evaluation score.
January 9, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
284
Rather a question should appear on the evaluation 'Is this employee's
attendance acceptable?' If it is not, a plan should be developed to
address the problem."
Dr. Hastings said other than comments about the drug policy, the accept-
able attendance policy has received the most comments from staff. The Joint
Personnel Policy Committee feels that the policy in terms of what is accept-
able is too restrictive and that it did not leave an individual manager enough
leeway to assess individual employee situations. She has been providing more
data to supervisors, the County Executive and School Superintendent regarding
employee absenteeism. During last fiscal year, sick leave usage decreased in
local government and the School system by 16 percent over the previous year.
Mr. Bowie asked if she thought the fact that attendance counted in evaluations
had something to do with the decrease. Dr. Hastings said "yes" and that the
increased attention to this matter created an awareness on the employee's
part.
Dr. Hastings said this policy has been discussed extensively and the
feeling of all the department heads, principals, etc., is that they believe
that through increased education and awareness, this new proposal could work
rather than the current more restrictive policy. She will continue with the
reporting on a monthly basis and the people who are evaluating supervisors
will have this information as a factor for review.
Mr. Bain said the memo states that the School Board removed this as a
sole criteria issue. He did not think that if a teacher missed a certain
number of days it automatically took them out of the career ladder program.
Dr. Hastings replied "yes", the original career ladder.manual included accept-
able attendance as defined. If a person had missed more than four percent of
leave time over a three year period and that was not due to long term illness,
then they would be out of the career ladder program.
Mr. Bain said it bothers him that the only reason this is being proposed
is because the teachers were unhappy with the policy. Dr. Hastings said
classified employees also were not happy that this was used in the evaluation
process. One way to deal with the issue is by adding points to the evaluation
if the person does not miss any days and that way it becomes a positive
reinforcement.
Mr. Bowie said he has a lot of problems with attendance not being a
factor of the evaluation. Dr. Hastings said this proposal has had only one
reading by the School Board and has not yet been approved.
Mr. Bain said he has no problem with the clause concerning death in the
family, but to go to this policy is very nebulous.
Mr. Bowie said he agrees with the current policy and that if there is a
three year trend then the teacher should not be in the career ladder program.
Dr. Hastings said since this was removed as a criteria, the issue about the
career ladder has already been taken care of. This proposal has to do with
the evaluation process.
Mr. Perkins said he likes the approach of using the positive aspect of
providing points on the evaluation if an employee has good attendance which he
thinks should also apply to school teachers. If a teacher is at work, the
County does not have to engage a substitute teacher which in turn is money
saved which could be passed along.
Mr. Tucker suggested that it may be appropriate to discuss this with the
School Board at the meeting this afternoon. Mr. Bowie agreed.
Mr. Bowerman commented that this policy was adopted before he was a
member of the Board. He asked if the reason the policy was adopted was
because of a problem. Dr. Hastings said the County did have a problem. Mr.
Bowerman asked if supervisory personnel have a way to effectively deal with
the problem. Dr. Hastings said "yes" but they did not have a policy that
defined that ability. Some of the supervisors were dealing with the problem
on evaluations and others were not. Mr. Bowerman asked if the County dealt
with the supervisors who did not deal with the problem. Dr. Hastings said in
January 9, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
285
some cases. Mr. Tucker said the reporting mechanism that has been instituted
has helped because now the supervisors get a report on a monthly basis of not
only how many days, but also what patterns might be occurring.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the awareness of including attendance on the
evaluations has brought the problem to the forefront and had a lot to do with
the decrease. He does not think this is emphasizing the negativity of the
policy.
Mr. Bowie said it is evident that the County had a problem, a policy was
instituted and the problem improved. He is not inclined to think there is no
longer a problem. He can understand why employees do not want this on their
evaluation forms. His opinion is that the policy should remain as it is.
Mr. Bain said it is a question of why these employees are absent. If the
reasons are legitimate, he has no problem with that and he thinks the supervi-
sor should be able to handle that. He is not saying it should be the sole
criteria. The reason these teachers are in the career ladder program is
because they are willing to make that extra effort. That is a personal choice
for the teachers. This policy encourages communication within the department.
Mr. Bain suggested that the Board defer making a decision on the policy
until discussion with the School Board later this afternoon.
At 12:30 p.m., the Board adjourned for lunch. At this time, motion was
also offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to meet for Executive
Session at 1:30 p.m., for discussion of personnel pertaining to specific
individuals (Section 2.1-344.A.1). Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
The meeting reconvened at 1:53 P.M. with all Board members present.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to
certify the Executive Session as follows:
CERTIFICATION OF ]~XECUTIVE M~.~TING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES:
Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr.
Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Nonel
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None
January 9, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
286
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Fiscal Resources Committee.
Mr, Bowie said the terms for all members of this committee expired
December 31, 1990. Staff indicates that staff support will no longer be
available. He said that Mr. Bill Kehoe, Chairman of the Committee, suggested
that the Committee might serve as a liaison with the public during the budget
process. Mr. Bowie agreed that that might be a suitable purpose for the
continuation of this committee. He indicated that Mr. Kehoe feels there is a
danger of the loss of independent objectivity should this committee become a
standing commitee and feels that it is better to extend the committee's term
for a definite purpose.
Mrs. Humphris said the problem with a six-month extension is determining
whether all the committee members are willing to continue serving. If not,
other appointments will need to be made.
