1990-08-08August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
95
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on August 8, 1990, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS 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.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Com~nunity Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
9:05 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. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Mr. Bowie explained that this item is on the agenda to allow citizens to
make brief presentations to the Board without having to wait through a long
meeting. He said five minutes would be granted for each presentation.
Mr. Robert B. Stephens said the Board re'ceived copies of the map system
he is proposing that the County use instead of the proposed Egll system. He
demonstrated to the Board that the map system works by assigning coordinate
numbers to every household in the County instead of numbering each house and
assigning street names. Mr. Stephens feels his system will work well and is
much less expensive. The grid system locates a call for fire or rescue
assistance within 100 to 200 yards of the house. He said the coordinate
numbers are placed on the telephones of each residence in the County. Even a
small child can give the coordinate numbers to the emergency responders.
Mr. Stephens said he is probably premature in his presentation to the
Board in that the 911 committee has not made recommendations to the Board as
yet. He has already made a presentation to the 911 committee and to the City
Police Department as well. He said he first approached Mr. Mike Carroll, who
was Director of the 911 Center at that time, with his proposition. Mr.
Carroll favored the Egll system instead. He said the new Director of the 911
Center will not discuss his proposal. He is coming to the Board today because
he is not being heard through the 911 channels. Mr. Stephens pointed out that
Orange County paid $128,000 in 1986 for the Egll System, and it is still not
operational. Orange County has since implemented the grid system he is
recommending. Therefore, he feels there is merit to his proposal, and he
asked the Board to consider it.
Mr. Stephens said he realizes that the 911 Committee will make a presen-
tation to the Board. He requested that Mr. Buddy Rittenhouse and Mr, Butch
Johnstone be selected to consider this system. He said the telephone company
can get the coordinates on every telephone in the County. He said the coordi-
nates are determined only once and the system costs a minimal amount compared
to the E911 system.
Mr. Bowie asked for a comparison of the grid system to the E911 system
from the 911 Board, along with a recommendation. Mr. Bain suggested that the
cost and the capabilities be compared as well. Mr. Bowerman added that any
such system should be applicable to the urbanized area of the County as well.
There were no other members of the public present to address the Board.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way and
seconded by Mrs. Humphris to approve the Consent Agenda. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
96
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Resolution: Route 20 Addition/Abandonment requested by letter
dated July 23, 1990 from Mr. Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator, Department
of Transportation. The following resolution was adopted by the vote shown
above as follows:
WHEREAS, Primary Route 20, from 1.00 miles south of Route 640 to
0.81 miles south of Route 640, a distance of 0.19 miles, has been
altered, and a new road has been constructed and approved by the State
Highway Commissioner, which new road serves the same citizens as the
road so altered; and
WHEREAS, certain sections of this new road follow new locations,
these being shown on the attached sketch titled 'Changes in Primary
System due to Relocation of Construction of Route 20, Albemarle
County, dated at Charlottesville, Virginia, June 21, 1990.'
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the portions of Primary Route
20, i.e. section 2 shown in red on the sketch titled 'Changes in
Primary System due to Relocation and Construction on Route 20,
Project: 0020-002-S20, C501, Albemarle County, dated at
Charlottesville, Virginia, June 21, 1990', a total distance of 0.19
miles be and hereby is, added to the Primary System of State Highways
pursuant to Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended;
And further, that the section of old location, i.e. section 1,
shown in blue on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of 0.19
miles, be, and the same hereby is, abandoned as a public road pursuant
to Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
Item 5.la. Statements of Expenses to the State Compensation Board for
the Department of Finance, Commonwealth's Attorney, Sheriff and Regional Jail
for the Month of July, 1990, were approved by the vote shown above.
Item 5.2. Letter dated July 23, 1990, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident
Engineer, re: Route 631/Greenbrier Drive Traffic Signal Study, noting that
while traffic volumes on the main line meet or exceed the warrants require-
ments for a traffic signal, the volumes on side streets do not, so no traffic
signal will be installed. Letter was received as information.
Item 5.3. Memorandum dated July 18, 1990, from Guy B. Agnor, Jr.,
entitled "Transportation Pledge Bonds", was received as information. This is
new legislation which provides for localities to issue bonds for transporta-
tion projects. The bill requires a constitutional amendment in November. No
local referendnmwill be required thereafter. Mr. Bain wondered if the Board
wants to take a position on this subject before the election. Mr. Bowie said
he has other questions about this item as well. The Board agreed to place
this item on the October 10 agenda for discussion.
Item 5.4. Memorandum dated July 20, 1990, from Guy B. Agnor, Jr.,
entitled "VDoT 2010 State-wide Highway Plan", was received as information.
Mr. Bowie requested that this item be discussed under Agenda Item No. 7,
Highway Matters.
Item 5.5. Copy of Final 1990-91 Construction Allocations for the Inter-
state, Primary and Urban Highway Systems, Public Transit, Ports and Airports
and Six-Year Improvement Program received from Commissioner Ray D. Pethtel, on
file in the Clerk's Office, was received as information.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
97
Item 5.6. Copy of Letter dated July 20, 1990, from the Virginia Depart-
ment of Historic Resources addressed to Phil and Mary Sheridan, stating that
the Department is interested in nominating Mount Fair to the Virginia Land-
marks Register, was received as information.
Item 5.7. Letter dated July 21, 1990, from H. Bryan Mitchell, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer, stating that the owner of "The Barracks"
(Mr. Thomas B. Bishop) has asked that it be evaluated for inclusion on the
Virginia Landmarks Register, was received as information.
Item 5.8. Copy of Letter dated June 11, 1990, from George R. St. John,
County Attorney addressed to Guy B. Agnor, Jr., re: Camellia Gardens (Drain-
age Easement) stating his opinion that the County should exhaust every means
including court proceedings to obtain private maintenance for such facilities
before considering taking over for public maintenance of such facilities, was
received as information.
Item 5.9. Memorandum dated August 2, 1990, from Guy B. Agnor, Jr.,
entitled "Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Delta Dental Rates for 1990-91", was
received as information. Mr. Agnor states that a three-tiered health insur-
ance plan consisting of KeyCare I, KeyCare III, and Comprehensive 500, will be
offered to employees for the next contract year beginning October 1, 1990.
Item 5.10. 1990 Second Quarter Building Report prepared by the Depart-
ment of Planning and Community Development was received as information.
Item 5.11. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Report for June, 1990,
was received as information.
Item 5.12. Letter from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, dated
August 2, 1990, re: Public Hearing to be held on August 21, 1990, on the
Virginia Rail Plan, received as information.
Item 5.13. Letter from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, dated August
2, 1990, re: Current Projects Construction Schedule, received as informa-
tion.
Item 5.14. Letter dated August 2, 1990, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident
Engineer, re: approval of revenue sharing funds for 1990-91 Albemarle County
Secondary Roads Budget, received as information. Mr. Roosevelt noted that the
County's request for $425,000 in revenue sharing funds was approved in accor-
dance with the Board's resolution adopted May 16, 1990.
Item 5.15. Letter dated August 2, 1990, from D. S. Roosevelt, advising
that the County's request for a special land use permit (Permit No. 743-00651)
to install a gate on Route 1421 at the entrance to the Rivanna Park has been
approved, was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes:
1990.
No minutes had been read.
May 16, June 6 and June 13,
Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Statement concerning Route 29
North Project.
Mr. Bowie said there was a joint meeting last week with City, County and
University representatives which ended with no resolution on this subject. He
feels that more rhetoric will serve no purpose. The deadline for comments to
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
the Virginia Department of Transportation is next Wednesday, August 15, 1990.
Mr. Bowie said he sent a copy to Board members of a proposed letter from City
Council to YDoT. Today Board members received a copy of the City Council's
final version of that letter dated August 7, 1990.
Mr. Agnor said this last letter contains a change in the second para-
graph. The words, "which will minimize disruptions to traffic" have been
added in this version. There was a change in No. 4 to quote Mr. Casteen's
statement of "construction of an alternate controlled vehicle access", rather
than construction of additional access.
Mr. Bowie feels that it is presumptuous of the Board and City Council to
dictate to VDoT the best sequence of improvements to Route 29 North, since
there is no engineer on either board. However, there are no more meetings
scheduled by City Council or the Board of Supervisors between now and the
deadline in which to discuss the letter. He said the Board can either sign
this letter with a caveat explaining that VDoT is better qualified to deter-
mine the order of improvements or write a separate letter.
Mrs. Humphris said she has other problems with the letter as well. She
said the Board of Supervisors went on record on March 7, 1990, delaying any
decision regarding Georgetown Road improvements until after the Base Case
improvements on Route 29 North and the four-laning of Rio Road and Hydraulic
Road is completed. Therefore, No. 2 is not consistent with the County's
current posture according to the minutes of the March 7 meeting.
Mr. Agnor said the idea behind No. 2 is that the County controls the
approval of the Six-Year Plan. Mrs. Humphris said she does not see how the
Board can sign a letter agreeing to certain things while being on record in
support of something entirely different. Also, she sees no reason for the
first paragraph on the second page. She feels there is no point in accentu-
ating the negatives to VDoT.
Mr. Bain said he is not happy about signing a letter containing the order
of improvements because the order can be a key element to VDoT's decision.
The question is whether it is better to send a separate letter indicating the
issues on which there is agreement. He wonders if there is a benefit to
writing a joint letter and if such a benefit outweighs the negatives already
mentioned.
Mrs. Humphris said she cannot vote for a statement which she absolutely
does not believe to be correct or to be a position that this Board should
take. She reiterated her objections to the letter as being the order of
improvements, the double message given to the public by including the refer-
ence to Georgetown Road, and an unnecessary paragraph emphasizing the nega-
tives. She feels it is more important that the County give a direct message
to VDoT than to sign a letter that is incorrect.
Mr. Bain said his position about Georgetown Road is that he would much
rather make the improvements than have a road going west of Georgetown Road.
He feels that it is a question of when the improvement is going to happen.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels that the Board's representation at the joint
meeting on August 3 regarding Route 29 North was superlative. She said Mr.
Bowie handled the situation like a true diplomat and Mr. Bowerman presented
the watershed case in a masterful fashion. However, it has come to light that
there is additional information of which the Board was not aware.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board was advised just prior to the joint meeting
on Route 29 that the COMSIS data was available to the City. As it turns out,
that data was available to the City as far back as early July. This data
indicates that the impact of the Meadow Creek Parkway on City streets, which
the City has maintained would be detrimental, is in fact, not the case. Mr.
Bowerman said the negotiations and concerns about Meadow Creek Parkway are no
longer accurate based on the information received from COMSIS. What is
disturbing is that the City Council used Meadow Creek as an item of negotia-
tion, when they knew all along that it was no longer a viable concern. He
said he is most unhappy about that, assuming that the morning newspaper is
accurate regarding the timing of the receipt of the information.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
99
Mrs. Humphris quoted from the City Council meeting on television Monday
night that the Meadow Creek Parkway is "a dagger toward the heart of
Charlottesville". Mr. Bowie said City Council has had information for two
months that that is not the case.
Mrs. Humphris said she had thought the Board and City Council were
dealing on equal terms with the information available in the DEIS. To find
that the City already knew that the Meadow Creek Parkway would not be a threat
and was still trying to get the Board to make concessions based on that
belief, is a tremendous disappointment to Mrs. Humphris. Based on that as
well, she cannot in good conscience sign a joint statement to VDoT.
Mr. Agnor said in light of the information in the morning newspaper, his
recommendation is that the Board not sign the joint letter.
Mr. Way said much effort has been given to solving these problems over a
long period of time. He feels the Board should write a separate letter,
pointing out the areas of agreement in a positive way.
Mr. Bowie recommended that the Board's letter include: 1) the position
given by the Board at the VDoT public hearing; 2) a summary of Mr. Bowerman's
presentation on the history of watershed protection along with a copy of his
entire presentation; 3) a paragraph to re-emphasize the "western collector"
from the Base Case acknowledging the University's_reference to access to the
North Grounds along with a map showing the effect of the collector road; 4) a
paragraph pledging cooperation with the City, the University and the State in
non-road solutions to traffic, such as park and ride, public transportation,
mass transit or parking regulations; and 5) a paragraph requesting that Route
29 North be included as a specific item in the Comprehensive Plans of the
City, the County and the University.
Mr. Bowie noted that he requested that Item 5.4 from the Consent Agenda
be held for discussion at this point because the memo points out that the
COT-21 plan requires a five-year review. Based on that, he feels the specific
issue of Route 29 North should be included in all three Comprehensive Plans.
Upon completion of the Base Case, the State could analyze and provide a level
of service report for subsequent reviews of the Comprehensive Plan. At the
first sign of deterioration, established organizations such as the PACC can
then work to solve any problems. He said this would provide a continual
review and analysis without creating new committees.
Mr. Bowie said the first paragraph could contain the items included in
the Base Case and leave the order to the discretion of the State. He asked
staff to provide to Board members by Friday a draft letter including these
points. Comments from Board members could be returned by Monday so that the
letter can be signed and mailed on Monday. There were no objections from
Board members.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Highway Matters: Route 660 Bridge Project EIS.
Mr. Bowie said Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer for the Highway
Department, will be addressing questions raised by Mrs. Humphris at the May
Board meeting concerning environmental studies on the Route 660 project.
Mr. Roosevelt said he brought two representatives from the Culpeper
Office. Mr. Rick Woody helps prepare the environmental documents, and Mr.
Roger Clatterbuck handles environmental permits.
Mr. Roosevelt said he obtained a verbatim copy of the discussion at the
May meeting so that he could respond directly to the questions raised. He
said Mrs. Humphris referred to a letter in the environmental study file from
Mr. Agnor requesting the actions planned by the State to protect the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir, and there was no copy of a response in the file. Mr.
Roosevelt agreed that a response was not in the file. He talked with the
Culpeper Office, and a letter dated May 16, 1990, was sent in response to Mr.
Agnor's request.
Another question raised was the fact that all the environmental impact
information was based on the preferred alternative without information
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
lOC
regarding the impact on the perennial stream, thus raising a question about
the integrity of the environmental impact statement. Mr. Roosevelt said all
three alignments were presented for review during the development of the
environmental study and in the meetings with the water review committee. He
said the reviewers were aware of all three alignments and not just the pre-
ferred alternative.
Mrs. Humphris said her point is that the reviewers were not aware of the
existence of the stream. Mr. Roosevelt said information was presented con-
cerning the project and the opportunity was given to visit the project. He
pointed out that the stream is not of sufficient size to be covered by the
environmental study requirements. Had there been no river crossing involved
in this project, this stream would not have been considered at all.
Mrs. Hnmphris said her question arose because all of the attention was
given to the preferred alternative at the public hearing. No attention was
given to the stream because the State identified the stream as intermittent,
when it is actually a perennial stream.
Mr. Roosevelt said the question was asked as to what happens when docu-
ments which are supposed to be in the file are not there. Mr. Roosevelt said
the documents were in the file, but he did not recognize that the documents
were there because of his ignorance of the process. He forwarded to Board
members a copy of the documents in question, indicating the comments of State
agencies on this project.
There was a concern that the agency doing the work on this bridge is
doing its own environmental impact statement. Mr. Roosevelt said the State is
preparing the environmental study, but the approval rests with the Federal
Highway Administration. It is not true that the State prepares the study and
also approves it. Mrs. Hnmphris asked if a project has ever been disapproved.
Mr. Roosevelt said changes or additional information have been requested, and
he believes that projects have been disapproved in the past. In this case, he
assumes that this report was the first submission and was approved by the
Federal Highway Administration.
Mr. Roosevelt said that concludes the questions raised at the May meet-
ing. He then presented the following statement regarding the environmental
process followed by V DoT in the Route 660 project:
"This project involves two separate and distinct environmental pro-
cesses: the document process and the permit process. The environmen-
tal document is necessary if federal funds are used on a project. The
water quality permit is required if the project impacts a stream that
has over a five square mile drainage area or impacts over an acre of
wetlands. The Rivanna River is the permitted stream in this case.
Streams with smaller drainage areas that meet specific criteria are
considered to have a minor environmental impact and are covered by
'Nationwide Permits' A 'Nationwide Permit' is one given automatical-
ly without any special coordination process, but requires compliance
with any applicable state and Federal laws.
The completion of the environmental document usually precedes project
construction by one to two years. The permit, on the other hand, is
usually authorized only a few months prior to construction. The
permit depends on more specific details of the construction plans,
while the document deals with a general concept of the project.
The Federal Highway Administration outlines its policieson environ-
mental documents in 23 CFR 771. These regulations divide environmen-
tal documents into three types:
Environmental impact statements - An in-depth study on a major
action that is likely to cause a significant impact on the envi-
ronment.
Categorical exclusion - A minor action that, based on past
experience with similar actions, will not involVe a significant
environmental impact and falls into a predetermined category.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
101
Environmental assessment
impact is uncertain.