Mr. Bowie suggested that each Supervisor talk with their respective
appointees to determine whether there is an interest in reappointment for a
six-month term. Recommendations may then be made for appointments on
February 6. Mr. Bain said it should be made clear that there will be no staff
support available.
Mr. Bowie said he would be happy to write a letter to Mr. Kehoe stating
the Board's plans and that there will be no staff support.
There were no objections from Board members.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Crozet Housing Committee.
Mr. Cilimberg said this item is on the agenda in response to a request
from Mr. Perkins that an advisory committee be formed to work as a liaison
between the developer of the Crozet Crossing Project and the community of
Crozet. He stressed the fact that the committee is to be advisory only and
does not have approval authority. He said staff originally suggested that
this advisory committee meet with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program on
a monthly basis. However, quarterly meetings may be more feasible because
AHIP is required to make quarterly reports to the Department of Housing and
Community Development. The advisory committee could then receive documented
information at the same time. The purpose of the committee is to provide
input and comments on issues related to design elements as the project pro-
gresses and to provide a community source for disseminating information on the
status of the project in order to avoid misunderstanding.
Mr. Cilimberg said there will be a separate selection committee who is
actually involved with the selection of homeowners. The advisory committee
will not have a part in the selection process.
Mr. Perkins said he feels that staff's recommendation for representatives
from the Orchard Acres and Blue Ridge Avenue area is good. He would like to
see one person from each community, along with himself, the White Hall Dis-
trict Planning Commission member and the President of the Crozet Community
Association. Mr. Perkins said he will be happy to make recommendations to the
Board for the community representatives.
Mr. Perkins said he would also like to see a member of the Planning staff
on the selection committee. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not think that will be
a problem in terms of the grant, but he will confirm it with Mr. Benish.
Mr. Bowie said appointments can be made next week when Mr. Perkins makes
his recommendations.
Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: TJPDC Regional Housing Strategy
Advisory Panel.
Mr. Bowie said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission has
requested that the Board appoint two representatives to this joint advisory
panel. There were a number of applications received for the County's Housing
Committee, and the suggestion has been made that Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowerman,
287
January 9, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
members of the TJPDC, review those applications and suggest two names to the
Board for appointment next week.
There were no objections from Board members to this suggestion.
Agenda Item No. 15a. Work Session: Draft of a Water Resource Protection
Areas Ordinance.
Mr. Peyton Robertson, Watershed Management Official, reviewed the process
followed by staff since the Board adopted a resolution of intent on May 9,
1990, to move forward with the designation of resource protection areas in the
County. The Resource Protection Areas Work Group was formed with the primary
focus of looking at how to draft an ordinance to designate resource protection
areas. The group put together a conceptual idea of how protection areas might
be mapped, using the Chesapeake Bay regulations regarding resource protection
areas. Another work component of the group was to identify issues and deter-
mine the concerns of various interest groups. Mr. Robertson said an informa-
tion workshop was held on July 20, including such groups as the Albemarle
County Farm Bureau, members of the development community, consultants, the
League of Women Voters, the Piedmont Environmental Council, Citizens for
Albemarle, the Department of Forestry and the Southern Environmental Law
Center. He said the purpose of the workshop was to explain the Chesapeake Bay
Regulations. Following that meeting, the work group discussed the issues
identified at the workshop and began modifying the draft maps and narrowing
the categories to be included in the resource protection areas. Following
that, Mr. Robertson began drafting an ordinance based on models throughout the
State. The work group reviewed the draft and made revisions. The revised
draft was sent to everyone in attendance at the information workshop. Re-
sponses were then incorporated into various drafts, resulting in the version
being presented today.
Mr. Robertson said the Best Management Practices for Water Resources
Protection Manual (BMP) resulted from discussions with the agricultural and
development communities regarding the evaluation of buffer area reductions and
technical considerations. Existing manuals contain practices which some feel
should not be included locally. The idea is to have a technical advisory
group develop a local manual, drawing from existing sources. The manual can
be developed when resources are available and when such guidance is given by
the Board.
Mr. Robertson said the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department Emer-
gency Regulations have been issued and signed by the Governor, but do not
affect Albemarle County since this locality is not required to implement the
Regulations.
Mr. Bain asked what time frame is expected for completing the maps and
the administrative mechanics. Mr. Robertson said the ordinance may be adopted
effective July 1. In the meantime, the administrative mechanics, the manual
and the maps can be developed. He said if a technical work group is to
develop a BMP manual, the group must be formed and a deadline set.
Mr. Bain asked if the farming implementation is effective at the same
time. Mr. Robertson said the concept of developing soil and water quality
conservation plans in order to reduce the buffer area 25 feet will take some
time, depending on the technical resources available. The hope is that it
will coincide with the 1995 farm bill.
Mr. Bowie said one of the concerns of citizens is whether fencing of
livestock from streams is required. Mr. Robertson said that has been one of
the biggest issues of concern. He said fencing is not a requirement. Hay and
pasture land meet the definition of a buffer area. However, language was
added to say that hay and pasture land is to be managed in accordance with the
manual.
Mr. Perkins asked how much duplication of existing County regulations is
included in this draft ordinance. Mr. Tucker said there are areas which are
similar to existing ordinances, such as the Run-off Control and Stormwater
Detention Ordinances. He said they are not totally duplicated. This draft is
an expansion of the existing ordinances.
January 9, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
288
Mr. Bain asked if the existing ordinances will be incorporated into this
one. Mr. Tucker said the Zoning Department is compiling a development hand-
book containing all of the ordinances for a citizen's convenience. The next
goal is to incorporate similar ordinances into one. However, that is the
second phase and will require a great deal of work.
Mr. Perkins said he will be surprised if this work is finished with the
number of people suggested. He asked the cost benefit ratio of implementing
this ordinance. If Albemarle County takes all of these steps to protect water
resources, how much of an impact will that have on the Chesapeake Bay compared
to what the County is currently doing. He feels that existing soil types
contribute to the erosion regardless of the protection measures taken and that
farmers are doing as good a job as they can do, regardless of additional
regulations. Mr. Robertson said the buffer area requirements enhance the
current Run-off Control Ordinance by defining what the buffer area is intended
to do and how it is to function. He said the idea of implementing this under
the Cheasapeake Bay Preservation Act is to use the authority of the law for
local water resource protection. He said it is difficult to determine the
impact on the Chesapeake Bay, but the goal is to improve local water resourc-
es. Mr. Tucker added that the impact to the Chesapeake Bay is a cumulative
effect by efforts throughout the State. Therefore, it would be difficult to
determine the cost benefit ratio.
Mrs. Humphris said it is important to emphasize that the benefit is for
this locality first, and secondly for the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Bowie asked if additional personnel will be needed. Mr. Tucker said
it is envisioned that no additional personnel will be needed. Obviously, it
is possible that unforeseen needs may become apparent, but none are expected
'at this point.
Mr. St. John said he feels that the handbook should be available at the
public hearing on the ordinance. Mr. Bowie agreed.
Mr. Robertson said the BMP manual is not a regulatory document. It is
simply a menu of options by which the landowner can meet the requirements of
the ordinance. He said it is a technical resource used to evaluate whether
the performance criteria are met.
Mr. St. John said that even so, the handbook is vitally important to
anyone who must comply with the ordinance.
Mr. Bain suggested that staff come back to the Board with a report of
what will be included in the manual. At that time, a public hearing date can
be set. Mr. Tucker said staff can report to the Board in March on the status
of the manual.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to defer
action on the draft ordinance until March 13, at which time staff will report
on the status of the BMP manual.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Way. (Mr. Way said he is voting against this motion because at
this point he is not interested in proceeding with this ordinance.)
Mr. St. John noted that there is a committee proposed for the preparation
of the manual. If that is the case, a committee will need to be appointed
soon. Mr. Tucker said staff can present names to the Board next week for
appointment.
Agenda Item No. 15b. Southwest Mountain Rural Historic District.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Department of Historic Resources is pursuing the
preparation of a National Register nomination for the Southwest Mountain Rural
Historic District. In 1989, the Piedmont Environmental Council completed its
natural resource and historic preservation study of the Southwest Mountain
January 9, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
289
area of Albemarle. One of the recommendations of that study is that the
Southwest Mountain area be nominated to become a Virginia and a National Rural
Historic District. Since this Board endorsed the concept of such a district
in 3uly, 1988, potential boundaries of the district have been prepared and
funding is available to hire a consultant. The Department of Historic Re-
sources has budgeted $10,000 of federal money from the Park Service for this
purpose. Since the money is available for use during the year ending Septem-
ber 30, 1991, requests for proposals will be sent out this week by the Depart-
ment of Historic Resources. The consultant who is selected will submit the
proposed boundaries to the Department of Historic Resources.
Mr. Cilimberg said the impact of this district is simply one of recogniz-
ing the historic significance of a particular area. He said that no land use
implications are involved. Staff is requesting confirmation from the Board of
Supervisors of its support for the efforts of the Department of Historic
Resources and endorsement of the contract with a consultant.
Mr. Cilimberg said prior to a public hearing by the Department of Histor-
ic Resources, staff will report to the Board of Supervisors the results of the
consultant's work.
Mr. Cilimberg said with the Board's concurrence of this District, he will
appoint Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner, to work with the Piedmont Envi-
ronmental Council, the consultant, and the Department of Historic Resources.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representative from Piedmont Environmental Council,
handed out copies of the tentative boundaries for the proposed District. She
explained that the red line is the proposed boundary. The yellow line is the
one which Piedmont Environmental Council opposed.
Mr. Bowie asked if there are objections from Board members to the South-
west Mountain Rural Historic District. There were no objections from Board
members.
(Mr. St~ John left the meeting at 2:53 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 15c. Work Session: Community Facilities Plan (an
amendment proposal for the Comprehensive Plan).
Mr. Cilimberg said during the Comprehensive Plan work sessions, the
Community Facilities Plan was identified as one of the action agenda projects
to ultimately be adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He said
work actually began on the Community Facilities Plan before the Comprehensive
Plan was completed. Mr. Cilimberg said the resources used for establishing
standards in the Facilities Plan include existing governmental standards,
information from professional sources and information from other localities.
He pointed out that this Plan does not include all facilities that may ulti-
mately be adopted. It does include facilities under the sections of Police,
Schools, Parks and Recreation, Libraries, and Fire and Emergency Medical
Services. Facilities for Solid Waste Disposal and the County administrative
offices are not included until the completion of the State's allocation study.
Mr. Cilimberg stressed the fact that overall goals and objectives for all
public facilities are included. Included with each type of facility is a list
of service objectives and standards. Mr. Cilimberg said a needs assessment is
included in each section based on the standards. He said this Plan will be a
part of the annual review of the Comprehensive Plan so that amendments may be
made if necessary.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said the Plan contains
facility objectives which generally reflect the County's growth management
policies. Other objectives derive from common practices that have not previ-
ously been reduced to writing. These objectives apply to any future facili-
ties as well. Mr. Benish noted that the service objectives in each section
establish the expected levels of service. The recommended strategies are
divided into service and facility standards. These are specific standards
related to the design of the facilities. The needs assessment is based on the
current perceived demand and the demand over the next 10 years, applying the
standards previously set. The next section contains specific recommendations
for projects.