A document used when the degree of
The Route 660 bridge project falls into the categorical exclusion
classification of 'bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replace-
ment'. As such, the level of documentation required consists of
in-house studies on historic resources, endangered species, water
quality and wetland delineation, and outside contacts with the follow-
ing agencies or individuals:
Department of Conservation and Historic Resources
Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
County Executive
Thomas Jefferson Health District
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
District Conservationist
District Forester
Because of the permit required, this project was presented at the
Interagency Coordination Meeting during the document preparation
stage. This involves preparing a brief information packet, a slide
presentation of the study area and a narrative description of the
construction. The coordination panel members include the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, national Marine
Fisheries Service, Corps of Engineers, United States Coast Guard,
Virginia Water Control Board Marine Resources Commission, Division of
Planning and Recreation Resources, Institute of Marine Science, State
Health Department, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Division
of Soil and Water Conservation, Council on the Environment and the
Natural Heritage Program. Each of these agencies receives an informa-
tion packet and has the opportunity to comment regardless of their
attendance of a specific meeting. All of the agency comments are
summarized and returned to VDoT. Any concerns raised at this meeting
must be responded to at the permit stage. A copy of the Early Coordi-
nation comments, dated March 24, 1988, pertaining to this project are
attached.
The categorical exclusion, once approved, would only be rewritten if
the project underwent major changes in scope or environmental impacts.
For example, if the project were lengthened by a mile, or if the
bridge crossing were moved to a completely new area requiring con-
struction on new alignment, the document would be revised. The
changes in the bridge alignment were minor and did not require the
preparation of a new document. The field studies performed to compose
the original document were extensive enough to assure that any bridge
crossing in the general area would not cause a significant impact on
the environment. The statements made in the categorical exclusion are
correct for the chosen alignment.
During the permit stage, the agencies involved with the Interagency
Coordination Meeting have the opportunity to review the project in
more detail. Their primary concern is with streams having over five
square miles drainage area, however, they may comment on any drainage
within the project. On this project, the Rivanna River with a drain-
age area of 216 square miles, and being a Public Water Supply for the
City of Charlottesville, is the main source of concern. Factors
involving erosion, wetlands, and the historical nature of the bridge
were considered in the authorizing of the permit. After the permit
has been issued, major changes in the plans involving the Rivanna
River would have to be presented to the Interagency Coordination panel
for approval."
Mrs. Humphris said all of her questions were aimed at one small point,
which was the stream. She simply wanted to know what happens when one favor-
ite alternative is presented at public hearing, and as a result of the public
hearing, the alignment is moved causing a different impact. Is the alignment
change made without reassessing the impact of the new alignment? Mr.
Roosevelt said although there may be individual disagreement over whether the
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
102
new alignment at the Route 660 bridge constitutes an environmental impact,
based on the guidelines used by VDoT, it is not considered as a major environ-
mental impact. He said there are general guidelines which are followed for a
similar type of stream on any project in the State. As to whether the impact
was properly documented at the hearing, Mr. Roosevelt said it is true that
there was a recommendation for a particular alignment. However, he feels that
the same information was available for all three alignments. The purpose of
the hearing is to allow the public to bring up concerns that the Highway
Department may not have considered. While it may be that attention is concen-
trated on the line recommended by VDoT, the public should be considering the
impact of all alignments on their property.
Mrs. Humphris said she appreciates the thoroughness with which Mr.
Roosevelt answered her questions. She said her problem is With the estab-
lished process, not with what Mr. Roosevelt has done.
Mr. Bain asked the status of the Route 660 project. Mr. Roosevelt said
bids have been received at a considerably higher amount than estimated and
have been rejected. He said he does not have enough information at this time
to determine why the bids were so high.
Mr. Bowerman said a constituent brought to his attention the fact that
the project was bid for exposed aggregate on the piers under the bridge. He
was told that this adds substantially to the cost of the project. Mr.
Bowerman wondered if the Board intended that exposed aggregate be used on the
piers. Since the project has to be rebid, Mr. Bowerman feels that exposed
aggregate could be left off of the piers.
Mr. Roosevelt said if that is the Board's consensus, it will help him to
know that before the project is rebid. He said the project was advertised for
exposed aggregate on the piers.
There was a consensus of the Board that there should not be exposed
aggregate on the piers. There was no further discussion of this item.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Agreement: Timberwood Boulevard.
Mr. St. John said he would like more time to review the agreement and
asked if this item could be postponed. He asked what effect such a delay
would have on the developer. Mr. Cilimberg said the delay may jeopardize
getting these roads into the State highway system by this winter.
Mr. Bowie asked why a delay is necessary. Mr. St. John said he would
feel more comfortable if he could review the history of previous agreements
for the Pantops development and for Mill Creek. He feels that the Board needs
to be aware that this agreement on the part of the County is the same as
endorsing a promissory note. The County is guaranteeing funds to complete
these four-lane roads which amounts to a financial obligation pledging the
taxing power of this County past the current fiscal year. He said the courts
have ruled that even though this is not a fixed obligation, it is a debt that
is payable out of the taxing power of the County. This agreement guarantees
that if developers do not come up with the money, the County will complete the
roads. He feels that more time to review this agreement is necessary. He
noted that the agreements for the other developments he mentioned did not
amount to a monetary burden on the County beyond the current fiscal year.
Mr. Bowie agreed that it appears that the County is agreeing to build
roads and to pay for them. Mr. Bain said he had the same question as that
raised by Mr. St. John.
Mr. St. John said if this discussion can be postponed until he can do an
in-depth study and report, there is no need for the staff report to be given
now. Mr. Cilimberg said the developer's representative is not present, so he
does not know how this will affect the developer. He said this process began
in 1988 under the previous Director of Planning. He said the developer has
made a good faith donation of right-of-way in a subdivision for construction
of the road and is relying on this agreement to get his roads accepted into
the State system.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
103
Mr. Bowie said confusion may exist because in 1988, the County was
talking about putting construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway in the County's
Capital Improvements Program. At that time, it was felt that the developer
would build what he needed and dedicate the right-of-way, and somebody else
would build the other two lanes. Subsequently, the County learned that the
cost of building the Meadow Creek Parkway was so prohibitive that it is a dead
issue unless the State builds the road. Apparently, this agreement is based
on discussions at that time. Mr. Bowie feels that the additional lanes will
have to be built as part of the Meadow Creek Parkway, or they will not be
built.
Mr. Bain said he is concerned that the agreement contains a specified
period of time in which the road is to be built.
Mr. Cilimberg said in light of the concerns mentioned, he suggests that
this item be postponed so that staff, the County Attorney, and the Highway
Department can discuss the matter further. He will contact the developer with
a new date. Mr. St. John said he knows that the developer has taken actions
in good faith, and is not looking for a way to renege. However, he sees a
problem which should be solved before the agreement is signed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to defer this
item to September 12 as requested by the County Attorney to allow time for
additional review. 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. 7d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Perkins said he has received complaints about the condition of Route
810 from Doylesville to Boonesville. He said there are numerous potholes and
loose gravel from private driveways. He asked Mr. Roosevelt to look into
those problems.
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Rivanna Waste Authority Operational
Agreement.
Mr. Bowie said Board members received a copy of a memo he sent Mayor
Alvin Edwards of Charlotteville expressing the Board's opposition to "veto"
power. The City Council responded that it would like the Mayor to meet with
Mr. Bowie to try to resolve that difference and other issues. However, since
the Mayor is out of town this week, Mr. Bowie suggested that this item be
deferred to the next day meeting until he can meet with the Mayor and bring a
report to the Board. He said no further action can be taken anyway until the
Articles of Incorporation have been approved by the State for the Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority.
Mr. Bain asked if the transfer station discussion is being delayed as
well. Mr. Bowie said delay would allow more time for Board members to think
about that as well.
Mrs. Humphris said she has made a list of items to be discussed and
wondered if staff could prepare for the Board a memo addressing these ques-
tions. Mr. Bowie said he will also present these concerns to the Mayor when
they meet.
Mr. Bain said he feels the Board should not get into the aspect of
tipping fees in discussions with the City Council. That should be a function
of the newly created Authority. He wondered if the Board could receive a
report on tipping fees at the September day meeting.
Mr. Bowerman said there seems to be a great concern on the part of City
Council that someone is going to spend lots of money for an incineration
system. He is not planning to do that and wondered how other Board members
feel. Mr. Bain said he feels the problem is that the County controls the land
use decisions in meeting State requirements for collecting and disposing of
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
104
solid waste. The City is afraid that the County may say "no" to a future
request to allow some element of solid waste disposal in the County.
Mr. Tucker said the procedure is that the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
may apply for a land use amendment or permit. The land use decision would be
made by the Board of Supervisors before any expenditure of funds by the
Authority.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's comments regarding the incinerator, Mrs.
Humphris concurs that there is a fear that the County will go with incinera-
tion. She feels the fear is unfounded. However, she acknowledges that
incineration is a part of the hierarchy of disposal, even though it is at the
bottom of the list. She will not say "never incineration" because technology
is improving all the time. Mr. Bowie concurred.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Way to defer this item
to September 12, 1990. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The Board recessed at 10:30 A.M. and reconvened at 10:40 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: Ingleside Preliminary Plat. (Prepared by
McKee-Carson, dated May 7, 1990, revised June 9 and June 15, 1990.)
Mr. Bowie said an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on June 26,
1990, relative to the Ingleside Preliminary Plat was filed by Mrs. Humphris.
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Proposal: The applicant is proposing to create 12 lots averaging
6.99 acres from two parcels totalling 88.40 acres. The ten develop-
ment lots range in size from 2.00 acres to 9.99 acres. The two
remaining lots consist of 22.06 and 30.22 acres. The lots are pro-
posed to be served by public roads.
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 1 (part of) and
Parcel "X", is located on the north side of Route 601 (Garth Road)
across from the Inglecress Subdivision in the Jack Jouett Magisterial
District.
Character of the Area: The property consists of rolling terrain with
some areas of critical slope. A majority of~the property is open
pasture land with areas of flood plain along Ivy Creek.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to create twelve lots under
conventional development which utilizes all available development
rights. The main issue identified in the review of this plat is the
construction of Road "B" through areas of critical slope adjacent to
Ivy Creek which is a major tributary to the south Fork Rivanna Reser-
voir.
At Station 15 the preliminary road profile indicates as much as 37
vertical feet of fill is necessary to construct the road to Virginia
Department of Transportation standards for vertical alignment. The
road is proposed to be located approximately 300 feet from Ivy Creek
and 120 feet from its flood plain.
The road fill slope could generate some amount of soil eroSion during
construction, and there is potential for this sediment to reach Ivy
Creek. The Erosion Control Ordinance will require a,silt basin which
will withstand a two year storm for the drainage area in this area of
fill. Staff opinion is a silt basin which meets the demand~of a ten
year storm would provide a more effective erosion control measure
resulting in greater water supply protection. After consultation with
the Watershed Management Official and Erosion Control Officer, staff
recommends the following as a condition of approval:
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion
control permit to include a silt basin located
downstream of the proposed culvert near Station 15+00
on Road "B". The basin shall be constructed to meet
the demands of a ten year storm.
Staff opinion is this plat is consistent with the Zoning and Subdivi-
sion Ordinance regulations and recommends approval of the Ingleside
Preliminary Plat with the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
The final plat shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations;
be
Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit to include a silt basin located downstream of the
proposed culvert near station 15+00 on road "B". The basin
shall be constructed to meet the demands of a ten year
storm;
Department of Engineering approval of drainage easement
plats;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
Dedication of right-of-way to accommodate the turn and taper
lane;
fo
Residue strips of land on the north side of the roads shall
be transferred back to Tax Map 60, Parcel 1.
2. Administrative-approval of the final plat."
105
Mr. Cilimberg said the plat is for a subdivision involving two parcels,
Tax Map 60, Parcel 1 (part of) and Parcel "X", on Garth Road, west of
Charlottesville. The specific concern expressed in the appeal by Mrs.
Humphris is the disruption of critical slopes and fill on critical slopes for
one of the two roads to serve the development. Mr. Cilimberg then pointed out
the location of the parcels. One parcel consists of approximately ten acres
and is to be subdivided into five lots. A second parcel will be subdivided
into another seven lots. The second parcel was created under an exempt plat
earlier this year by the property owner. He pointed out the flood plain along
Ivy Creek to the east and southeast of the site.
Mr. Cilimberg noted staff's concern about construction of Road "B", which
crosses a critical slope in two areas adjacent to Ivy Creek. Staff reviewed
the request in light of possible soil erosion generated during construction
and the potential for sediment reaching Ivy Creek. Because of staff's con-
cern, a provision for silt basins was included in the conditions of approval
recommended by staff in order to minimize the siltation and flow to Ivy Creek
from both crossings. The condition recommended by the Planning Commission
addressing this concern is Condition No. lb as follows:
Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit to
include a silt basin located downstream of the proposed culvert near
station 15+00 on road "B" and possibly a second basin located downhill
at station 19+50 on road "B" if deemed appropriate by the Watershed
Management Official and the County Engineer. The basin shall be
constructed to meet the demands of a ten-year storm.
Mr. Cilimberg said the road will obviously provide access to the seven
lots created on the 88.4 acres created by the exempt transaction. He said
there is no alternative means of access to those lots on this site. Staff
considered the possibility of requiring access through the residue parcel
remaining after the exempt parcel was created. After discussions with the
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
106
County Attorney's office, it was determined that the ordinances make no
allowance for requiring such an alternative access in lieu of crossing the
stream. The parcel is legally required to have access, and the owner of the
tract did not wish to have an access provided across the residue tract because
of concern over disturbing the horse farm operation.
Mr. Cilimberg then discussed specific elements of the zoning ordinance
which might be interpreted as applicable to this application. The building
site regulations for accessways found in Section 4.2.2.1. do not apply to
public roads as interpreted by the County Attorney's office. It is the County
Attorney's opinion that accessways are driveways on individual building sites
as well as the public road to serve the building sites. Therefore, there is
no provision in this section of the ordinance by which this particular road
could be denied. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the road does not require a special
use permit because it does not cross a one hundred year flood plain.
Under Section 4.3.3.2, Improvements of Earth Disturbing Activity on
Critical Slopes, there is a reference to fill and waste areas which allows
fill by right. Mr. Cilimberg said this application complies with Section
4.3.01 of the ordinance which says that the fill activity can occur by right.
The application also complies with supplementary regulations for fill areas
under Section 5.1.2a.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is nothing in the Subdivision Ordinance that
restricts a public road from crossing critical slopes or from crossing
streams. Therefore, after consultation with the County Attorney's office,
staff was unable to find any provisions in either ordinance pertinent to this
development whereby an alternative to the proposed "Road B" could be required.
Staff recommends that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to deal with similar
situations in the future.
Mr. Bowie asked if staff is indicating that current ordinance provisions
allow this road on critical slopes. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has determined
that this request complies with County ordinances, and, on that basis, the
Planning Co~nission approved the subdivision with conditions by a vote of six
to one.
Mr. Bain asked if this application can be found to be an endangerment to
public health, safety and welfare. Mr. St. John, County Attorney, said the
Board could find that this road on critical slopes represents a danger to the
public health, safety and welfare. However, such a finding would have to be
supported by fact. In essence, in that case, the Board would be finding that
the technical standards in the County's ordinances are inadequate to protect
the public health, safety and welfare in that even when an applicant complies
with the ordinances, there is still a clear and present danger to public
health and safety.
Mr. Bowerman asked why the parcel was created through the exempt plat
provision. Mr. Cilimberg said the original parcel was one large tract. One
lot was divided off, which does not constitute a subdivision under the Zoning
Ordinance. That division is an exempt transaction and has to meet the minimum
requirements for creating a lot.
Mr. Bowerman said since a parcel cannot be created without access, it
seems the question of access should have come up at the time the lot was
created through the exempt transaction. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff noted
to the applicant that creation of a lot by exempt transaction does not assure
the right to have the access in question.
Mr. Bowerman said he understood Mr. Cilimberg to just say that there is
no alternative access except the one in question. Therefore, the implication
is that permission is to be given for this access because the County allowed
the creation of the lot to begin with. Mr. Cilimberg said staff indicated to
the applicant that a public road is not guaranteed.
At this time, Mr. Bob McKee, representing Inglecress, Ltd., said he did
not come to make a formal presentation to the Board, but would answer any
questions. He said a by-right subdivision plat has been submitted, and the
applicant feels that he has a right to proceed. He said provisions were made
by the applicant for providing sediment basins at two locations, which
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
107
actually goes beyond the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant
is concerned with the quality of the development and will do whatever is
necessary to mitigate the concerns of the Board. He said one aspect of the
proposal is to keep the Ingleside farm and equine facility in tact by locating
the subdivision as far to the east side of the property as possible. That is
one reason the road is not located on the other side of the lake in the
agricultural area. Mr. McKee said the owner's reasons for creating the
subdivision in the first place are a private matter.