January 9, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
290
Mr. Bowie asked about the recommendation for hiring additional police
officers shown on Page 13 as 2.0 officers per resident. Mr. Benish said that
is a typographical error and the correct figure is 0.2 officer per resident.
Mr. Tucker said this figure is in accord with State standards. He said this
is a goal to be met in ten years.
Mrs. Humphris said she is not sure that these recommendations should be
geared to State standards if they are not realistic for Albemarle. In addi-
tion, the Police Department indicates that Albemarle County does not require
that ratio of officers because the level of crime does not demand it. Mr.
Cilimberg said the Chief of Police supported the standard as an ultimate goal
at the Planning Commission hearing. He pointed out that staff relied on input
from the Police Department for this recommendation.
Mr. Bowie said the Plan should project what is actually needed in
Albemarle County, since the Plan may possibly become the basis for some
proffered zoning. Mr. Benish said that is staff's intention by this goal.
said he will contact the Chief of Police and modify this figure to a more
realistic expectation for this County.
He
Mr. Bowie asked about recommendation #4 on Page 13 to relocate the
practice firing range. He said the range has been reoriented and the current
site is now suitable. Mr. Benish said at the time the Plan was prepared, the
Police Department indicated that the current range is a temporary facility and
may need to be relocated. The recommendation is to determine the next best
location. Mr. Bowie said the opposition has been dropped. He feels this site
is the most suitable location in a five-county area.
Mr. Benish re-emphasized that the service objectives and standards are
the basis for the needs assessment and the ultimate recommendations. For
example, the service objectives and standards will be applied to the site
plans for a new school.
Mr. Tucker said he recently learned that the School Board has not totally
reviewed and accepted this Plan and will need an opportunity to do so.
Mr. Bowerman asked the source of the standards included for schools. Mr.
Benish said most come from existing policies.
Mr. Cilimberg said the School's Long Range Planning Committee is recon-
sidering some of the existing standards at the present time. He pointed out
that the Facilities Plan may be amended after the Long Range Planning Commit-
tee makes recommendations if that is necessary.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the parking space recommendations for high
schools. She feels that the wording appears to encourage students to drive.
Mr. Cilimberg said the parking space recommendations are to cover events that
occur at the school and for the ultimate use of the facility, although that is
not noted in the language.
Mr. Perkins noted that some of the capital projects included have been
recently changed, and the Plan needs to be amended to reflect those changes.
Mrs. Humphris said she thought the Whitewood Road Park should be
included. Mr. Benish said the Whitewood Road Park is shown in the Open Space
Plan, rather than the Parks and Recreation section.
Mr. Tucker suggested that amendments mentioned by the Board members today
be made and brought back for Board review. Mr. Bowerman suggested that a work
session be scheduled to review the Plan before the public hearing date is set.
Possibly the Chief of Police or the Director of Parks and Recreation, for
example, could be present to answer questions.
Mr. Bowie said he found the document difficult to use as a planning aid
and he feels that it is too wordy. Mr. Bowerman suggested that an executive
summary be included. Mr. Cilimberg said he feels it would be helpful to have
the standards listed in one section together.
January 9, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
291
Mr. Bain questioned the need for the statement on Page 36 that each
County Park is to have a service area of seven miles. He suggested that only
one or two sections of this Plan be considered at each work session.
Mrs. Humphris said she would like to see facts included rather than
educational philosophy.
Mr. Perkins asked if it is necessary to include information about private
schools, private recreational facilities and private security guards. He
feels that these have an impact on public facilities and may need to be
included here if the information is available. Mr. Cilimberg said the private
recreational facilities are listed in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Board agreed to schedule afternoon work sessions on this Plan before
the two night meetings in February.
Agenda Item No. 17. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board Members.
Mr. Bowie said there are two proposed resolutions for the Board's consid-
eration regarding new legislation. The first refers to transfer development
rights. The Legislative liaison, Ms. Martha Hogshire, feels it would be
helpful to have a formal resolution to hand out.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain adopting the
following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, Albemarle County wishes to preserve open space and
maintain the environmental and scenic integrity of the Blue Ridge
Mountains and its foothills; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County wishes to concentrate development in
designated growth areas with the requisite infrastructure and public
facilities according to its Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that to further these goals, the
Board of Supervisors strongly supports enabling legislation that would
allow the use of Transfer Development Rights and other growth manage-
ment tools in Albemarle County.
Mr. Bowie said the second resolution refers to roll back taxes on land.
He said this was one of many items included in the legislative package, but
not one in which the Board expressed primary interest. He said the Farm
Bureau has taken no position on this item.
There was no motion offered to adopt such a resolution.
Mr. Bain said there is a growth management seminar scheduled for Monday,
January 14 at 2:00 P.M. in Richmond. Several legislators will be present to
discuss growth management issues. He said it is part of the state-wide
Planning District reception before the General Assembly begins.
Mr. Bain said he has received inquiries from citizens regarding the newly
adopted False Alarm Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said he asked the County Attorney
and the Chief of Police to again review the ordinance. He feels that an
amendment may be necessary to clarify the language. The County Attorney has
requested an opinion from the Attorney General regarding the privacy issue.
Mr. Bowerman said he received a call regarding the recycling containers
on McIntire Road. Mr. Tucker said repairs were made to the pavement area
several weeks ago. The present complaint is that the container for receiving
January 9, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
293
Hastings explained that the career ladder program for teachers is a separate
issue.
Mr. Bowie said there has been a problem with absenteeism, and it does not
seem appropriate to drop the policy in light of the 16 percent decline in
absenteeism. However, he recognizes, that absenteeism should not be the sole
criteria for evaluation. He feels that supervisors should have a definite
"yardstick" for measuring employee performance.
Mr. Haury said the School Board may need to consider the application of
this policy differently for teachers than classified employees.
Mr. Bowie said that is a decision for the School Board. However, Board
members have expressed their feeling that attendance should be part of the
evaluation for professional teachers in the career ladder program. Mr. Bain
agreed that one of the problems with absenteeism has been with teachers. He
recalled that Albemarle County was above the national average of absenteeism
among teachers several years ago. However, he does not feel that absenteeism
should be the sole criteria, but it should be a factor.
Mr. Bagby said he recalls that the concern about this policy is the lack
of discretion on the part of the supervisor.
Mr. Ward said that one teacher reported that she was penalized in her
performance review for coming back to work after a short-term illness and
would have been better off to have taken a long-term absence. He feels that
discretion should be included. Mr. Bain agreed that supervisors need some
flexibility. However, he feels that it is good to have the guidelines set out
with a paragraph included which addresses employees who have stellar atten-
dance, whether they are classified, administrative or teachers.
Mr. Bowie asked if the policy can be rewritten so that the guidelines
remain, but discretion for extenuating circumstances is given to supervisors.
Dr. Hastings said the guidelines can be left in with a statement saying that
the supervisor may make allowances for situations that exceed the guidelines.
She suggested that these ideas be taken back to the Joint Policy Committee for
discussion and amendment and brought back to the Board in a month.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the idea of a reward for good attendance can be
handled. Dr. Hastings said that will be included in the amended version of
the policy.
Mr. Bowie said the Board of Supervisors thought it would be appropriate
to discuss this with the School Board since this item was on the morning
agenda. Mr. Ward said this item is on the School Board's agenda next week,
and he would like to discuss it more at that time.
Agenda Item No. 16a. Presentation: Salary Survey.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Brandenburger will make a presentation on the method-
ology of the survey. Mr. Tucker and Mr. English will then make recommenda-
tions to the Board as to implementation of the survey.
Mr. Brandenburger said the initial step in the study was to establish
compensation goals for a pay and classification structure. The County should
be competitive with its market. In the past, market surveys targeted the
competitiveness based on the entry level pay range. Private businesses
generally target the mid-point of the pay range and that was a goal of this
survey. Mr. Brandenburger noted that he is not addressing individual salaries
of existing employees. He is addressing the position itself and the range in
which it is placed. Mr. Brandenburger said that in addition to surveying
salaries, the total compensation package was considered. In the County, total
compensation includes the pay for performance program which has a bonus factor
as well as vesting rights. Of the benefits provided, medical costs are the
predominant factor.
Another significant factor in the study is the issue of internal equity.
Mr. Brandenburger said that each employee is currently assessing the results
of the survey as to whether they feel their position is fair compared to the
January 9, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
292
newspapers is unstable, but the problem cannot be corrected until the weather
improves.
Mrs. Humphris said she is on the Board of CAC3, which made a request to
the City Council to make this repair. She said CAC3 feels the County has done
more than its share by providing office space, clerical support and by the
paving just done. She feels that the County should take no action at this
time because this is a matter for City Council.
Mr. Bowie noted for the benefit of the media that the crime rate in
Albemarle County has dropped again. He extended congratulations to the Police
Department for their efforts.
The meeting recessed at 3:35 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 16. Joint Meeting with the School Board.
The meeting reconvened in Rooms 5/6 at 4:01 P.M. with all Board members
present. School Board members present were Messrs. Richard A. Bagby (arrived
at 4:08 P.M.), William W. Finley, Clifford W. Haury, Charles S. Martin (ar-
rived at 4:10 P.M.), Roger R. Ward and Mrs. Sharon Wood. Mrs. Patricia L.
Moore was absent.
Also present was Mr. John J. English, Superintendent of Schools; Mr.
Robert Brandenburger, Pay Study Coordinator; and Dr. Carole Hastings, Director
of Personnel/Human Resources.
Agenda Item No. 16b. Urban Area School Site. Mr. Bowie said he is
taking up this item first at the request of the School Board so that Mr.
Martin, Chairman of the School Board, may be present for the Salary Survey
discussion.
Mr. Tucker explained that this item is on the agenda for clarification.
At the Capital Improvements Program public hearing, it was pointed out that
sufficient funds were not included for land acquisition of the urban area
elementary school. At the CIP hearing, Mr. Tucker informed the Board that
staff would submit an amendment to the CIP when the bids are received on this
project in early March. He said there has been a change in the road plans as
well. Mr. Tucker said he plans to make one amendment to the CIP and prefers
to wait until the final figures are available. He expects the necessary funds
to be appropriated by the Board in early March as well.
Mrs. Wood said the School Board wanted to officially hear that the urban
school site is taken care of.
Agenda Item No. 10. Personnel Policy: Acceptable Attendance, discussion
of.
Mr. Bowie said the Board discussed this item in its morning session and
decided to defer it for discussion with the School Board. He said a number of
Board members feel that attendance is an appropriate criteria for evaluation.