Mr. Bain asked if the applicant knew the concerns about roads over
critical slopes when the exempt plat was put to record. Mr. McKee said the
applicant was aware of some of the critical areas. He pointed out that the
owner is concerned about maintaining the integrity of the horse farm.
Mrs. Humphris said her curiosity was first piqued when telephone calls
started coming in about the dirt piles being brought into the watershed at
this site on Garth Road. Mrs. Humphris attended the Ingleside site plan
review where the Watershed Management Official stated that the large amount of
fill might cause an erosion problem. He said the plan needs to be failsafe
because of the proximity to Ivy Creek, which feeds directly into the Reser-
voir. The Watershed Management Official also said that a 100-foot setback
should be shown along the stream and the lake.
Mrs. Humphris said she attended the Planning Commission meeting on June
26, 1990, when the Ingleside request was discussed. She learned that the
basis for this plan as stated by Mr. McKee today is the importance of main-
taining the integrity of the horse farm. Mrs. Humphris feels that the Plan-
ning Cox~ission concurred that it was more important to maintain the integrity
of the horse farm than it was to maintain the integrity of the Reservoir, the
drinking water supply for 80,000 people. Mrs. Humphris said she became
concerned at the Planning Commission meeting by a comment made by Mr. Ron
Keeler, Chief of Planning, regarding problems with the Zoning Ordinance. The
question was asked as to how much soil could possibly get into the stream from
the amount of fill that would be used to build the road on critical slopes.
The answer was that even the most effective soil erosion measures are only 75
percent effective. Mr. Keeler reported that as much as 25 tons of silt could
go into the water supply from this site. He pointed out that some critical
language had been omitted from the Zoning Ordinance addressing these concerns.
Mrs. Humphris then pointed out comments made at the Planning Commission
meeting which she feels are pertinent. For example, the issues of critical
slopes, the amount of fill and the fact that it was loose fill were pointed
out by various Commissioners. Mrs. Humphris noted that Mr. Keeler indicated
the difficulties involved in writing ordinance provisions for multiple pur-
poses. Ordinances must apply County-wide, yet be concerned about watershed
protection. Mrs. Humphris learned that the fatal words left out of the
ordinance addressing the issue of critical slopes and fill are, "provided no
such activity shall occur within 100 horizontal feet of a tributary of a
reservoir watershed".
Mrs. Humphris said she is bringing this information to the Board because
this road plan involves steep slopes which requires that tremendous amounts of
fill be stockpiled on the property, and because it is being done in order to
preserve the horse farm in spite of this Board's continuing efforts to protect
the Water supply. She feels that these issues need to be addressed by the
Board.
Mr. St. John explained the legal process followed by staff in arriving at
a recommendation for approval. He said an exempt division of land is one that
is not a subdivision as defined in the subdivision ordinance and is, there-
fore, not subject to the regulations of the subdivision ordinance. The plat
is brought to the Planning Office for verification of exemption from the
subdivision ordinance requirements. A division of land in which both result-
ing parcels are more than five acres and where none of the resulting parcels
has less than 250 feet of road frontage is not considered a subdivision and is
exempt from the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. When the parcel in
question was cut off from the rest of the farm, it met the definition of an
exempt subdivision because it was one lot with more than five acres and had
more than 250 feet of road frontage.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
108
Mr. Bain asked about the ordinance requirements regarding lots having
irregular shapes. Mr. St. John said those requirements do not apply in this
case because this division of land is exempt from the subdivision ordinance
rules.
Mr. St. John said a subdivision is entitled to approval if the ordinance
requirements are met. He pointed out that such approval is a ministerial act
and not a discretionary act. However, if there is some feature of the trans-
action which constitutes a genuine health consideration, that presents a
different problem. He noted that the protection of the public water supply is
a vital public interest. However, with respect to roads on critical slopes in
and out of the watershed, the ordinances are drafted to reflect a decision not
to prohibit roads on critical slopes, but rather the protection of the water-
shed through technical requirements. He said there are strict rules about the
methods and means used to construct roads on critical slopes, rather than a
prohibition of roads on critical slopes.
Mr. Bain said he feels that the 30-acre parcel was created as a move to
get around the subdivision ordinance requirements. Mr. Cilimberg said staff
did not view the exempt plat transaction that way.
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said there were a number of scenarios
proposed by the applicant in the planning stage. Staff was trying to encour-
age a rural preservation development on this property. The applicant proposed
to include much of the steep area as common open space through a plan which
was neither a rural preservation development nor a by-right development.
Staff was concerned that approval of a hybrid between the two development
plans would reduce the likelihood of getting rural preservation development
plans in the future. Therefore, staff recommended a rural preservation
development or that the areas shown as open space be included in the lots.
The applicant chose to include the open space in Lot 1.
Mr. Keeler said the subdivision ordinance applies to lots with irregular
shapes when a lot is created with an irregular shape for the purpose of
obtaining frontage on a public road, or to satisfy a minimum area requirement,
and the lot is unusable for reasonable purposes.
Mr. St. John added that the irregularity of the lot in question here is
in large part caused by the topography of the lot and is not caused by the
developer. The irregularity condemned by the ordinance is an artificial
irregularity which is achieved to circumvent the ordinance. It is Mr. St.
John's opinion that the ordinance requirements do not apply if the irregu-
larity is caused by the topography.
Mr. Bowerman asked what staff's recommendation would be if the applica-
tion had been submitted prior to the exempt transaction and the request was
for six lots to be created from one large parcel in the back of this property.
Mr. Keeler said if the 85 acres had not been created first and were still
part of the farm, staff's recommendation for a request to subdivide would be
that the road not cross the stream and involve this amount of fill. He said
the Planning Commission in that case could decide where the road should go.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this request is before the Board only because of
the creation of an exempt lot which met the conditions of exemption from the
subdivision ordinance.
Mr. St. John said that is correct.
Mr. Keeler noted that the applicant, by the exempt transaction, fore-
closed the possibility of a private road serving the lots because the ordi-
nance clearly addresses that issue.
Mr. Bowerman said the applicant could have built a house there and also
built a driveway out to Garth Road. Mr. Keeler agreed.
Mrs. Humphris asked what can now be done with the 133-acre farm parcel.
Mr. Cilimberg said all of the development rights were carried into the lot
created under the exempt transaction. Therefore, the remaining 133 acres can
only be divided into 21-acre or greater lots. He said the applicant could
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
109
apply for a rural preservation development with a limited number of lots based
on 133 acres. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant could have done that initially
with the entire tract and chose not to.
Mr. Keeler said a rural preservation development on the residue acreage
would require special approval.
Mrs. Humphris asked if it has been determined if the second silt basin
can be located at Station 19.5. Mr. Cilimberg said that has not been deter-
mined at this point.
Mr. Way asked what happens if the silt basin cannot be located at Station
19.5. Mr. Cilimberg said the condition is based on final plat approval. The
basin will be constructed if it is deemed appropriate by the Watershed Manage-
ment Official and the County Engineer. Mrs. Humphris said she thought the
requirement was based on the physical capability of the land. Mr. Cilimberg
said if the basin cannot be located at this point, then it is deemed to be
inappropriate and will not be required.
Mrs. Humphris said if the basin is not deemed appropriate, then the silt
will just go directly into the creek. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct.
Mr. Bain said he is not sure the Board can make the findings necessary
for a present danger described by Mr. St. John in order to protect the Reser-
voir, although he feels there is a danger of silt getting into the Reservoir.
Mr. St. John said he is uncomfortable about speaking to that except to
say that the Board's function is to look at these applications and either make
or not make those findings. He said he will vigorously defend the Board's
decision.
Mr. Bain said it sounds as though staff has reviewed in detail all of the
ordinances that would or could apply. He feels this application is a subter-
fuge, and if there is nothing that can be done on this particular one, then
the ordinances need to be amended to take care of this type of situation in
the future. He said this application flies in the face of all efforts the
Board has made to protect the reservoir.
Mr. Bowie agreed.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels that Mr. Bain's analysis is absolutely
correct. This is a subterfuge and flies in the face of everything that this
Board has been trying to do for the last 20 years. She feels the application
is definitely not in the public interest, but from the information presented
today, the Board is in no position to prevent the request.
Mr. Bowie said he feels the application is convoluted to avoid the
ordinances, and he would support a motion to uphold the appeal, had there been
one.
Mr. Bowerman agreed that he feels there is a subterfuge, whether it was
intended as one or not. He feels that if this application had come before the
Commission in any other situation, the Commission would have had authority to
decide the road location. That authority is being denied now because of the
exempt transaction. He said the only thing the County did was approve a
subdivision for one lot, and that is all the County is obligated for because
the rest of the application is not in the public interest. He said he too
would support a motion to overturn the Commission's decision.
Mrs. Humphris then offered a motion to overturn the Planning Commission's
decision for approval. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Way.
Mr St. John clarified the motion that the appeal is upheld, the Planning
Commission's decision is overturned and the subdivision plat is disapproved by
this action. Mrs. Humphris said that is the intent of the motion for the
reasons stated during the foregoing discussion.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
110
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: Affordable Housing Project.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 24, 1990.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said the public hearing
is for the purpose of presenting to the Board for review and comment the
conceptual development plan for the County's affordable housing subdivision,
requesting an appropriation of $331,714 to match a possible Community Develop-
ment Block Grant (CDBG), reviewing a proposed road crossing of Powell's Creek
and certification of a resolution affirming further fair housing by the
County.
Mr. Benish then distributed copies of letters in opposition to the
proposed housing project. He said there is a misconception that this is a
private development. The project was initiated and endorsed by the Board of
Supervisors as an effort to provide affordable housing to residents of the
County who are being priced out of the housing market. The Charlottesville
Housing Foundation (CHF) has taken the lead role in undertaking the develop-
ment on behalf of the County.
The proposed project will consist of 50 single-family detached homes on
one-quarter to one-half acre lots. These will be owner-occupied homes avail-
able for purchase by qualifying low to moderate income families. Through the
use of CDBG funds, low interest Farmers Home Administration mortgages,
Charlottesville Housing Foundation deferred loans, Housing Partnership Funds,
Virginia Housing Development Authority loan reservations, and County funds,
the projected cost of units will be between $45,000 and $65,000. The 50 homes
will be constructed in two phases, with phase one consisting of 30 lots.
Phase two will consist of up to 20 additional lots and will be constructed
based on the demand for additional units. The units will either be stick-
built or modular construction. Two or three builders will likely be solicited
to construct units within the development. A total of 40 acres will be
purchased by CHF for the development. The proposed units will be located on
approximately 25 acres. The remaining 15 acres will consist of undisturbed
open space in the flood plain.
Mr. Benish said the property is currently zoned R-6, Residential, which
will permit up to 270 dwellings. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that a
density of four to ten dwelling units per acre is appropriate in this area.
The proposed density is 1.10 dwelling units per acre. This is a by-right
development requiring no rezoning. Approval of a special use permit by the
Planning Commission will be needed to allow the crossing of Powell's Creek.
In order to receive CDBG funds, Mr. Benish said an environmental review
of the proposed project must be conducted. As part of the review, any pro-
posed project activity within the one hundred year flood plain must be
reviewed at a public hearing by the governing body to receive public comment
and determine the appropriateness of the activity. The County Zoning Ordi-
nance requires a special use permit for activity within the one hundred year
flood plain. Such a request will be submitted prior to or along with review
of a site development plan for this project. Mr. Benish explained that the
crossing of Powell's Creek is to provide access to the proposed site from
Cling Lane in the Orchard Acres Subdivision. The project fronts on the dead
end portion of Cling Lane. An alternative access from Route 788 north of the
site would require a crossing of the CSX railroad. This is not considered a
viable option due to public safety concerns over creating an additional
at-grade crossing with no alternative access. The second alternative for
access is to the east of the site on Blue Ridge Street. This alternative is
not deemed viable due to lack of available right-of-way to the site and the
potential impact to the Wayland Farm, which has been determined to be eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, access to Cling Lane
is determined to be the most viable. The stream crossing will not require
significant disturbance and will not impact stream flow or flood plain capa-
city. County special use permit review will be required at the time of site
plan review. Technical items regarding the stream crossing will be resolved
at that time.
(Mr. Bain left at 11:35 A.M. and returned at 11:39 A.M.)
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
111
Mr. Benish said a "Notice of Explanation" will be published in the
newspaper to meet CDBG funding requirements if the Board concurs with staff's
finding regarding the flood plain activity.
Mr. Bowie pointed out that, contrary to the "inflamatory propaganda"
distributed in Crozet, this is the third public hearing held regarding afford-
able housing for Albemarle County. He said the idea was discussed extensively
during the Comprehensive Plan review. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that
60 percent of the population in Albemarle County cannot afford to buy a home
in this County. This proposed housing project responds to that fact. The
purpose is to provide affordable housing for working Albemarle County citi-
zens. The project will not "house Charlottesville's poor" as mentioned in the
five letters of objection to this project. This project will not benefit a
"greedy developer", since the project is being initiated by the County and
developed by the Charlottesville Housing Foundation, a non-profit organiza-
tion. Mr. Bowie said this is not subsidized housing. He pointed out that if
this project of 50 units is not built, the property in question is currently
zoned to allow 270 units by right. He said he is making these points clear
because of the misleading information which has been published regarding this
housing project.
The public hearing was opened at this time.
Mr. Karl Hrebick said he lives one mile from the proposed development.
Mr. Hrebick said he is a builder, but he does not believe that this project is
well-planned. He said he has 22 pounds of water pressure at his home in
Jarman Gap Estates. He has been told by an engineer in the Albemarle County
Service Authority that the State requires a minimum of 20 pounds of water
pressure. He feels that before any development is approved, the effect on the
Crozet water system should be considered. Currently, the fire protection flow
at Western Albemarle High School is inadequate according to the same engineer.
Mr. Hrebick feels that more development should not be allowed without improv-
ing the water system. He suggested that the grant be used to improve the
water system in western Albemarle so that well-planned future development may
occur. Mr. Hrebick is concerned about Albemarle County being in the business
of providing housing for its residents. He wonders if tax money should be
used for that purpose. Mr. Hrebick said if the County is paying part of the
bill, in a sense this is subsidized housing. He is further concerned that the
purchasers of these homes will sell them to "slum lords". He pointed out that
a survey of the community of Orangedale in Charlottesville reveals that 42
percent of the homes are non-owner occupied. He said Orangedale was an
affordable housing project 12 years ago.
Mr. Benish said restrictions for qualifying for loans for these houses
typically require that the owner must maintain and live in the home for a
period of years. Depending on the final design of the project, there may be
restrictions requiring that a house be sold to another qualifying owner.
Mr. Way added that this was a concern discussed by the Board when the
project was originally presented.
Mr. Hrebick said he does not agree with the concept of using County funds
to develop housing. He suggested an alternative use for such funds to repair
the curbs and gutters and sidewalks in Crozet. He pointed out that the
residents of Windham in Crozet must walk on the street one-half a block from
Windham because of inadequate handicap access.
Mr. Bowie said the CDBG funds could not be used for the purpose Mr.
Hrebick is suggesting, although the County recognizes these problems. Mr.
Hrebick said he is referring to the money that Albemarle County will be appro-
priating to match the grant funds. He would like to see the County's money
spent in the wisest way.
Mr. Kevin Cox said he is interested in seeing more moderately priced
houses, apartments and manufactured housing in Albemarle County. He feels
there is affordable housing in Albemarle County for millionaires. However,
there is a shortage of houses priced in a range for family incomes of $15,000
to $25,000. He said there is a demand and a waiting list for such housing.
Among those eligible to purchase homes in the proposed project price range are
County police officers, school teachers, nurses, firefighters and other
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
112
professionals in this community. Without reasonably priced housing, many
middle class professionals will leave Albemarle and live where they can afford
a detached, single-family dwelling. Mr. Cox said he has lived in Albemarle
County for 27 years and does not want to leave the County. However, with an
income of $24,000, it is nearly impossible to find a decent house that he can
afford to buy. That is why his name is on the waiting list for affordable
housing and that is why he is here today to ask for the Board's continued
support for the proposed project.
Mr. Paul Burke said he would appreciate it if hearings of this nature
could be held in the evening so that working people in the County can attend.
He is a resident of Crozet and has been unable to obtain information about
this project. He said he understands that the "greedy developer" is Mr.
Nunnally who developed the "stick together" houses in the northern portion of
Orchard Acres. Mr. Burke said Orchard Acres has 120 houses with most of the
traffic going onto Jarman's Gap Road. He is concerned about this project
being in the watershed and about the traffic for the project coming through
Orchard Acres. He feels this project is an opportunity for Charlottesville to
dump social problems on Albemarle County at the County's expense. He feels
there are a sufficient number of poor people in Crozet who need housing, and
he hopes that the local residents will have a chance to obtain affordable
housing. Mr. Burke said there are at least nine houses in Orchard Acres in
the $65,000 to $75,000 range for sale. He pointed out that there are no bus
lines and few social services available. It takes over 24 minutes for the
County police to arrive in Crozet. He is concerned about drug problems and
other crimes. Mr. Burke feels that this project will be a tenement and will
become rental property. He asked the Board to find better use for the money
of Albemarle County taxpayers. He believes this project is an opportunity for
a developer who has an undesirable parcel of 40 acres to find a way to develop
his property. He asked the Board not to participate in subsidized housing
because that is not the business of the County. He personally does not want
to see County funds spent this way.