He asked Dr. Hastings to brief the School Board on the earlier presentation.
Dr. Hastings said the recommendation is to delete the restrictive refer-
ence to percentages of time and place the responsibility on the employee's
supervisor to make the judgement as to whether or not the employee's atten-
dance is acceptable. She said the County experienced a 16 percent decline in
employee absenteeism for the last fiscal year. The Board of Supervisors felt
that the guideline was appropriate and that some supervisors need that type of
structure. The Board of Supervisors was amenable to recognizing employees
with good attendance in a positive way as well. Having attendance factored
into the evaluation might be offset by rewarding people who have good atten-
dance with extra points. The Board's feeling was to leave the policy as it is
and to work on adding a positive element to recognize good attendance, as
opposed to taking out the fixed percentages currently in the policy. Dr.
January 9, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
294
rest of the positions in the organization. He said the external salary issues
and internal fairness both must be considered.
Mr. Brandenburger said that some flexibility is necessary in order to be
responsive to changes in the external market and internal market. In the
past, salary surveys were done every three years and changes in the pay and
classification plan were generally postponed until the three-year surveys were
completed. By doing the survey in-house, the County can respond to needs for
changes in salaries on an on-going basis.
The last objective of the survey was to maintain a viable pay for perfor-
mance program. He said the program has been well-received by employees
because of bonus payments and vesting rights. Being a viable program which
rewards outstanding performance and motivates continued performance depends on
whether or not the bonus is significant enough to elicit the desired response
from an employee.
Mr. Brandenburger said in 1987 a consultant completed a salary study and
made recommendations regarding the pay and classification plan. As a result
of that review, approximately 122 positions were reclassified upward, 42
positions had no change and 11 were downgraded~ The consultants left an
evaluation methodology which is being used with some modifications in the
current study. In 1988/89, the reclassification was implemented as a result
of the 1987 study, with no overall pay scale adjustment. The bonus pool for
that particular year was six and one-half percent. In 1989/90, there were no
significant reclassifications, but the pay scale was adjusted by two and
one-half percent, and there was a five percent bonus pool. In the past fiscal
year, 1990/91, there was a two and one-half percent pay scale adjustment and a
three percent bonus pool.
The general scale increase for competitors of the County has been between
four and five per cent per year. Over the three-year period since the last
salary survey, there has been over a 12 percent increase in the base scales
for most of the County's competitors. The cumulative effect on the base scale
for the County over the past three years as described above is about five
percent. The County is an average of 7.5 percent below the market for base
scales. Last year a recommendation was made for a 10 percent scale adjustment
to catch up to the market. At that time, there were a number of positions
that were more than 10 percent belOw the market, some positions equal to the
market and positions which were above the market. The Board's feeling at that
time was that a 10 percent increase to the scale would not address the imbal-
ances in classification and action was postponed until the current pay study
could be completed. Instead of looking at a general scale increase, the
approach at this time is to look at reclassifications to address the 10
percent difference with the County's competitors.
Mr. Brandenburger said there are problems which result from not maintain-
ing competitive salary scales. He said the County has experienced an erosion
in the entry level pay ranges each year. By not allowing new people to be
hired above the first few steps of the pay range, there has been degradation
in the quality of applicants. The County has also had top candidates withdraw
their applications because of salary issues or leave the County's employment
within a few days because of a better paying position. He said the turnover
figure in local government for the last two years has been about 13 percent.
In the School Division the turnover figure was 17 percent two years ago and 23
percent this past year for classified employees. Mr. Brandenburger noted that
this whole presentation is relative to classified employees and does not
address teachers in any context. He said that salaries have a significant
impact on turnovers.
Mr. Brandenburger outlined the steps he followed in accomplishing the
survey. An external market survey was completed on benchmark positions.
These are jobs that are roughly the same in a competitive market. He said
that salary ranges for positions were surveyed as well as benefit information.
He said benefits include the employer cost for health plans, sick leave, paid
holidays, etc. An internal job evaluation analysis was also completed using
the methodology of the prior consultant to establish an internal value for
each position as it relates to the organization. Next, the internal and
external evaluations were combined. He said the focus is on the position and
what it takes to do the job and not on the individual.
January 9, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
295
The survey sampled businesses within a 50 miles radius of Charlottes-
ville. For managerial positions, the radius was expanded. He said the
Northern Virginia and Tidewater areas were not surveyed. He said 35 locali-
ties and school divisions, some Federal agencies, and 17 local private busi-
nesses were surveyed.
Mr. Brandenburger said there are certain factors in each job used to
determine the internal value of a position. Every job has a knowledge level
required to perform the job, a level of supervision, and a level of decision-
making used to measure each position. He said that two critical elements in
determining internal equity were not addressed through the survey questions.
The number of people supervised and whether the position requires budgetary
responsibilities should be factored into the assessment of a position. Mr.
Brandenburger said employees and their supervisors were involved in the survey
through questionnaires.
The recommendations have been diSseminated to department heads and
administrators for review and to the employees as well. He said it is un-
likely that all 230 positions will be satisfactory to everyone. There will be
an allowance for input and rebuttals to the results of the study. Those
appeals will be reviewed before final recommendations are made.
Mr. Finley asked if a vested bonus is reflected in the salary survey.
Mr. Brandenburger said the bonus system does not necessarily affect all
employees. The survey reflects the pay scale itself and not the salary for an
individual position.