Mr. Jack Marshall, President of Citizens for Albemarle and a resident of
White Hall District, said Citizens for Albemarle is concerned about the
population growth spawned by the proliferation of housing subdivisions.
Albemarle County is swelling at a rate that will lead to a doubling of the
population in 25 years. This growth is placing strains on the environment, on
the pocketbooks of residents and on the quality of life. However, Citizens
for Albemarle is also concerned about the fact that not all of the County's
current residents can afford decent housing. Developers find little profit in
building inexpensive houses. Every year there are proportionately fewer
places for low to moderate income families to buy or rent. In 1980, 13
percent of the County's labor force commuted from neighboring localities. The
1990 census will likely show an even higher percentage. For many people it
has become economically impossible to live in Albemarle County. Current
housing trends, which are largely dictated by developers, are driving out a
vital element of the society. People who have lived in the County for several
generations are being forced to move elsewhere. He believes the County's
housing policy should be compassionate and balanced. This means creating
opportunities not only for the affluent, but for people of all economic
levels. He said the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and would be built in a designated growth area. He feels that the
$331,000 match by the County is one of the costs of living in a well-rounded
and fair society. He hopes that the details for this project will show that
it can be developed in an environmentally responsible manner. If that is the
case, Citizens for Albemarle strongly urges the Board to support the venture.
Ms. Sue Casteen, a resident of Crozet on Railroad Avenue, said she bought
an affordable house for $45,000. She said she makes less than $30,000 a year.
She lived in Orangedale previously using a VHDA loan to purchase the home.
Ms. Casteen said she does not feel subsidized housing works. She feels that
the County needs to make existing houses available with loans which can be
obtained by low to moderate income families. Ms. Casteen said she feels that
children who live in low-income areas are discriminated against and do not
understand why. She feels that Albemarle County does not need more housing
projects. The houses are there if financing can be made available to those
who are low-income workers.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
113
Mr. Edgar S. Robb, a citizen of Albemarle County, said he is as directly
affected by this proposal as anyone. He owns three pieces of property zoned
R-6 which are adjacent to the proposed project. Mr. Robb commended the Board
for foresight in creating the opportunity in Albemarle County for lower income
families to have a place to live. He also commended the work of Mr. Francis
Fife and the Charlottesville Housing Foundation.
Mr. Robb said he is present to address the road crossing question. He
bought a subdivided lot adjacent to this property and found out that the
biggest portion is in the flood plain. He has enough space on the lot to put
a small residence only. The zoning is R-6, but the lot is constrained by the
size of the flood plain. Therefore, he is conducting a study of the flood
plain at his lot on Jarman's Gap Road. He said there has been a great deal of
confusion as to the definition of this flood plain. He has hired engineers
and paid over $10,000 to find out how the flood plain boundary was originally
established. He found out that no one knows who established the flood plain.
He asked the Board to define the flood plain before taking any further action
on this project. That will establish what can be done with all of the prop-
erty in this area. He said it is possible that it is in the best interest of
the County and himself to develop his property in the same fashion as the
County is proposing. He is not opposed to the housing project. However, he
hopes the Board will not appropriate funds until the big question of the flood
plain boundary is established.
Mr. Perkins said it seems that the most logical way to obtain access to
the proposed project might be through Mr. Robb's property. He asked if Mr.
Robb has any interest in selling a portion of his property to gain access.
Mr. Robb said when he heard about the proposal, he met with Mr. Fife and
told him that he would like to be kept advised of the progress of the proposal
because it borders his property. He said he is a bit upset because he has not
been allowed any input as an adjoining property owner. Mr. Robb said he would
not do anything in the neighborhood that the residents do not share in. He is
critical of this proposal only in that the people of Crozet have not been
provided with full or accurate information. Mr. Perkins asked if his answer
is yes or no. Mr. Robb did not give an answer.
Ms. Sally Thomas, League of Women Voters, urged the County to approve the
proposed project. She feels that the impact of the access road on the stream,
stream flow and capacity is not significant. This access is the least danger-
ous, the least costly and the one originally planned for the development of
the property. She said she supports the request for a commitment by the
County of $331,000 for this project. She understands that the Charlottesville
Housing Foundation has committed $181,000 subject to the County's commitment.
There is the possibility of a $331,000 CDBG grant. The Virginia Housing
Development Authority has committed one million dollars in construction money
and one million dollars in five percent mortgage money. With this level of
support, the League of Women Voters urges the Board to make a significant
commitment as requested.
Mr. Tom Lawler, resident of Crozet on the corner of Jarman Gap Road and
Killdeer Lane, said he anticipates that the traffic from this project will go
past his front door. He does not disagree with the concept, but he is con-
cerned about maintenance of the development after the houses are sold. He
said there are no child care or pre-school facilities in Crozet and no public
transportation available. He wondered if the County is prepared to assume the
responsibility of making those facilities available. There are no safe access
ways for people on foot in this area. The nearest public facilities are
across the railroad track or on the other side of town. He asked if green
space has been considered in this project. He wondered if facilitators will
be available in Crozet when there is a need for counselling, etc. If the
intent is to help people who are working under a financial handicap, then
these other aspects must be considered as well. He asked the Board to address
these questions before the project is approved.
Ms. Lisa Marshall, neighboring landowner, said she bought her property
this year for $58,000. She said the residents of Crozet were upset by reading
about the public hearing without having been given any other information about
the proposal. Ms. Marshall said she came to Mr. Fife in March, and he allayed
many of her fears. She feels that being against this project is like being
against motherhood. However, she is concerned about transportation out of
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20) 114
Crozet. She is concerned about the access to the project coming right by her
driveway. She is concerned about the possibility that the homes will not
remain owner-occupied. She said that services such as police coverage are not
adequate for this type of expansion. She is not radically opposed to the
project. She just needs more reassurance because there was not much informa-
tion beforehand, although residents had been told they would be informed.
Mr. Francis Fife, Executive Director of the Charlottesville Housing
Foundation, said over a year ago the Board of Supervisors discussed the idea
of a joint housing development for 30 or more single family homes. Since that
time a housing specialist employed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission and Mr. Fife have searched the County for land on which to con-
struct such homes. He said Mr. Steve Runkle, President of the Kessler Group,
has assisted in this search on a voluntary basis. Finding property which is
not excessively priced has been difficult, and he believes that the proposed
property is suitable. Mr. Fife explained that he is willing to meet in Crozet
at a suitable time to discuss the project. The reason there has not been a
meeting is that CHF has been working with the County staff to obtain the land,
and until the past few days there was not a definite idea of how much of the
property would be purchased. He said the plan is to purchase the entire
property. It is only now that he is free to explain to the residents what the
plans for the project are. He pointed out that Mr. Dick Nunnally has made an
exceedingly generous offer regarding this property because he would like to
see people have the opportunity to own homes. When the information is made
public, he feels it will be clear that Mr. Nunnally is foregoing a great deal
of money. Mr. Fife noted that the architect who has agreed to work on this
project has donated his services. He said there are many people working in
Albemarle who cannot afford to live here and housing is a universal problem.
Mr. Fife said CHF has put forth a great deal of effort up to this point to
work with the County in providing adequate housing. The sources CHF has been
able to gather for this project will help it go forward rapidly. Regarding
existing homes which are available for purchase, Mr. Fife pointed out that
many of these homes require a great deal of remodeling to bring them up to
standard. The County does not want to place people in substandard housing.
CHF is willing and ready to move forward when the County is ready to make a
commitment for $331,000. CHF has raised money from private citizens in
Charlottesville and Albemarle County to help with this project and has offered
to put up $181,000 as well as provide the services and time of its staff.
Mr. Ronnie Hancock, a broker with Clover Realty Company, said he has
worked a great deal with government subsidized housing in the past. When the
FHA began issuing loans years ago, there were almost no specifications or
restrictions for qualifying for government loans. Anyone classed as low
income was eligible. As a result, many of the homes were abandoned and not
maintained and the program got a bad reputation. Today, applicants for FHA
loans must qualify just as applicants for conventional financing. The only
difference is that 20 percent of the buyer's income currently goes toward the
house payment. The government then pays the balance of the payment. The
interest is set at a rate of 10 percent. When the house is sold, a percentage
of the profit goes back to the government to cover the money provided by the
government. Therefore, there is a different class of homeowners taking
advantage of these loans today. Mr. Hancock said he is neither for nor
against the project. He just wants to make people aware that the buyers must
be reputable people and must meet loan qualifications. He feels that this
issue is important at this public hearing.
Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing at this time.
Mr. Perkins said he does not feel that the crossing of Powell's Creek is
the problem. Rather, he is concerned about the traffic coming through Orchard
Acres as a result of the proposed development. He said the streets are not
designed for this volume of traffic. He cannot support "dumping" another 500
vehicles per day onto those roads. He feels that Mr. Fife should meet with
Mr. Robb and attempt to work out a way of getting traffic directly to Route
691. He said it might be beneficial to Mr. Robb and the best way to provide
access, although it may not be the cheapest alternative. Mr. Perkins said, at
one time, he lived in the first house in Orchard Acres. He moved because
every car in the subdivision came by his house, and it became dangerous
getting in and out of his driveway. Mr. Perkins said he cannot support access
to this property through Orchard Acres. He feels there is a good reason this
property has not been developed, and that reason is access. For this reason
he cannot support the stream crossing. Mr. Perkins said he suggested to Mr.
Cilimberg six months ago that there should be a public hearing in Crozet to
inform the people of the project to avoid misunderstanding. He is making that
suggestion again.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
115
Mr. Bowie agreed that public information hearings in Crozet are needed.
He asked Mr. Perkins to assure that such hearings are held before this comes
back to the Board.
The action required by the Board on this matter will take place after the
lunch break.
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing on An Ordinance to amend and reenact
Chapter 4 of the Code of Albemarle, entitled "Animals and Fowl", to add The
Meadows as one of those areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 24 and July 31, 1990.)
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing.
Mr. Don Nobles, Activity Director of the Meadows Community Center, said
the residents of The Meadows are senior citizens who walk with canes and
walkers and need the protection of this law. He said there are a number of
activities which take place at The Meadows and which warrant this law as well.
There being no other members of the public present to speak, the public
hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article II,
Division 2, Section 4-19 of the Code of Albemarle as set out below. 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.
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, ARTICLE II,
DIVISION 2, SECTION 4-19
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Chapter 4, Article II, Division 2, of the Code of
Albemarle, is hereby amended and reenacted in Section 4-19, by the
addition of sub-section (a) (30) to read as follows:
Sec. 4-19. In certain areas.
(a) It shall be unlawful for the owner of any dog to permit such
dog to run at large at any time within the following designated areas
of the county:
(30)
The Meadows in Crozet as platted and recorded in
the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the
county, in Deed Book 651, page 149.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel and Acquisition of
Property.
At 12:39 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs.
Humphris to adjourn into Executive Session for the purposes of discussing the
performance of specific personnel and acquisition of property in accordance
with State Code Sections 2.1-344.A.1 and 2.1-344.A.3.
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.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
116
At 3:26 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session and motion was
offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following resolu-
tion certifying executive session:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
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, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
At this time, the Board continued the discussion from the morning on
Agenda Item No. 10. Affordable Housing Project.
Mr. Perkins said he does not have a problem with the housing project, but
is concerned about routing all of that traffic into the streets of Orchard
Acres. He thinks that Route 691 should be considered for access. Mr. Bain
asked if it is possible to access along the northern route, south of the
railroad tracks. Mr. Perkins said access from that route would also create
traffic problems.
Mr. Agnor suggested that the staff hold a community meeting in Crozet,
study further the road issue and then bring the matter back to the Board for
review. The staff could have a recommendation on the road issue ready in
early September.
Mr. Cilimberg said one of the conditions for receiving the block grant
funds is a position from the Board on the proposed road crossing of Powell's
Creek. The Board needs to find that if this is to be the access, that it is
not creating disturbance detriment to the flood plain. A statement by the
Board to that affect does not commit the Board to the crossing of Powell's
Creek as the access. This access is still subject to further planning.
Action by the Board allows the staff to proceed with the technical require-
ments of getting the block grant contract signed and funds appropriated before
September 14.
Mr. Benish said access through Jarman's Gap Road would require this same
sort of review because it would have flood plain activity. There also would
be a problem if access was considered to the east. The Key Stone property,
mentioned earlier in the meeting, is a site eligible for historic designation
and if access is changed to encourage a roadway in that direction, it could be
a detriment to the site and affect the Department of Historic Resources
findings on the impact on an historic site. Mr. Benish said that was a
concern of his and one of the reasons for making access to the west more
viable. He is concerned that the County not lose the block grant funds.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
117
Mr. Perkins said he understands that his proposal would require the same
kind of review since part of the road would be in the flood plain. He does
not have a problem with crossing the flood plain, but continues to have a
problem with routing all of that traffic into Orchard Acres where the streets
are not adequate to handle it. He is more concerned with Orchard Acres than
with a historic designation. Mr. Benish commented that the whole area is
flood plain soil which might have an impact. Mr. Perkins said the entire road
would not have to be in the flood plain. Mr. Cilimberg commented that the
area intended for the crossing is identified by FEMA as being flood plain on
the Flood Insurance Rate Map.
Mr. Way said the questions asked during the morning session should have a
response. He thinks it is important to move forward and keep all of the
options open.
Mr. Perkins then offered motion that the staff proceed with the afford-
able housing project in Crozet with the understanding that staff is to look at
other alternatives for road access; staff will also proceed with publication
of the public notice.
Mr. Benish commented that the public notice is worded such that alterna-
tive access to the east is feasible due to the availability of land and the
cost would not preclude the staff from coming back if conditions change. Mr.
Perkins said he still thinks staff should look at access to Route 691. In
addition, all of that land in the area is zoned R-6 so there probably will be
other development.
Mrs. Humphris asked for an explanation of the statement "it is the
County's judgement that the continued viable of the housing subdivision
project outweighs consideration of executive orders .... " Mr. Benish said
that is wording from the Flood plain and Wetlands Protection Acts. The form
is recommended by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development
which basically states that this is the most viable alternative and it addres-
Ses the requirements of those code provisions.
Mr. Bain then seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion although before this comes back
to the Board he would like additional information. He also supports Mr.
Perkin's request for a public information meeting in Crozet.
There being no further comments, 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.
Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Benish needs to be designated as the Environmental
Certifying Officer for this project. He has been acting in that capacity, but
needs to be officially appointed by the Board. Mr. Bain offered motion,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to appoint Mr. David Benish as the Environmental
Certifying Officer for the project. 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. 15. Request to vacate a portion of a plat of North-
fields.
This matter was brought to the Board by letter of July 11, 1990, from
Virginia Land Trust.
(Mr. Bain said he would abstain from the discussions on this item because
of a potential conflict of interest. At 3:45 P.M., he left the room.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
ll8
"REQUEST: To vacate the term 'Recreation Area' from property de-
scribed as Tax Map 62A(2), Parcel 10A, and to reissue a single family
dwelling building permit on the property and to further approve
subdivision of the property into three lots. This property is situ-
ated on Carrsbrook Drive in Northfields Subdivision in the Charlottes-
ville Magisterial District. This property is within a designated
growth area.
FORWARD: This report deals only with the request to vacate the term
'Recreation Area' from the property. The question of reissuance of
the building permit is more appropriate to the County Attorney and
Zoning Administrator. The plat proposing subdivision of the property
into three lots has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission and,
therefore, in staff opinion, is not properly before the Board.
On April 4, 1961, the Albemarle County Planning Commission gave
preliminary approval to Sections 6, 7 and 8 of Northfields subdivi-
sion. At that time, Charlottesville exercised concurrent jurisdiction
for subdivision review near the city:
April 11~ 1961 Charlottesville Planning Commission granted pre-
liminary approval.
May 2~ 1961 - Albemarle County Planning Commission granted final
approval.
May 9~ 1961 - Charlottesville Planning Commission granted final
approval.
May 17, 1961 - Albemarle County Board of Supervisors granted
final approval.
June~ 1961 Plat recorded in Deed Book 368, Page 432 describing
this property and other property as 'Recreation Area'.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has submitted argument as to why the
la-~-~gua~ iR--~ccreation Area' should be vacated allowing subdivision and
development of the property (on file). Staff will address two issues
from the applicant's submittal:
Item 2a. incorporates a letter from the County Attorney's office
written in regard to another property in Northfields, not the
property subject to this request. A significant difference is
that this site was specifically approved as 'Recreation Area'
Item 2e. states that proposed dwellings will be at a 'price level
presently about $150,000 to $160,000' while the building permit
reflects a value of $90,000.