Mr. Bowie said the pay scale and what a specific employee actually makes
are two different issues. He said increases in salaries to reward performance
have nothing to do with what a particular position on the scale is paid when
the employee is hired. He agreed that it is difficult to separate the two
issues. The pay system rewards an individual, and when that individual leaves
the employment of the County, a replacement is hired by the pay scale, not by
the previous individual's salary. He noted that salary increases of 20.5
percent have been made overall, although Mr. Brandenburger is referring to
adjustments to the pay scale only of 12 percent.
Mr. Finley said he thought that once vesting occured, it became part of
the scale. Mr. Brandenburger said it becomes part of the individual's base
salary. Mr. Bowie said when that employee leaves, the scale is still what it
was when he started, although the employee may have moved up the scale through
vesting. The point is that some of the figures on the scale are too low and
some are too high.
Mr. Way asked about the benefits portion of the salary survey. Mr.
Brandenburger said one significant area where the County is not as competitive
as the market is in the area of employer contribution to health insurance.
Currently the County contributes $900 per year, which has not changed for the
past two years. Most other organizations are paying significantly more than
that regardless of the type of health plan subscribed to. He said there are a
number of school jurisdictions which are paying 100 percent of single coverage
in the health plans, and some also off-set family coverage. The health issue
has a more profound impact on employees in the salary range of $8000 or below.
When health insurance rates increase, the impact is greater on the lower
ranges. Last year when the Blue Cross/Blue Shield rate increased, even with a
scale adjustment, employees making approximately $8500 broke even on single
coverage. Employees having family coverage realized a net reduction in take
home pay. Preliminary information from Blue Cross/Blue Shield indicates
another 10 to 15 percent increase in insurance rates is projected. He said a
10 percent increase in insurance would amount to an additional $10 per month
for KeyCare III single coverage. Employees are currently paying $30 per month
for that coverage. Regarding other benefits, the County's Beneplus program
provides a distinct advantage when compared to other employers. However, that
program is not a good off-set for the insurance rates.
Mr. Bagby asked how many positions are affected by the current salary
survey. Mr. Brandenburger said out of 230 positions in the School Division
and local government, only one position is recommended for downgrading. There
are 48 positions recommended for no change. There are 81 positions recommend-
ed for a one-range change, and the remaining positions are recommended for
January 9, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
296
changes between two and five steps. Mr. Brandenburger said that three years
ago when the survey was done, the County's scale was more competitive.
Currently, it is necessary for some positions to move up two pay ranges just
to become competitive with the market. In effect, these changes are intended
to catch up with the market in certain classifications. Mr. Brandenburger
said the current policy with regard to reclassification calls for an indi-
vidu al to receive a five percent increase in salary as a minimum unless it is
necessary for an additional increase to reach the entry level of the new pay
range. He said that policy change came about because new people were being
hired at the same level as people who had significant experience and perfor-
mance.
Mr. Tucker then gave the recom~nendations prepared by staff for implemen-
tation of the Pay/Classification plan. The bonus pool is recommended for
1991-92 to increase from three percent to four percent. Secondly, the pro-
posed medical insurance increase of 10 percent by Blue Cross/Blue Shield may
result in a net reduction for some employees. The Board has not increased its
contribution for the past two years. Therefore, staff feels it is appropriate
that the County pick up the 10 percent increase. Finally, there are several
possible options for funding the Pay/Classification plan. Staff suggested
that the plan become effective in January, 1992, because of the obvious
economic conditions. Another suggestion is to take the jobs which are fur-
thest from the market and implement those changes, possibly in July, 1991, and
phase in the remaining changes.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Personnel Advisory Committee recommended that a
compensation philosophy be adopted which would target proficient performance
at the midpoint of the salary range. This is a goal toward which the County
may work over the next few years. However, the projected cost of implemen-
tation for next year makes the recommendation infeasible at this time. The
problem occurs when pay/classification changes are made and then new employees
are hired at the same pay scale as employees who have been with the County for
several years. This pay/classification change will move existing employees to
the lower ranges of the higher pay scale, which is where new employees will
also be hired. The goal of the Personnel Advisory Committee is to move
existing employees to the mid-point of the scale, rather than the beginning
point. He said there are several ways of accomplishing that objective. It
can be done through evaluations so that the best performers are moved up the
scale as quickly as possible.
Mr. Bowerman added that reaching the proficiency level should be the
criteria for consideration for being moved to the mid-point rather than length
of service. For some employees, the proficiency level may be reached in six
months. Other employees may take five years to reach a proficiency level
equal to the mid-point salary. The goal is to use job performance as a
criteria rather than longevity. The Committee felt that it is more efficient
to pay five employees the mid-point salary than to pay an excess number of
employees a higher rate with less productivity from them. Hopefully, over
time there would be a smaller employment base doing a better job.
Mr. English pointed out that staff is requesting guidelines by which to
balance the needs with expected revenues. Mr. Tucker added that staff will do
everything possible to implement whatever guidelines are given, recognizing
the current allocations. He said these recommendations are considered as
budget guidance for planning purposes.
Mr. Bowie asked how staff plans to implement the pay/classification
changes. Mr. English said staff is recommending that the pay plan become
effective January 1, 1992, if it can be done within the revenues. Mr. Tucker
said that is staff's recommendation, although another suggestion is to begin
by changing those positions furthest from the market earlier than January,
1992.
Mr. Bain said he feels the second suggestion makes a lot of sense. Mr.
Bowie said he assumes that staff will come back during the budget cycle and
inform the Boards as to whether implementation is possible. Mr. Tucker said
that is correct.