Staff offers the following comments related to the request to vacate
the term 'Recreation Area':
In accordance with City and County approvals, the County Depart-
ment of Finance has taxed the property for recreational value
since 1961 at a far lower assessment than for residentially-
developable land. According to the Department of Finance, should
the Board choose to allow residential development, only three
years of 'back taxes' could be collected.
Staff views this issue as a subdivision restriction self-imposed
by the developer to entreat approval by two localities. Had the
developer intended additional subdivision of land, 'Reserved for
Future Development' as opposed to 'Recreational Area' would have
been appropriate language.
Vacation of the term 'Recreation Area' to allow additional
development could have severe implications to the tax base as
well as planning efforts if areas designated for recreation or
open space (and taxed as such) could be converted at the
convenience of a developer. Such action could also discredit the
planning process to lot purchasers within a development.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
119
Staff can determine no compelling reason to warrant re-evaluation
of the developer's original proposal that this land be designated
for 'Recreation Area'. Therefore, staff recommends no further
consideration of this matter.
Should the Board choose to further consider this request, staff
recommends the following:
The County Attorney's office should offer opinion as to what
property owners within Northfields (if any) should be notified of
public hearing;
The issue of the suspended building permit could be resolved by
partial vacation, subject to Planning Commission approval of
subdivision within the residue designated as 'Recreation Area'
Again it is recommended that the County Attorney's office be
consulted.
Dr. Charles W. Hurt, the applicant, said he owns the land and, first he
would like to address the issue of the cost of the building permit. The
building permit is typically the cost of construction which is usually 60
percent of the selling price. When he gets a building permit for $90,000, he
expects to sell the house for $150,000 to $160,000. He does not think the
building permit includes interest, land, architectural fees or permits. He
then presented a picture of the house he proposes to build which fits in with
the neighborhood. Dr. Hurt said he does not think, as was implied, that he
has gotten some sort of break because this land has been assessed as a recre-
ation area. He feels that he has been overtaxed on this land for the last 30
years because it has not been used. Before sewerage was provided to this pro-
perty, it would not perk. This property has had no use other than neighbors
dumping trash on it. He is tired of trying to keep the property clean from
trash and debris.
Dr. Hurt said a number of lots were platted and recorded before this
section of Northfields. There was no zoning in effect at the time this was
put to record. When many of the people in Northfields bought their lots, this
lot had not been recorded. He voluntarily placed restrictions on this pro-
perty, not the County. He thinks it is a legal question as to whether putting
the term "recreation" on that lot means the lot must remain recreation for-
ever. He also questions the meaning of "recreation". Recreation might have
one meaning for him and another meaning for somebody else. He also pointed
out that the Northfields Homeowner's Association has no interest whatsoever in
this property. He excluded this property from the restrictions of the home-
owner's association. He does not think the words "recreation area" gives
anybody any rights in this property.
Dr. Hurt said the reason he is before the Board today is because he
obtained a building permit from the County and started construction on the
foundation for a house, and then was issued a "stop work" order. He had spent
about $5,000 to that point. He does not think it is necessary for the Board
to vacate this property. The property was not designated as open area. He is
present today because he wants.to get his building permit back.
Mr. Donn Bent, representing the applicant, said he does not think that
the residents of Northfields have a vested right to forever prohibit develop-
ment of this property. As it currently stands, the site is not particularly
attractive and the remains of the building that was started are unsightly. In
addition, the site is a good breeding place for mosquitos, pests and varments.
There are people in Northfields who would like to see this property developed
because it has become an eyesore. He thinks there should be a public hearing
to let the neighbors express their views.
Mr. Bowie asked what happens if the Board does not set a public hearing
on this request. Mr. St. 3ohn responded that the plat would not be vacated..
It is his opinion that in order for anything other than recreation to take
place on this property, the plat must be vacated. This lot was approved as an
amenity for the rest of the subdivision.
Mrs. Humphris said she believes that the term recreation area was used as
a sales tool for the subdivision. The fact that the property is unsightly and
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
120
used for things other than recreation is because it has remained in the
ownership of the developer and was never deeded to the homeowner's associa-
tion. She then recounted a similar situation that happened in the subdivision
in which she lives. She thinks that the people who have purchased lots in
Northfields have every right to assume this property will remain as recreation
space.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there were other lots in Northfields platted in
1961 that were undevelopable because of a sewer problem. Dr. Hurt said he did
not know at the time the lots were platted that they would not perk. He then
restated that the lot was intentionally excluded from the restrictions of the
homeowner's association. At the time the lots were platted, there were about
two dozen that would not perk, but he did not know that at that time. Also,
there was not a requirement that the lots percolate. Mr. Bowerman asked Dr.
Hurt why he allowed the term "recreation area" to be put on the plat. Dr.
Hurt replied that at the time it was obvious that the lot would not perk.
This lot looked liked all of the other lots that would not perk and it was
obvious that the land was unbuildable.
Mrs. Humphris then asked Dr. Hurt again why the property was designated
recreation area. Dr. Hurt replied it was a fluke on the part of the engineer
that he did not pay attention to. At the time, he was not aware that putting
these words on the plat would mean that somebody else would have rights in the
property. He reiterated that the homeowner's association has no rights or
control in this property. Mr. St. John commented that would mean any houses
built on the property would not have the same restrictions as the other houses
in Northfields. Dr. Hurt replied that is correct. (Mr. Bowie left the
meeting at 4:12 P.M.)
Mr. Bowerman asked who uses the property for recreation. Dr. Hurt
replied the property was not used as recreation for anyone. He objects to
people trashing the property and he has given no one permission to use it.
Not many of the homeowners in Northfields bought property from him directly
and he has no control over how property is represented when it is sold by
someone. Mr. St. John said that is the same as saying that a person has no
right to place any reliance on something that is put on a plat for public
record. Dr. Hurt responded that is not correct. He has not violated any
restrictions. He did not intend these words to be a permanent restriction on
the property.
Mr. St. John said it is his opinion that Dr. Hurt intentionally put the
word recreation on the plat and intended for buyers in the subdivision to
think they were getting a right in the property even though they really were
not. Dr. Hurt exclaimed that was absolutely false and no one can tell him
what he intended to do. Mr. St. John said he thinks Dr. Hurt is attempting to
commit a fraud on the people who live in Northfields, and on the City and
County. Dr. Hurt said that is for the court to decide.
Mrs. Humphris said it is her opinion that vacating the term "recreation
area" from the plat would establish a precedent. She then offered motion to
not set a public hearing on the request to vacate a portion of a plat in
Northfields Subdivision.
Mr. St. John said if the sentiment of the people who live in Northfields
is that this property is being used as a dumping ground, then maybe the Board
should consider going to public hearing on the request. Mrs. Humphris said
based on the information she has received, she is satisfied with denying the
request. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the people in Northfields purchased their
lots and expected this recreational area to remain.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Way.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bain.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
121
(Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 4:19 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 16a. Discussion:
Family Wastewater Treatment System.
Point Source Discharge for Single-
Mr. Agnor presented his memorandum dated August 2, 1990, as follows:
"Forwarded herewith, as requested, is a written opinion from Mrs.
Patterson, Zoning Administrator, on the use under the current Zoning
Ordinance of a Wisconsin Sand Mound Septic System and a low pressure
distribution septic system. The opinion is that both systems would be
allowed. You will recall that both systems are on site, non-discharge
systems that utilize subsurface absorption requiring acceptable
percolation of the soil on site, similar to traditional septic drain-
field systems.
Also attached is a Planning Department staff report on the concept of
revising the Zoning Ordinance to provide for surface discharge waste
treatment systems for use in replacing failed septic systems where
subsurface discharge systems will not function. The report does not
recommend revising the ordinance, indicating that once such systems
are allowed in the narrowest of circumstances, their use would be
subject to variances by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Dr. Susan McLeod, District Health Director, will be present at your
August 8 meeting to discuss with you the Surface Discharge Systems
which are licensed by the State Water Control Board in coordination
with the State Department of Health, with local government approval."
The following memorandum dated July 30, 1990, from Amelia M. Patterson,
Zoning Administrator, was received:
"This serves as response to the Board's inquiry at their meeting of
July llth, as to whether Wisconsin sand mound and low pressure distri-
bution (lpd) septic systems would be permitted under the current
Zoning Ordinance. It is my opinion, after consultation with local
Health officials, that these alternate subsurface systems would be
permitted. Please note that the ordinance requires full 100 percent
reserve areas, unless variances are granted.
To our knowledge, there currently are none of these systems within
Albemarle County. A low pressure distribution system had been pro-
posed at the Earlysville Forest commercial area, but was abandoned
when additional area became available for a conventional drainfield.
Apparently these systems offer few advantages for the geology within
Albemarle County.
Both systems still require an acceptable percolation rate from native
soils. They are both on-site non-discharge systems that utilize
subsurface absorption. The sand mound system is used mostly in tidal
areas and restricts the maximum slope to 12 percent. The clay layer
found commonly in Albemarle causes effluent to be dispersed outward
and upward. The lpd system is expensive (two or three times the
standard), and does not always reduce drainfield size. A typical 60
minute/inch rate results in a 20 percent reduction.'!
The following memorandum, dated July 31, 1990, from V. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development, was received:
"At its meeting of July 11, 1990, the Board of Supervisors declined to
endorse usage of VPDES permitted treatment systems for development of
vacant land, but did direct staff to report as to the propriety of
allowing such systems for developed lots where conventional septic
systems had failed and no other on-site treatment facility could be
utilized. Staff has discussed this issue with other agencies (Albe-
marle County Service Authority, Watershed Management Official, and
Director of Engineering).
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
122
Planning staff comments relative to 'emergency' usage of such systems
follow:
Staff asked the County Attorney's Office if the Board could
authorize installation of such a system, though not permitted in
the Zoning Ordinance, upon recommendation by the Virginia Depart-
ment of Health that no alternative existed and, therefore, a
clear danger existed to the public health. The County Attorney's
response was in the negative;
If the Zoning Ordinance were amended to allow such systems in the
narrowest of circumstances, the provision would be subject to
variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Therefore, the Board of
Supervisors would have no guarantee nor control over usage of
such systems;
In the July report, staff suggested that if the Board chose to
allow such systems, a 'wait and see' approach with the involved
state agencies would be appropriate. Currently, the Virginia
Department of Health is operating under a policy statement and it
is likely to be more than a year before specific regulations are
adopted. As has been the case with other Health Department
efforts, these regulations will be subjected to pressure from
special interest groups.
In closing, and based on staff research, these systems have not re-
ceived positive endorsement by the Virginia Department of Health,
Albemarle County Service Authority, Watershed Management Official,
County Engineer or Planning staff. Other localities, as reported in
July, are concerned that the burden of these systems will be shifted
to localities. The Virginia Department of Health has no adopted
regulations (only policy) governing such systems. While 'emergency'
cases may be very limited, once allowed in the Zoning Ordinance the
Board cannot assume that 'emergency' situations would be the only
circumstance under which such systems would be authorized. For these
reasons, staff again recommends that allowance of these systems in the
Zoning Ordinance, even under the narrowest of circumstances, would be
premature.
Should the Board choose to amend the Zoning Ordinance, staff recom-
mends the following language:
4.1.8
The zoning administrator shall certify that issuance of
a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES)
permit for a single family dwelling treatment system re-
quiring such permit to be consistent with local regulation
only under the following circumstances:
The dwelling for which such permit is sought is in
existence; and
Ail on-site sewage disposal systems have failed or are
failing as evidenced by written report from the Virgin-
ia Department of Health and no other property is
reasonably available for location of an on-site sewage
disposal system; and
There shall be no increase in potential occupancy by
building addition, remodeling, or change of use, in a
manner which will increase water usage; and
There shall be no increase in the plumbing within the
dwelling except as necessary for minimum facilities for
good sanitation. For residential use, minimum
facilities shall be limited to: a water closet, a
bathroom sink, a bathtub and/or shower and a kitchen
sink."
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
123
Dr. Susan McLeod, Director, Thomas Jefferson Health District, addressed
the Board. Also present with her was Mr. Jack Collins, Environmental Manager
for the Health Department. Dr. McLeod said the Health Department is presently
in a transition period with the new Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (VPDES). The State Water Control Board has turned over the responsi-
bility to the local health departments. There are basically two types of
systems recognized in the VPDES Policy. One system is a package treatment
system which requires a fair amount of maintenance. The other system is a
sand filter system which is a much more passive system, has filtration from
the effluent and then further effluent from that which has to be disinfected.
The difference between these two systems is the level of maintenance required.
Both systems require that there be a stream or a protected area for some
distance from the discharge point in order to limit contact with the effluent.
Dr. McLeod said the County has been fortunate not to have to be forced to
deal with these kinds of treatment systems. In general, the County has good
soil that perks well and then there are the traditional drainfield systems.
Many other areas in the state have dealt with sand filter systems in the past.
If the systems are maintained property, they will not be a detriment to to the
public's health. The monitoring of the system would be the responsibility of
the local health department. The department is concerned that it will not be
allowed to hire any additional personnel to take on this responsibility. From
that standpoint, she would not like to see a lot of these systems proliferat-
ing in the County, but for specific limited use, it would be something that
the department could deal with.
Mr. Perkins asked what action is needed from the Board. Mr. Agnor said
the Board needs to decide whether it wants to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
accommodate discharge systems.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Zoning Administrator's opinion addresses only
the nondischarge methods. Mr. Agnor replied "yes".
Mr. St. John asked if there are places in the County now where septic
systems are failing. Mr. Way replied "yes". Mr. St. John said he is not
attempting to advocate a position, but he does think there should be a means
at hand, if there is a situation which exists and which creates a danger or
threat to the health of the public, to alleviate that situation.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the Board should wait until a situation
presents itself and then act. She does not think the Board should allow this
when there has been no demonstrated need.
Mr. Way said he does not think the people who have this problem will ever
just come before the Board because they will think the process to go through
is too tough.
Dr. McLeod said if this system were made available, it does not necessar-
ily mean that it will be the way to handle many of the failing septic systems
because there are significant restrictions, costs and other kinds of things
that may not be feasible. So far, when septic systems have failed, the Health
Department has been able to recommend remedies within the current regulations.
Mr. Collins then described the process the Health department goes through
when a system fails.
Mr. Way said he thinks there already is a problem with failing septic
systems and he does not want to just ignore it.
Mr. Perkins said if there is a problem in the County with failing sys-
tems, then it is up to the homeowner to remedy the situation and to come to
the County for help.
Mr. Bain said he is not willing to forward this method as a remedy. Mrs.
Humphris said she also is not willing to vote to allow these methods.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Way to instruct the County Attorney to
draft language to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for a point source
discharge system. For lack of a second, the motion died.
There was no further discussion.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
124
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on An Ordinance to Assess, as part of
the fees taxed as costs in each criminal or traffic case, etc., a sum not in
excess of two dollars. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 24 and
July 31, 1990.)
Mr. Agnor said the proposed amendment to the Code would provide an
assessment, as part of the fees taxed as costs in each criminal or traffic
case in a district or circuit court, a sum not in excess of two dollars.
These additional revenues may be used for the construction, renovation or
maintenance of a courthouse or jail and court-related facilities and to defray
any increases in the cost of heating, cooling, electricity and ordinary
maintenance.
The public hearing was opened. There being no comments from the public,
the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
the following Ordinance to assess, as part of the fees taxed as costs in each
criminal or traffic case in a district or circuit court, a sum not in excess
of two dollars:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that:
A fee of Two Dollars shall be taxed as additional costs in each
criminal or traffic case in the respective courts of Albemarle County
for the purpose of providing for the maintenance, construction or
renovation of the courthouse, jail or court related facilities located
in and serving the County and to defray the costs of cooling, heating
and electricity in these facilities. The Director of Finance shall
segregate the fees collected pursuant to this ordinance for the
purposes designated above.
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following record-
ed vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing on An Ordinance to amend and reenact
sections in Chapter 12 of the Code of Albemarle to require the payment of
personal property taxes on mobile homes before the issuance of an automobile
decal, and to make violation provisions clearer. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on July 24 and July 31, 1990.)
Mr. Agnor said the~proposed amendment to Chapter 12 of the Code would add
a penalty for the nonpayment of decal fees. The other proposed change re-
quires payment of personal property taxes on mobile homes prior to issuance of
decals.
The public hearing was opened. There being no comments from the public,
the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the
following Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and
Traffic:
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 12, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Article V, Chapter 12 of the Code of Albemarle, is
hereby amended and reenacted in certain sections as follows:
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
125
Sec. 12-21.1. Violations:
The penalty for violation of this Chapter of the Code of
Albemarle shall be found in Sec. 1-6. A violation of this Chapter may
not be discharged by payment of a fine except upon presentation of
satisfactory evidence that the required license has been obtained.
Sec. 12-29.
License not to be issued until personal property taxes
on all vehicles and mobile homes are paid.
No motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer taxable under the
provisions of this article shall be licensed unless and until the
applicant for such license shall have produced satisfactory evidence
that all personal property taxes on the motor vehicle, trailer or
semitrailer to be licensed which have been assessed or are assessable
against such applicant have been paid, and satisfactory evidence that
any other delinquent mobile home, motor vehicle, trailer or
semitrailer personal property taxes owing by the applicant and which
have been properly assessed or are assessable against the applicant
have been paid.
FURTHER ORDAINED that in all other respects Chapter 12, Motor
Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of Albemarle remains the same; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the amendments shall be effective
immediately upon approval by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia.
Roll was called and the foregoing' motion carried by the following record-
ed vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 15a. Discussion: Alternative Day Care Proposal.
(Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 4:43 P.M.) Mr. Way said Board members
are aware that the JTPA grant for a child care program has been denied. At
the meeting when the School Board asked this Board to endorse the grant
application, he made an alternate proposal for day care for high school
students. He feels that day care is an important issue that needs to be
addressed and if this Board does not do anything today, school will be in
session and the issue will not be addressed again until next year. He pro-
poses that a $20,000 scholarship fund be established for the purpose of
assisting high school students with a child to find day care while those
students are in school. He recommends that the fund be administered by the
United Way Child Care Scholarship ~Program. He has been unsuccessful in
getting in touch with someone from that Program. He has spoken with Mr.
Charles McCallum, Executive Director of United Way, who indicated that he saw
no problem with United Way administering the program. (Mr. Bowerman returned
to the meeting at 4:45 P.M.) Whatever criteria is established by the United
Way Child Care Scholarship Program would apply to students applying to the
Program, but, in addition, he felt the following criteria should be a part of
any program:
Any full time student at Albemarle High School, Murray High School or
Western Albemarle High School would be eligible to participate in the
program;
The financial situation of the teen mother and her family, as well as the
father and his family (where applicable), would be considered before
awarding a scholarship;
The program would be evaluated each year under the normal budget process
conducted by staff;
Program to be limited to 180 days of child care.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
126
Mr. Way said he thinks this is a viable program for the following rea-
sons:
2.
3.
4.
The teen mother will have some choice where child will receive day care;
The teen mother will not be forced to take courses in "parenting skills"
or "day care provider skills" in order to participate in the program;
The $20,000 initial grant can be increased by direct contributions from
citizens who wish to do so; and
The County can apply to the Private Industry Council in future years for
a grant to supplement this program.
Mr. Way suggested that if the Board members are interested in pursuing
this program, that it direct staff to meet with a representative from the
United Way Scholarship Program and set up the details for the program and then
come back to the Board for an appropriation of the funds. If the program is
approved in concept so that United Way can begin, knowing that the Board will
appropriate up to $20,000, that should relieve the minds of some of the
students who are in this situation when school opens.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Way had considered having the program admini-
stered by the County Social Services Department. Mr. Way replied "yes" and
that might be a better agency to run the program. The reason he chose United
Way was because he knew it had a program and criteria in existence and would
not need to add additional people to run the program. If the Board or staff
feels that Social Services would be a better agency to run the program, he has
no problem with that. Mr. Bain said he also would like to have Social Ser-
vices considered. He then asked where the funds would come from. Mr. Agnor
said the $20,000 would come from the General Fund Balance.
Mrs. Humphris said she is glad Mr. Way made this proposal.
asked if the 180 day limit is per year. Mr. Way replied "yes".
is to provide child care during the school year.
She then
The purpose
Mr. Way said most of the aspects of the program can be put together
fairly quickly. He also thinks there should be as much flexibility as possi-
ble based on the financial need of that individual. Mr. Bowerman agreed with
Mr. Way.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Way to request the staff to look into the
possibility of providing child care for high school students using the general
guidelines he outlined above and report back to the Board at the September 5
meeting. In supporting this program, unless the staff determines the proposal
is not feasible, the Board will appropriate $20,000 from the Fund Balance at
that time to fund the program. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 16e. Presentation: Beneplus Plan Amendment.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 4:58 P.M.) Mr. Bob Brandenburger,
Benefits/Safety Coordinator, Personnel Department, said the BENEPLUS Program
is used to allow employees to pay certain expenses such as medical insurance
and expenses, dental insurance and dependent care by setting aside dollars in
a pre-tax type account. These dollars are not subject to social security,
federal or state taxes. This program has been in effect in the County for
three years and has been successful. He then presented the following memo-
randum dated August 2, 1990:
"Enclosed is the amended BENEPLUS plan document that requires Board
approval. The changes in the plan are required to insure compliance
with recent changes in Internal Revenue Service regulations that apply
to plan years that begin after 3anuary 1, 1990.
The enclosed plan is amended to reflect the following changes:
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
127
Reducing the enrollment paperwork by using a 'negative election'
for payment of health insurance premiums. Health insurance
premiums will be paid on a pre-tax basis unless an employee
specifically elects otherwise when enrolling in the health or
dental program. This election will remain in effect for all
further plan years unless rescinded by an employee during subse-
quent changes in enrollment in the health plan. This procedure
does not apply to the health and dependent care reimbursement
accounts. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 5:01 P.M.)
Only Albemarle County medical/dental insurance premiums can be
paid pre-tax. Other spouse or dependent insurance obtained
through another employer cannot be paid on a pre-tax basis.
Also, other health insurance such as cancer, disability, inten-
sive care or accident insurance can no longer be paid on a
pre-tax basis.
Claims against a health or dependent care reimbursement account
will continue to be paid when an employee provides proof of
payment, but a statement of the charges incurred will be required
from a third party provider.
e
Part-time permanent employees working less than 20 hours per week
will not be eligible to participate. This conforms to the
benefit eligibility policies adopted by the Boards this past
November.
Terminating employees who do not elect to continue participation
through federal COBRA rights will no longer be allowed to submit
claims for expenses incurred during the plan year but after their
date of termination.
The most significant IRS change is the requirement for employers
to assume a 'risk of loss' for the health reimbursement account
(HI{A). Under past regulations the employer was not at risk
because the maximum monthly reimbursement to an employee was
limited to the amount of money in the employee's account at the
time the claim was processed. New IRS regulations require each
HRA must provide that the maximum amount of health care reim-
bursements elected by each HRA participant during the plan year
must be available to the participant throughout the entire plan
year, subject to reduction for any prior claims paid. The amount
of available reimbursement cannot be based on the total premiums
paid by a participant at the time the claim is made, nor can the
participant's payment schedule be accelerated simply because he
has withdrawn reimbursements in excess of the balance in the HRA.
(Note: These risk-shifting, uniform coverage rules do not apply
to flexible spending accounts that reimburse employees for
dependent care expenses.)
To understand the potential problems created by this 'employer-at-
risk' rule, consider its application where an employee elects to
establish a health reimbursement account for $4000 and then immedi-
ately incurs $4000 in expenses. To comply with this new rule, the
county must reimburse the employee for the full $4000 in expenses,
even though the employee will only be required to make salary reduc-
tion contributions over the course of the entire plan year.
The County, in the example described above, is at risk only for the
interest expense of reimbursing employees early in the year, provided
that the employer's $4000 contribution will be repaid through the
salary-reduction contributions made by the employee during the balance
of the year. This so-called 'negative HRA balance' situation is
exacerbated if the employee terminates without paying the balance of
the salary reduction 'premiums' that are due for the rest of the plan
year. It is unlikely that the County could force only employees who
have negative account balances to repay excess reimbursements without
violating the 'risk of loss' requirement in the proposed regulations.
The proposed regulations also prohibit employers from: basing emplo-
yee's payment schedule on the amount of claims incurred.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
128
To limit potentially large losses resulting from such HRA election
changes, I recommend the BENEPLUS plan be amended by:
Placing a dollar cap on the health reimbursement accounts at
$4ooo,
retaining all forfeitures in the plan to offset any losses
incurred. The current plan retains forfeitures in a pooled
account that is liquidated by giving each participant an equal
share of $10.00 or more, and
3. using FICA savings to offset any losses.
While the BENEPLUS plan could be amended to delete the health reim-
bursement account option, I do not recommend this course of action.
The County's risk of loss is relatively iow because:
Of the 718 people participating in BENEPLUS, only 276 (38%)
participate in the health reimbursement account (HRA).
The average annual contribution to the HRA is $737.70. It ranges
from a low of $36.00 to a high of $3696.00. Only six people
elected contributions above $3,000.00. The distribution of
current participation is as follows:
Annual Contribution No. of Participants Cumulative
(at risk) No. %
$1-$500 150 150 56
$501-$1000 55 205 74
$1001-$1500 30 235 85
$1501-$2000 18 253 92
$2001-$2500 12 265 96
$2501-$3000 5 270 98
$3001-$3500 1 271 98
$3501-$4000 5 76 100
$4000+ 0 276 100
The risk only occurs if a participant terminates before the end
of the plan year (September 30th) and has received reimbursements
in excess of his contributions. A review of our terminations for
the past year indicates few HRA participants terminated before
the end of the school year.
Month of Termination
No. of HRA Participants
October 1
November 1
December 1
January 0
February 1
March 0
April 1
May 1
June 18
July 0
The County will save approximately $83,046 in FICA expenses for
this year's BENEPLUS plan. This savings will increase next year
when all employee health insurance premiums are paid pre-tax.
In conclusion, pre-tax savings on medical expenses for an employee can
be a significant benefit as few people ever reach the exclusion to
qualify for itemized health deductions on their federal and state
income taxes. Weighing this against the low risk of loss, I recommend
the health reimbursement account be retained with a $4000 cap on
contributions."
Mr. Bain asked if the Board should allocate some of the funds for the
potential "risk of loss". Mr. Agnor suggested waiting and if a problem
occurs, then take action.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
129
Mr. Bain asked if any of these changes have been explained to the employ-
ees. Mr. Brandenburger replied "no". Within the next two weeks, Personnel
will begin sending information out to the employees.
Mr. Agnor said the staff recommends continuance of the Beneplus Plan with
the revisions proposed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to continue the
Beneplus Plan with the revisions as outlined in Mr. Brandenburger's memorandum
of August 2, by readopting the following plan effective September 1, 1990.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Effective July 1, 1987
Amended July 1, 1989
Amended September 1, 1990
WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has enacted legis-
lation in the form of Sections 105, 106, 125, and 129 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 which it designed to encourage employers to offer
to their employees health benefits and accident (and disability)
insurance coverage, including health benefit reimbursements provided
through flexible employee benefit plans, operated on a nondiscrimina-
tory basis; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors ("employer") has determined
that it is in the best interest of employees of the County of
Albemarle to adopt a flexible employee welfare benefit plan which will
better enable eligible employees to provide for health and accident
insurance, other medical and dental benefits, and dependent care
benefits in a flexible and cost effective fashion;
NOW, THEREFORE, in order to accomplish these purposes, the Board
of Supervisors has adopted the County of Albemarle Flexible Health
Benefits Plan ("Plan") as hereinafter stated, to be effective as of
July 1, 1987, as amended.
It is intended that this Plan meet all of the requirements of
Sections 105, 106, 125, and 129 of the Code, governing the tax treat-
ment of eligible employees of health and accident insurance, other
medical and dental benefits, and dependent care benefits, and the Plan
shall be interpreted, wherever possible, to comply with such terms of
the Code.
Section 1.
Section 2.
Section 3.
Section 4.
Section 5.
Section 6.
Section 7.
Section 8.
CONT]~S
Page
Purpose ............................................... 2
Effective Date and Plan Year .......................... 2
Definitions ........................................... 2
Eligibility and Participation ......................... 5
Benefits .............................................. 5
Limitation ............................................ 7
Elections by Eligible Employees ....................... 7
Continuation of Health Benefits Following
Termination of Employment or Coverage ................. 9
Section 9. Claim Procedures ...................................... 12
Section 10. Review Procedure for Claims Denied
by Plan Administrator ................................ . 14
Section 11. Plan Administrator .................................... 15
Section 12. Plan Contributions .................................... 15
Section 13. Amendment or Termination .............................. 15
Section 14. Miscellaneous ......................................... 16
Section 15. Entire Agreement ...................................... 17
l!
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
130
Section 1
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Plan is to permit Eligible Employees of the
Employer to choose among the Benefits provided by the Employer under
this Plan in such a fashion as best suits their individual circum-
stances, and further to encourage and help provide for expanded, but
cost-effective medical and dental benefits and other health coverage
for each Eligible Employee and for his spouse and Dependents, and
dependent care coverage for each Eligible Employee. It is the intent
of the Employer that this Plan qualify as a "cafeteria plan" within
the meaning of Section 125 of the Code, and to the maximum extent
possible, that any Benefits paid under the Plan be eligible for
exclusion from gross income under Sections 105, 106 and 129 of the
Code. The Employer presently provides, and will continue to provide,
a variety of other employee benefits to some or all of its employees
on a non-elective basis. The Benefits provided under this Plan shall
be in addition to and not an lieu of such other benefits, and such
other benefits shall not constitute a part of this Plan.
Section 2
EFFECTIVE DATE AND PLAN YEAR
The effective date of this Plan, as amended, shall be Septem-
ber 30, 1990. The Plan shall be kept on the basis of a fiscal Plan
Year beginning September 1st and ending on each subsequent September
29th.
Section 3
DEFINITIONS
3.01 Benefits. "Benefits" means the health and accident bene-
fits available under this Plan that are described in Section 5.
3.02 Code. "Code" means the internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
now in effect or as it may be amended hereafter, and includes any
regulations or rulings issued thereunder.
3.03 Dependent. The "Dependents" of a Participant for each Plan
Year shall include his spouse and any of the following individuals who
depend on the Participant for more than one-half (1/2) of their
support during the Plan Year:
(a) his son or daughter, a descendent of either, or stepson or
stepdaughter;
(b) his father or mother, an ancestor, brother or sister of
elther, or stepfather or stepmother;
(c) his brother or sister, a son or daughter of either, or
stepbrother or stepsister;
(d) his son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-
law, brother-in-law, or sister-in-law; or
(e) any other individual whose principal residence is with the
Participant and who is a member of the Participant's household during
such Plan Year.
3.04 Dependent Care Recipient. A "Dependent Recipient" quali-
fied to receive Benefits under Section 5 of the Plan is any Dependent
who is either:
(a) a son, daughter, stepson, or stepdaughter ("child") of a
Participant who is under the age of thirteen (13);
(b) any Dependent who is physically or mentally incapable of
taking care of himself and who regularly spends at least eight (8)
hours a day in the Participant's home;
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
131
(c) any other Dependent who is under the age of thirteen (13)
and whose gross income for each of the calendar years covered by such
Plan Year is less than $2000.
3.05 Educational institution. "Educational institution" means
any educational institution which normally maintains a regular faculty
and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of pupils or
students in attendance at the place where its educational activities
are regularly carried on.
3.06 Eligible ~mployees. An "Eligible Employee" is any Full-
time or Part-time employee who is eligible to participate in the Plan
under section 4.01.
3.07 Eligible Mealth FSA ~xpenses. "Eligible Health FSA Expen-
ses'' means any medical, dental, or other health care expenses deduct-
ible under Section 213 of the Code that are incurred by a Participant
or by the PartiCipant's spouse or Dependents, that are not otherwise
reimbursed under the Insurance Policies maintained by the Employer or
under any other health plan coverage, and that are described in
requests for reimbursement under the Health FSA provided under the
Plan that comply with the Claims Procedures described in Section 9
hereof. Notwithstanding the above, "Eligible Health FSA Expenses" do
not include reimbursements for any Participant's premium payments for
other health plan coverage, such as premiums paid for health coverage
under a plan maintained by an employer of the Participant's spouse or
Dependents.
3.08 Eligible Dependent Care ~xpenses. "Eligible Dependent Care
Expenses" means all expenses for Qualifying Dependents Care Services
incurred by a Participant or by his or her Spouse which are paid to a
Qualified Caregiver of a Qualified Dependent Care Center.
3.09 Employer. "Employer" means County of Albemarle, or any
other agency that is affiliated with the Employer within the means of
the controlled group rules of Sections 414(b), (c), or (m) of the Code
that has adopted this Plan (or an amended version of this Plan) after
obtaining formal approval for such adoption from the Board of Supervi-
sors.
3.10.a Full-time F~ployees. "Full-time Employees" are employees
(other than leased employees within the meaning of Section 414(n) of
the Code) who customarily work at least forty (40) hours per week for
the Employer or as otherwise designated by policies governing employ-
ment status.
3.10.b Part-time Fmployees. "Part-time Employees" are employees
who work at least twenty (20) hours per week and are not classified as
full-time employees.
3.11 Health Benefits. "Health Benefits" means the medical and
dental Benefits described in Sections 5.01 and 5.02(a) of the Plan and
the Health FSA benefit described in Section 5.02(c).
3.12 Health FSA Account. "Health FSA Account" means the Flexi-
ble Spending Account ("FSA") of the Plan under which Eligible Health
FSA Expenses are paid.