Mr. Bowie said he likes the idea of first moving the positions which are
three or four ranges off of the market in the lower paid categories. He feels
January 9, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) 297
(Page 33)
that the highest paid positions can wait until there are sufficient revenues.
The lowest paid people in the County should be helped first. If possible, he
feels those changes should be implemented July 1. That, however, depends on
the mechanics of the budget program.
Mr. Tucker said he would like to implement all of the plan within the
next fiscal year. It may take three or four phases to accomplish it, however.
Mr. Bowie asked if the positions that are furthest off the market can be moved
first.
Mr. Bowerman said it is possible that subordinates could be temporarily
making more money than their supervisors if certain positions are changed and
others not changed. He said that might cause additional inequities in the
system, which is what the reclassification is designed to eliminate. Mr.
Bowie said if it is manageable, he feels that the employees making the largest
salaries should be sequenced last. Mr. Tucker said the important thing is to
maintain the integrity of the plan so that everyone is sequenced. He said
staff will try to implement this as quickly as possible.
Mr. Bain asked the total cost for implementing this plan by July 1, 1991.
Mr. Tucker said staff proposed implementation in January, 1992, at a cost of
over $400,000 for local government and a similar amount or more for schools.
By phasing in the plan, the cost changes considerably. He said it may be
less, but probably not much more than $400,000. If the total plan were
implemented by July 1, 1991, the cost could be $1.2 million. He cannot say at
this point what the cost will if the plan is phased.
Mr. Tucker said the main thing is to receive guidance from the Board in
order to start building the budget. If it appears that the guidelines cannot
be funded, staff will certainly let the Board know that.
Mr. Martin asked what positions will be included in the first phase of
implementation. Mr. Bowie said the ones who are worse off should go first.
Mr. Martin asked if that means positions that are three or four ranges away
from the market. Mr. Bain said he feels that staff should make that determi-
nation. Possibly those employees at the lower end of the pay scale who are
only two ranges from the market need to be implemented before other changes
are made.
Mr. English said that staff will also look at the effects of vesting from
last year and the bonus pool for this year in order to determine how to phase
in the changes. Mr. Tucker said it is hard to be definitive at this point.
Staff understands the intent to help the lower pay scales and those who are
furthest from the market.
Mr. Bain asked the projected cost for a single subscriber with KeyCare
III coverage with Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Mr. Brandenburger said the total
premium is $105, of which the Board pays $75. With a 10 percent increase, the
employee's share will go from $30 to $40 dollars.
Mr. Martin asked if staff is being directed to include the four percent
bonus pool as well as the increase in insurance. Mr. Bowie said three recom-
mendations have been made, and the direction is to put in as much as possible,
with general guidance given on sequencing the changes in pay/classification.
Mr. Perkins said he feels that the insurance cost should be the first
priority for implementation. Mr. Tucker said that portion will happen in
October.
Mr. Ward asked how it is determined that the lowest paid employees need
an increase more than others. He said he can understand that a classification
that is five ranges from the market should be adjusted before a position that
is two ranges off. How can staff determine that a person making $8000 per
year should be reclassified before a person making $16,000. Mr. Tucker said
he does not know that such a determination can be made without being arbi-
trary.
Mr. Bowerman said the study just completed has determined that some
positions are as many as five off the market while others are only one off the
market. The ones which are five off the market are more underpaid for their
January 9, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
298
job classification than another position that is one off the market, regard-
less of what the scale is.
Mr. Martin said one way of helping those who are further off the pay
scale is by contributing more to health care costs for the lower end of the
pay scale. Even with the scale adjustment last year, people at the lower end
of the scale had a reduction in take home pay because the insurance rate
increased. Mr. Tucker said he feels it would be a "nightmare" to manage a
system in which employees do not receive the same contribution. He would
rather keep everyone uniform in regard to insurance contributions.
Mr. Bagby said he feels that Mr. Martin's suggestion would cause more
problems with regard to discrimination against employees. Mr. Ward said that
is why he objects to saying that employees at a certain end of the scale
should be moved first. He feels that the group that is furthest from the
market should be moved first. He feels that is the most straightforward and
equitable way.
Mr. Bowie said staff can make these determinations and report on a plan
for implementation, if everyone agrees to proceed with implementation. Mr.
English added that it is important to maintain the internal equity at the same
time if possible.
Mr. Bagby said while he is in favor of implementing the recommendations
for the pay/classification study, there is no way that the School Division can
do it with the money available. Mr. Bowie said at this point, no one knows
what revenues will be available from the State. He said needs can be priori-
tized and implemented where funding is available.
Mr. Bagby said there are not many areas which can be cut back to make
this reclassification effective, assuming that the State cuts back in the
areas anticipated.
Agenda Item No. 16c. Any Matter Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Bagby pointed out that the Route 29 North By-pass is planned to go
through the new urban elementary school property. Board members indicated
that the school is needed and the County has to go forward with its decision.
Mr. Bagby said he just wanted to make sure everyone is aware that the plans
are going forward without regard to the By-pass. Mr. Tucker said the road is
to go through a corner of the property. Mr. Bagby said a baseball field will
be cut off. He said it is possible to relocate the placement of the building
to accommodate the By-pass. Mr. Bain feels there is sufficient acreage that
the ballfield could be relocated instead of the building.
Mr. Bagby said he understands that the money proposed for the School
Division for the next year excludes the cost of growth. He wants to verify
that the allocation is to sustain current enrollment but does not include
growth. Mr. Tucker said that is the statement made during discussions of the
allocation.
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn.
At 5:15 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned.
CHAIRMAN