3.13 insurance Policies. The "insurance Policies" shall mean
the agreements between the Employer and various insurance companies
licensed to provide health insurance coverage in the State of Virgin-
ia, under which such insurance companies are required to provide
insurance coverage to support, in whole or in part, as agreed by the
Employer, the medical, dental and other insurable Health Benefits
described in schedule A attached to the Plan.
3.14 Participamt. A "Participant" is any Eligible Employee who
is a Participant in the Plan under Section 4.02, or any individual who
is receiving coverage under either the Insurance Policies, the FAS
Account of this Plan, or in accordance with the Continuation of Health
Benefits rules of Section 8.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
132
3.15 Plan. The "Plan" is the County of Albemarle Flexible
Benefit Plan (Beneplus) as it exists and may be amended from time to
time.
3.16 Plan Contributions. "Plan Contributions" are the amounts
paid by Participants during the Plan Year for benefits described in
Section 5, by reducing salary to pay'for additional noncash Benefits.
Such Plan Contributions may be made on a "pre-tax basis," in which
case the Plan Contributions are not included in the Participant's
taxable income for such Plan Year, or on an "after-tax basis," in
which case the Plan Contributions are included in the Participant's
taxable.income for such Plan Year.
3.17 Plan Year. "Plan Year" means the twelve month period
commencing on September 30th and ending on September 29th.
3.18 Qualified Caregiver. A "Qualified Caregiver" is a person
performing Qualifying Dependent Care Services who is not:
(a) a Dependent;
(b) a Spouse; or
(c) a child of the Participant who has not attained the age of
nineteen (19) as of the close of the Plan Year in which the Qualifying
Dependent Care Services were provided.
3.19 Qualified Dependent Care Center. A "Qualified Dependent
Care Center" is a licensed dependent care center that provides depen-
dent care for more than six individuals, and operates in compliance
with all applicable laws of both the state and town, city or village
in which it is located.
3.20' Qualifying Dependent Care Services. "Qualifying Dependent
Care Services" means services which are performed to enable a Partici-
pant or his Spouse to remain gainfully employed, which are related to
the care of one or more Dependent Care Recipients (including household
services relatedto such care), and which are performed either within
or outside the home of the Participant. Such Qualifying Dependent
Care Services must be performed during the Plan Year and after the
Participant has filed an election to receive Benefits under the
procedures described in Section 7.
Section 4
KL1GIBILITYAND PARTICIPATION
4.01 Eligibility. All Full-time and Part-time (as defined in
3.10) Employees of the Employer shall be eligible to participate in
this Plan.
4.02 Participation. Each employee who is eligible to partici-
pate in the Plan under Section 4.01 shall become a Participant in this
Plan on the later of the effective date of this Plan or on the first
day of the calendar month following thirty (30) days of continuous
employment with the Employer as an Eligible Employee. A Participant
who terminates or is discharged from employment with the Employer
shall cease to be a Participant in the Plan on the effective date of
such termination, or discharge, orreduction in hours to less than
twenty (20) hours per week. Notwithstanding the above, an individual
who has ceased to be an Eligible Employee can Continue to be a Partic-
ipant in the Plan, if and to the extent such an individual elects
Continuation of Health Benefits under the rules in Section 8.
Section 5
BENEFITS
5.01 Pre-Tax Contributions for Employee Share of Insurance
Policy Premi,,mm or Other Health Plan Costs. From the effective date
of the Plan and for so long as this Plan is continued, the EmPloyer
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
133
shall provide to each Participant for each Plan Year a cafeteria
benefit to perm'r Employees to pay their share of insurance Policy
premiums or other health plan costs (out of pre-tax dollars) by
reducing their salaries in the total amount shown on Schedule A. Each
Participant may elect to receive all or part of this Health Benefit as
a Cash Benefit, by indicating on the health plan enrollment form.
5.02 Additional Salary Reduction Benefits. From the effective
date of the Plan and for so long as this Plan is continued, every
Participant in the Plan shall be eligible to elect to reduce his
salary and receive instead some or all of the following Benefits by
filing an election to receive such Benefits under the Procedures
described in Section 7 and 8:
(a) Health FSA Benefits. Reimbursements under the Plan are
available for all Eligible Health FSA Expenses incurred by a Partici-
pant or his spouse or Dependents for health care provided or other
medical expenses incurred during the Plan Year and after the date on
which the Participant has filed (or is deemed to have filed) an
election to receive such benefits under the procedures described in
Sections 7 and 8. The maximum Plan Contribution during any Plan Year
by a Participant may not exceed the maximum amount of Benefits de-
scribed in section 5.05, except to the extent that contributions equal
to 102 percent of plan costs are required under Section 8. The
maximum reimbursement under the Health FSA available at any time
during the period of coverage of any Participant during any Plan Year
equals the maximum Health FSA Benefits elected for such period of
coverage, reduced by all prior reimbursements for Eligible Health FSA
Expenses paid for the same period of coverage. If any Participant
ceases to make required contributions to the Health FSA, no Benefits
shall be paid hereunder for any health expenses incurred after the end
of that portion of the period of coverage which corresponds to the
portion of total scheduled Plan Contributions to the Health FSA for
such period of coverage that were paid by the participant prior to his
or her cessation of contributions. If Health FSA Benefits cease to be
provided after such a cessation of required contributions, the Partic-
ipant may not make an election to rejoin the Plan for the remaining
portion of the Plan Year.
5.03 Maximum Health FSA Benefits. The Maximum Health FSA
Expenses payable to any Participant during any Plan Year is $4000.
5.04 Mm~immuDependent Care FSA Benefits. A Participant who is
married at the close of a Plan Year may not receive Benefits for
Eligible Expenses incurred by him for the Plan Year in excess of the
least of:
(a) $5000 (or $2500 in the case of a married Participant filing
a separate federal income tax return from his spouse);
(b) his Earned income for such Plan Year; or
(c) the Earned Income of his spouse for such Plan Year. A
Participant who is not married at the close of the Plan Year may not
receive Benefits for Eligible Expenses incurred by him in the Plan
Year in excess of the lesser of $5000 or his Earned Income for the
Plan Year. Notwithstanding the above, the maximum Benefits paid under
this Plan must be reduced by the amount of any tax-exempt dependent
care assistance benefits received by the Participant or his spouse
from any other employer during the Plan Year.
5.05 Nondiscriminatory Benefits. The plan is intended not to
discriminate in favor of highly compensated individuals as to eligi-
bility to participate, contributions and/or Benefits, and to comply in
this respect with the requirements of the Code. If, in the judgement
of the Plan Administrator, the operation of the Plan in any Plan Year
would result in such discrimination, then such Plan Administrator
shall select and exclude from coverage under the Plan, such Partici-
pants and/or reduce such Plan Contributions and/or Benefits under the
Plan, all as shall be necessary to assure that, in the judgement of
the Plan Administrator, the Plan does not discriminate.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Section 6
134
LIMITATION
6.01'Maximum Overall Contributions. No Participant who is an
Eligible Employee shall be entitled to forego or reduce cash compen-
sation by more than the aggregate maximum amount of Benefits specified
in Section 5. Individuals participating under the Continuation of
Health Benefit Rules of Section 8 shall not be required to make Plan
Contributions in excess of the amounts specified in such Section.
6.02 Forfeiture of Unused Benefits. A Participant shall receive
no reimbursement for Benefits elected, but unused, during a Plan Year
for any reason.
Section 7
~I~CTIONS BY EL1GIBLEEMPLOYRR. S
7.01 Effective Date of Elections. For any Plan Year, a Partici-
pant who is an Eligible Employee may affirmatively elect to receive
any of the Benefits listed in Section 5 by filing an election form,
which may be obtained from the Employer, and which shall specify the
type and exact amount of each of such Benefits, and the corresponding
amount of Plan Contributions to be paid by the Participant for such
Benefits during the period covered by the election. The initial
election filed by any Participant who is an Eligible Employee shall
become effective on the first day of the monthly pay period which
commences after such election form is submitted, properly signed and
dated, by the Participant to the Employer and accepted on behalf of
the Employer. Any subsequent election filed by such a Participant
shall become effective on the first day of the subsequent Plan Year
for which such election is made. If any Eligible Employee fails to
file an election form by the end of the thirty (30) day period after
he first becomes an Eligible Participant, he shall be deemed to have
elected to receive all cash Benefits under this Plan.
7.02.a Duration of Elections for Health Insurance Premmiu~s.
Once effective, any such affirmative or deemed election described in
Section 7.01 shall remain in effect until the end of the Plan Year for
which it was made, and throughout all subsequent Plan Years, unless a
change is made pursuant to Sections 7.03 through 7.06 below.
7.02.b Duration of Elections for Health and Dependent Care
FSA's. Elections expire at the end of each Plan Year.
7.03 New Elections for Subsequent Plan Years. A Participant may
change his election for any Plan Year subsequent to the Plan Year in
which such a change is made, by filing a new election form by the
first day of the Plan Year for which he wants such revised election to
be effective.
7.04 Revocation of Election on Termination of Service or Switch
to Part-time (less than [twenty] 20 hours per week) Employment. The
election of any Participant who terminates or is discharged from
Employment with the Employer or who becomes Part-time with less than
twenty (20) hours per week will be automatically terminated, effective
as of the effective date of such termination, resignation, or reduc-
tion in hours. Such a terminated election may be reinstated, however,
solely to the extent that a Participant elects to continue to receive
the Health Benefits covered by such an election under the Continuation
of Health Benefits Rules in Section 8. Except as provided in Section
8, no Benefits will be paid for any expenses incurred for services
provided after the effective date of any revocation of a Participant's
election. Any Plan Contributions made for the portion of the Plan
Yearextending beyond such election revocation date will be refunded
to the Participant. If the Participant becomes an Eligible Employee
again within the same Plan Year, the Participant may not make a new
election for the remainder of such Plan Year with respect to any
Benefits that were terminated as of the effective date of such termi-
nation, discharge, or reduction in hours.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
135
7.05 Midyear Changes in Health Beaefit Elections on Account of
Cost or Coverage Changes. If the cost of any Health Benefits des-
cribed in Schedule A increases or decreases during the Plan Year,
corresponding changes consistent with such increase or decrease will
automatically be made in Plan Contributions for such Health Benefits
scheduled to be made by affected Participants. If any such cost
increase raises a Participant's Plan Contributions for such Health
Benefit by more than twenty-five (25) percent, or if any health
coverage under any policy described in Schedule A is significantly
curtailed or ceases during the Plan Year, the affected Participants
may elect to cease participation under such Health Insurance Policy or
plan, and in lieu thereof to receive on a prospective basis coverage
under a similar health Insurance Policy or Plan provided by the
Employer. Amendments in outstanding Health Benefit elections, includ-
ing elections under the Health FSA, may also be made during the Plan
Year whenever there has been a significant change in the health
coverage of the Participant, or his or her spouse attributable to the
spouse's employment, provided that such election changes are consis-
tent with the change in health coverage. Notwithstanding the above,
this section 7.05 does not permit a Participant's election to be
changed to reduce Plan Contributions to the Health FSA and the corre-
sponding Benefits reimbursing Eligible Health FSA Expenses, unless the
Participant's Plan Contributions to the Health FSA made during the
part of the Plan Year preceding such election change either equal or
exceed the Benefit reimbursements for Eligible Health FSA Expenses
during the portion of the Plan Year preceding such election change.
7.06 Mid-Year Changes in Health and Dependent Care FSA Elections
on Account of Life Events. A Participant may change his election for
the remainder of any Plan year for which an election has been made or
deemed made only if such change in his eiection is on account of, and
consistent with, a Life Event. A "Life Event" shall be an event in
the life of the Participant which, as determined in the discretion of
the Plan Administrator, increases or decreases the number of Depen-
dents qualifying for Benefits under this Plan, including, without
limitation, marriage or divorce of the Participant, death of a spouse
or other Dependent, birth or adoption of a Dependent, termination or
commencement of a spouse's employment, a switching from full-time to
part-time employment status by the Participant's spouse, and the
taking of an unpaid leave of absence by the Participant or his or her
spouse, in the event that Plan Contributions and the corresponding
Plan Benefits for the balance of the Plan Year are terminated as the
result of such a change in an election, any Plan Contribution made for
the portion of the Plan Year extending beyond such election revocation
date will be refunded to the Participant.
7.07 Effect of Change in FSA Account Election on MaximumHealth
FSABenefits. Any change in an election affecting annual Plan Contri-
butions to the Health FSA pursuant to Section 7.06 also will change
the Maximum Health FSA Benefits for the period of coverage remaining
in the Plan Year. Such Maximum Health FSA Benefits for the period of
coverage following an election change shall be calculated by adding
the balance remaining in the Participant's FSA as of the end of the
portion of the Plan Year immediately preceding the change in election,
to the total Plan Contributions scheduled to be made by the Partici-
pant during the remainder of the Plan Year.
Section 8
CONTINUATION OF~RkLTHBENEFITS FOLLOWING
TERMINATION OF N~IPLOYMENTORCOVENAGE
8.01 Availability of Continued Health Benefits. The Health
Benefits under the Plan will be available to all persons whose Health
Benefits would otherwise terminate due to a qualifying event described
in Sections 8.04 or 8.05, and who qualify under the terms of Title X
of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as
amended and subsequent regulations and amendments. Anyone eligible to
elect to continue coverage under this Section 8 shall be referred to
herein as a "Qualifying Beneficiary."
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
136
8.02 Continuation of Health Benefits By Payment from Final
Paycheck. Any Participant who is terminated or discharged from
employment with the Employer or who switches to part-time (less than
[twenty] 20 hours per week) employment status may elect to receive all
or some of the Health Benefits covered by his Plan election in effect
at the time of such termination or reduction in hours, by paying the
Plan Contribution due for such Health Benefits for the balance of the
Plan Year out of the Participant's final paycheck (in the case of a
termination of service) or last paycheck for the pay period prior to
the reduction in hours. If such paycheck is not sufficient to cover
the full amount of such Plan contribution due for the balance of the
Plan Year, the Participant must pay any balance due to the Employer,
by making an additional after-tax Plan Contribution within ten (10)
days after termination of employment or reduction in hours.
8.03 P~rchase of Mealth Benefits at 102 Percent of Cost. A
Qualified Beneficiary whose Plan Benefits have been terminated for any
of the qualifying event enumerated in Sections 8.04 or 8.05 has the
right to continue in the Plan for all health benefits which under the
Plan the Qualified Beneficiary was entitled to receive on the day
immediately preceding the date of the qualifying event. The time
period for which the continuation coverage is available is indicated
below in conjunction with the corresponding qualifying event. One
Hundred Two Percent (102%) of the full cost of providing such coverage
shall be charged to any person continuing in the Plan. Notwith-
standing the foregoing, in the case of an extension of the eighteen
(18) month period described in Section 8.04 to twenty-nine (29) months
pursuant to Section 8.06, One Hundred Fifty Percent (150%) shall be
substituted for One Hundred Two Percent (102%) in the preceding
sentence for any month after the eighteenth (18th) month of continuous
coverage. This cost shall be determined at the beginning of each Plan
Year and shall remain in effect for the remainder of such Plan Year.
8.04 Qualifying Events Triggering Eighteen (18) Months of
Continuation Coverage. An eighteen (18) month continuation of Health
Benefits shall be available to Qualified Beneficiaries who lose
coverage due to one of the following qualifying events:
(a) the termination of employment by a Participant who is an
Eligible Employee for any reason except gross misconduct;
(b) the loss of eligibility of a previously Eligible Employee to
participate in the Plan due to reduced work hours.
8.05 Qualifying Events Triggering ~hirty-$ix (36) Months of
Continuation Coverage. A thirty-six (36) month continuation of Health
Benefits shall be available to Qualified Beneficiaries who lose
coverage due to one of the following qualifying events:
(a) death of a Participant who is an Eligible Employee;
(b) divorce or legal separation from a Participant who is an
Eligible Employee;
(c) a covered Dependent child's loss of eligibility to partici-
pate in the plan due to age or a change in student status;
(d) a covered Dependent's loss of eligibility to participate in
the Plan due to the Eligible Employee becoming entitled to Medicare.
If a qualifying event listed in this Section 8.05 occurs within
the eighteen (18) month period described in Section 8.03, the thirty-
six (36) month continuation period shall be deemed to commence as of
the date of the qualifying event in Section 8.04. Solely to the
extent required by law, in the case of an event described in Section
8.05(d), the period of continuation coverage for covered Dependents
for such event or any subsequent qualifying event shall not terminate
before the end' of the thirty-six (36) month period beginning on the
date the Eligible Employee became entitled to Medicare.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
137
8.06 Other Qualifying Event Rules. in the case of a Qualified
Beneficiary who is determined to have been disabled (within the
meaning of the Social Security Act) at the time of a qualifying event
described in Section 8.04, any reference in Section 8.04 to eighteen
(18) months with respect to such qualifying event is deemed to be a
reference to twenty-nine (29) months, but only if the Qualified
Beneficiary provides notice of such determination of disability to the
Plan Administrator within sixty (60) days of such determination, but
not later than the otherwise applicable eighteen (18) month period.
Such Qualified Beneficiary must also notify the Plan Administrator of
any final determination that he is no longer disabled, within thirty
(30) days of such final determination.
8.07 Notification Rules. The Eligible Employee or Qualified
Beneficiary is required to notify the Plan Administrator within sixty
(60) days of a qualifying event described in Section 8.05(b) or (c).
If an Eligible Employee of Qualified Beneficiary fails to provide such
notice, the Qualified Beneficiary shall lose his right to elect
continuation of coverage under this Section 8. The Employer is
required to notify the Plan Administrator within thirty (30) days of
any other qualifying event. The Plan Administrator shall notify each
Qualified Beneficiary of his right to continuation of coverage within
fourteen (14) days of the notice made to the Plan Administrator of the
qualifying event. The Eligible Employee or covered Dependent is also
required to provide the Plan Administrator with all information needed
to meet its obligation of providing notice and continuation of cover-
age.
8.08 Termination of Continuation Coverage. Continuation of
Health Benefits coverage under the Insurance Policies shall not be
provided beyond whichever of the following dates is first to occur:
(a) the date the maximum continuation period expires for the
corresponding qualifying event;
(b) the date of termination of the Health Benefit elected under
the Plan, together with all other health benefits provided by the
County that have been continued under continuation of Health Benefits
rules;
(c) the date the Eligible Employee or Qualified Beneficiary
fails to pay the applicable Plan Contribution on time;
(d) the date the Eligible Employee or Qualified Beneficiary
becomes covered under any other group health plan (as an employee or
otherwise) which does not contain any exclusion or limitation with
respect to any pre-existing condition of such Beneficiary;
(e) the date the Eligible Employee or Qualified Beneficiary
becomes entitled to Medicare; or
(f) in the case of an extension of coverage under Section 8.06
due to disability, the later of one of the foregoing events described
in subparagraphs (a) through (c) or the month that begins more than
thirty (30) days after a final determination that the Qualified
Beneficiary is no longer disabled.
8.09 Nonpayment of Plan Contributions to Health FSA. If any
Participant fails to pay on time any applicable Plan Contribution to
the Health FSA, the Employer will reduce any reimbursement for Eligi-
ble Health FSA Expense remaining to be paid to the Participant by the
amount of any Plan Contributions due for the balance of the Plan Year,
as part of the Employer's efforts to collect any overdue unpaid Plan
Contributions.
Section 9
9.01 Health, Medical and Dental Benefits. Claims for medical,
dental, or other Health Benefits under this Plan shall be made on
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
138
forms maintained and provided by the county. Each Participant elect-
ing to receive medical, dental or other Health Benefits shall be
entitled to claim reimbursement for medical, dental or other health
expenses. Such claims shall be made by filing, on a form provided by
the County, a request for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred
and paid by the Participant in this plan. Such forms shall be filed
together with such evidence of either payment of indebtedness to the
third party as shall be required by the insurer in accordance with the
Insurance Policy for medical or dental care or other Health Benefits
received during the Plan Year. The Employer assumes no obligation to
pay Benefits under the applicable Insurance Policy or any other policy
or contract of insurance. Any review of any claim or denial of a
claim shall be performed by the Insurer in accordance with the rules
of the Insurance Policy.
9.02 Mealth FSA Benefits. Each Participant who desires to
receive reimbursement under the Plan for Eligible Health FSA Expenses
(up to the maximum amounts outlined below) shall submit to the Plan
Administrator, at the times indicated in Section 9.04, a form or other
supplementary requests for information provided by the Employer
providing:
(a) a written evidence of the amount of payment to the indepen-
dent third party showing the amount of the medical expense that has
been incurred; and
(b) a written statement that the amount of such expense has not
been reimbursed and is not reimbursable under any other health plan.
As soon as is administratively feasible following the twentieth
(20th) of each calendar month, the Plan Administrator shall review all
the claims submitted by Participants during that month in accordance
with the foregoing procedures, and shall pay Participant the Health
FSA Benefits which each Participant is entitled to receive under the
Plan, in accordance with Sections 5.01(a), 5.03 and 9.02. The maximum
amount of such Health FSA Benefits available during the period of
coverage, as calculated under the rules of Section 7.07, properly
reduced by prior reimbursements for the same period of coverage.
9.03 Dependent Care FSA Benefits. Each Participant who desires
to receive reimbursement under the Plan for Eligible Expenses incurred
for Qualifying Dependent Care Services shall submit to the Plan
Administrator, at the times indicated in Section 9.04, a form provided
by the Employer, or responses to other supplementary factual requests.
By submitting this form the Participant acknowledges:
(a) the nature and dates of performance of the Qualifying
Dependent Care Services for which the Participant wishes to be reim-
bursed is permissible;
(b) that the Participant will include on his or her Federal
Income tax return the name, address, and (except in the case of a
tax-exempt Qualified Dependent Care Center) the taxpayer identifi-
cation number of the provider of the Qualifying Dependent Care Servic-
es;
(c) evidence of indebtedness or payment by the Participant to
the third party who performed the Qualifying Dependent Care Services.
As soon as is administratively feasible following the twentieth
(20th) of each calendar month, the Plan Administrator shall review all
the forms submitted by Participants during that month in accordance
with the foregoing procedures, and shall pay each Participant the
Benefits which each Participant is entitled to receive under the Plan,
in accordance with Sections 5.01(a), 5.03, 5.05 and 9.02.
9.04 Claims Submission Deadlines. Claims submitted under
Section 9.01 must be filed with the applicable Insurance Policy or
other Insurance contract. Claims submitted under Sections 9.02 and
9.03 must be submitted to the Plan Administrator no later than by
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
139
thirty (30) days after the earlier of the end of the Plan Year or the
end of the Participant's period of coverage, if the Participant has
ceased to make Plan Contributions to the FSA's.
Section 10
P~VIEW PROCEDURE FOR CLAIMS DENIED BY PLAN ADMINISTRATOR
10.01 Notice of Claim Denial. if any claim for Benefits under
this Plan submitted under Sections 9.02 and 9.03 is denied in whole or
in part, the claimant shall be furnished promptly by the Plan Admini-
strator a written notice setting forth the following information:
(a) a specific reason or reasons for the denial;
(b) specific reference to pertinent Plan provisions upon which
thedenial is based;
(c) a description of any additional material or information
necessary for the claimant to perfect the claim and an explanation of
why such material or information is necessary; and
(d) an explanation of the Plan's claim review procedures, as set
forth below in Sections 10.02 and 10.03.
Failure by the Plan Administrator to respond to a claim for
Benefits submitted under Sections 9.02 or 9.03 within thirty (30) days
following the end of the calendar month in which such claim was
submitted shall be deemed a denial.
10.02 Appeal Procedures. Within sixty (60) days after denial of
any claim for Benefits under this Plan, the claimant may request in
writing a review of the denial by the Plan Administrator. Any claim-
ant seeking review hereunder is entitled to examine all pertinent
documents, and to submit issues and comments in writing.
10.03 Response to Appeal. The Plan Administrator shall render a
decision on review of a claim not later than sixty (60) days after
receipt of a request for review under Section 10.02. Such decision
shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for the decision,
referring to the Plan or Code provision upon which it is based. Such
decision of the Plan Administrator shall be final and conclusive.
Section 11
PLAN ADMINISTRATOR
11.01 Plan Administrator. The "Plan Administrator" shall be the
Director of Personnel or his/her designee. The Plan Administrator
shall have authority and responsibility to take any reasonable actions
necessary to control and manage the operation and administration of
this Plan under rules applied on a uniform and nondiscriminatory basis
to all Participants.
11.02 Appeals Committee. The "Appeals Committee" shall be a
committee of three (3) individuals appointed by the Plan Admini-
strator, who shall have authority and responsibility to decide by
majority vote any appeals of claims denied pursuant to the provisions
of Section 10 above.
11.03 Expenses. All reasonable expenses of the Plan Admini-
strator and Appeals Committee shall be paid by the Employer and any
expenses not paid by the Employer shall not be the responsibility of
the committee members personally.
Section 12
PLAN CONTRIB~]TIONS
12.01 Characterization of Employer and Employee Contributions.
Ail Plan Contributions made on a pre-tax basis shall be designated and
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
140
deemed to be Employer contributions. Ail Contributions made on an
after-tax basis shall be designated and deemed to be Participant
Contributions.
12.02 Trust. The Plan can provide that no separate trust will
be established.
Section 13
AMENDMENT OR TERM1NATION
This Plan may be amended or terminated at any time by the Board
of Supervisors provided, however, that any termination or amendment
shall not effect the right of any Participant to claim Benefits for
that portion of the Plan Year or coverage period prior to such termi-
nation or amendment, to the extent such amounts are payable under the
terms of the Plan as in effect prior to the calendar month in which
the Plan is terminated or amended. Any amendment or termination shall
take effect only as of the end of a pay period.
Section 14
14.01 Right to interpret the Plan. Ail final decisions in
interpreting provisions of the Plan shall be the responsibility of the
Plan Administrator and the Appeals Committee.
14.02 No Personal Liability. Nothing contained herein shall
impose on any officers or directors of the Employer any personal
liability for any Benefits due a Participant or Dependent pursuant to
this Plan.
14.03 Additional Procrdures. Any rules, regulations, or pro-
cedures that may be necessary for the proper administration or func-
tioning of this Plan that are not covered in this Plan shall be
promulgated and adopted by the Plan Administrator.
14.04 Agreement not an Employee Contract. This Plan shall not
be deemed to constitute a contract between the Employer and any
Participant or to be a consideration or an inducement for the employ-
ment of any Participant. This Plan shall not be deemed to give any
Participant or other employee the right to be retained in the service
of the Employer or to interfere with the right of the Employer to
discharge any Participant or other employee at any time regardless of
the effect which such discharge shall have upon such a person as a
Participant in this Plan. This Plan shall not be deemed to give the
Employer the right to require any Participant or other employee to
remain in the employment of the Employer or to restrict any such
person's right to terminate his employment at any time.
14.05 Severability. If any provision of this Plan shall be held
invalid for any reason, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect
the remaining parts of this Plan and this Plan shall be construed and
enforced as if such illegal and invalid provisions had never been
included.
14.06 Gender and Number. in the construction of this Plan,
reference to any gender shall include the masculine, feminine and
neuter genders, the plural shall include the singular and the singular
the plural, wherever appropriate.
14.07 Constr~ction. The terms of the Plan shall be construed
under the laws of Virginia except to the extent such laws are pre-
empted by the laws of any other state or by federal law.
14.08 Rights. Participants in the Plan are entitled to:
(a) examine, without charge, at the Employer's office, all Plan
documents; and
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
141
(b) obtain copies of all Plan documents and other Plan infor-
mation upon written request to the EmplOyer. The Employer may make a
reasonable charge for copies.
The Employer has a duty to operate the plan prudently and in the
interest of Plan Participants and beneficiaries. No one, including
the Employer, may discriminate against a Participant in any way to
prevent a Participant from obtaining a Benefit or exercising his or
her rights. If a Participant's claim for a Benefit is denied in whole
or in part, he or she must be given a written explanation of the
reason for the denial. A Participant has the right to have the
Employer review and reconsider such claim.
14.09 Delegation. The County of Albemarle shall have the power
to delegate specific duties and responsibilities to officers or other
employees of the county of Albemarle or other individuals or entities.
Any delegation by the County of Albemarle may allow further delega-
tions by the individual or entity to whom the delegation is made. Any
delegation may be rescinded by the County of Albemarle at any time.
Each person or entity to whom a duty or responsibilty has been dele-
gated shall be responsible for the exercise of such duty or respon-
sibilty and shall not be responsible for any act or failure to act of
any person or entity.
Section 15
ENT1REAG~ENT
This document (including the Schedules attached hereto) sets
forth the entire Plan. Except as provided in this Plan, no other
employee benefit plan which is, or may hereafter be, maintained by the
Employer on a non-elective basis shall constitute a part of this Plan.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer has caused this Plan to be
executed this day of , 1990, to be effective as
of September 1, 1990.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
By: Attest:
Title: Title:
Schedule A
MEDICAL AND DENTAL BENEFITS
PROVIDED UNDER INSURANCE POLICIES
Delta Dental of Virginia
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Virginia KeyCare I
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Virginia KeyCare III
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Virginia Comp Care 500
If a Participant elects to participate in any of these insurance
programs or health plans, then the Employer shall reduce such Partici-
pant's pay by the level portion of the annual amount of the premium
cost for such benefits. The Employer shall remit such amount directly
to the insurer under an Insurance Policy for the health or medical
care program inwhich the Participant, his spouse, and his other
Dependents are enrolled.
Mr. Bain asked when the employees would receive orientation on the
changes in the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan. Mr. Brandenburger said two
general information sessions on medical changes will be held for employees.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield representatives will also be at the sessions. Informa-
tion on all of the proposed changes will be mailed to employees nextweek.
The employees will have until September 10 to make any changes in health plan
enrollments.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
142
Not Docketed: Because of the lateness of the hour, Mr. Perkins asked
where to proceed on the agenda next. Mr. Agnor said the Board needs to decide
whether it wants to discuss any more matters. Mrs. Linda Wilson, Executive
Director of JAUNT, is present. It is not required that JAUNT be discussed
today, but the sonner this Board acts, the sooner the JAUNT Board can resolve
the fare issue. Mr. Bain said he thinks the issue will require considerable
discussion and he is. too weary for that type of decision-making. If some of
the items on the agenda which have not been discussed need immediate action,
he felt the Board could possibly meet next Wednesday afternoon. Mr. Way
agreed with Mr. Bain. He thinks the Board has met long enough for one day.
Mr. Bain asked if the remaining items could be carried over into September or
if it was necessary for the Board to meet next week. Mr. Agnor replied the
items could be carried over into September. He then went down the remaining
list of items and suggested that the Board act on Item No. 17b and suggested
that the Board authorize the staff to proceed on with soem of the temporary
committee appointments. The Board then proceed with Item No. 17b.
Agenda Item No. 17b. Appropriation: Department of Motor Vehicles grant
for the purchase of alcohol sensors to be used by the Police Department.
Mr. Agnor said the State Department of Motor Vehicles has offered a $1500
highway safety grant to the Police Department for the purchase of four alcohol
sensors for use in patrol cars in the apprehension of drivers suspected of
driving under the influence of alcohol. The grant requires a local fund
investment of $240 which is budgeted in the current operating budget.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the
following appropriation for a highway safety grant to the Police Department
for the purchase of four alcohol sensors for use in patrol cars:
FISCAL YEAR: 1990-91
FUND: General
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
DMV Mini Grant for Purchase of
Equipment
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATETORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100031010800101
Equipment Replacement
TOTAL
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100033000330011 DMV Grant-Federal $1,500.00
TOTAL $1,500.00
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 18a. Temporary Committee Appointments.
Mr. Bain said he has no problem with authorizing staff to proceed with
the appointments to the Private Road Ordinance Committee. Mr. Bowerman agreed
and said the Board wanted to discuss the appointments for the Housing Commit-
tee. Mr. Tucker handed out a letter from the League of Women Voters concern-
ing the appointee on the Housing Committee and suggested the Board may want to
consider the letter before making a decision. The other Board members agreed
to authorize staff to proceed with the Private Road Ordinance Committee.
Deferred until September 12, 1990, were:
Agenda Item No. 16a. Discussion: Albemarle County Redistricting from
1990 Census.
Agenda Item No. 16b. Resolution: re: Federal Budget.
August 8, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Agenda Item No. 16d.
Agenda Item No. 16f.
Agenda Item No. 16g.
Agenda Item No. 17a.
Lake, proposed swim area improvements.
Agenda Item No. 18b. Appointments:
Private/Public Transit Alternatives.
Discussion: JAUNT fares.
Discussion: Cable Television.
Appropriation: Chris Greene Lake/Mint Springs
Other.
143
Agenda Item No. 19. Cancel August 15, 1990, Meeting.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to cancel the
regular meeting scheduled for August 15, 1990. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board.
Mr. Agnor said Dr. Harold Buttery, State Health Commissioner, will be in
Charlottesville in September and has invited members of the Board of Supervi-
sors and City Council to meet with him on Thursday, September 27, from 9:30
A.M. until 10:30 A.M. at the Health Department. He plans to discuss the
Governor's proposals for budget changes and any other concerns that the local
governing body may have concerning the operations of the Health Department.
Mr. Tucker handed out crime statistics prepared by Police Chief John
Miller for July 1988-89 through June 1989-90. Chief Miller released this
information to the media today. The statistics show a decrease in the crime
rate from last year. Also attached are statistics showing a five year compar-
ison. For January to June, 1990, the crime rate continues to show a decrease.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Chief Miller has an opinion on why the rate have de-
creased. Mr. Tucker said Chief Miller thinks that input the County has from
citizen groups reporting crimes has had some effect.
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 5:26 P.M.