1989-10-11October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on October 11, 1989, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 9:04 A.M.),
Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 9:26 A.M.), Messrs.
C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:05 A.M.), Walter F. Perkins and 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 Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
9:07 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom
and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the ConSent Agenda as information. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. '
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Item 4.1. Letter dated September 25, 1989, from the Virginia Department
of Transportation stating that the design and location of the Route 660
project (0660-002-187, C-501) was approved by the Commonwealth Transportation
Board on September 21, 1989, received as information.
Item 4.2. Copy of Letter dated September 26, 1989, addressed to Mr.
Wayne Cilimberg from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, entitled:
"Revised Secondary Road Six-Year ImprovementilPlan for 1990-96," received as
information. Mr. Roosevelt requested early ~onsideration of the six year plan
revision and approval of this plan by the Board.
Item 4.3. Notice from Virginia Telephone Association dated October 2,
1989, noting that they have filed with tho S~ate Corporation Commission on
behalf of 20 local exchange telephone companies providing service in Virginia
seeking to reduce the directory assistance mdnthly free call allowance from
eight per month to two per month for residential customers and to zero for
business customers, received as information.
Mr. Bain asked that this item be discussed under Agenda Item No. 19,
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from ~he Public and Board Members.
Item 4.4. Letter dated October 2, 1989,! from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency re: proposed modified floo~ elevation determinations
affecting the Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flbod Insurance Study for the
Unincorporated Areas of Albemarle County, Virginia, received as information.
Item 4.5. Planning Commission Minutes fpr September 26, 1989, received
as information.
Item 4.6. Letter from Mr. George R. St. IJohn, County Attorney, addressed
to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., dated September122, 1989, regarding enforcement
of Air Pollution Control Board Regulations. (Moved to the Regular Agenda as
Item 15a.)
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 4.7. Memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., dated October 5, 1989,
entitled "Signage Regulations", received as information. Mr. Agnor noted that
the staff has been reviewing the portion of the Zoning Ordinance known as the
"Sign Ordinance" in order to prioritize the sections of the ordinance which
should be given immediate consideration for amendment. To do this, staff
drafted a history of variances granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and
found that the variances principally relate to free-standing and wall business
signs in commercial and planned development districts as to their area and
setback regulations. The staff is now ready to draft appropriate amendments
which will be returned for Board discussionin the near future.
Item 4.8. Special Report entitled "Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
Update" from Mr. J. W. Peyton Robinson, Jr., Watershed Management Official,
dated October 5, 1989, received as information.
Not Docketed: Mr. Way said he had several items to present to the Board.
The first was a draft addendum to a letter to Mr. Joshua P. Darden, Rector of
the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia. This addendum is intend-
ed to correct the following misstatement in'the letter: "None of the alterna-
tives unfortunately adequately addressed the local traffic issue this
community will face in the year 2010".
Mr. Lindstrom, who had pointed out the mistake, said the data shows that
an expressway would handle through traffic, ~as well as local traffic. He said
the earlier statement was misleading and ther draft addendum should correct
that problem. He said the Board has not endorsed any of the alternatives
suggested to alleviate traffic along Route 2~ North and he is not asking the
Board to make any such endorsement. He saidi he does believe the statement in
question should be clarified, because it se~s to reflect an official position
against all the alternatives, a position he idoes not think the Board has
taken, either. ~
Members of the Board expressed no opposition to the draft addendum.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Lindstrom to brief the Board on the results of a recent
Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) meeting, concerning the University of
Virginia's plans to develop the Blue Ridge H'~spital property.
- Mr. Lindstrom said the PACC met with Mri~ Robert O'Neil, President of the
University, and Mr. Ray Haas and Mr. Leonard Sandridge, Vice-Presidents. He
said the University plans to convey 25 acresi'of the 250 acres it owns at the
foot of Monticello Mountain to the Division .df Forestry and Mineral Resources.
This 25 acres lies at the corner of Routes 53 and 20. The Division of Forest-
ry and Mineral Resources plans to build two buildings on this 25 acres, an
office building measuring 100,000 square fee% and an administrative services
building measuring 37,000 square feet. Becailse of the elevation and the
topography of the site, Mr. Lindstrom said, these buildings will be prominent-
ly displayed on the mountainside, no matter how they are built.
Under the PACC agreement, Mr. Lindstromi!said, the City, County and
University agreed to develop a plan for property in Area "B", with development
to follow this plan. Mr. Lindstrom said the,County has not been requested by
the University to develop such a plan for the Blue Ridge Site. No such
H ~'i
coordinated plan has been scheduled, e sai~ the Comprehensive Plan calls for
this property to remain a rural area and it ~s zoned accordingly. During the
recent revision of the Comprehensive Plan, t~e Board reaffirmed the designa-
tion of rural areas for land on the east sid~ of Route 20.
Mr. Lindstrom said that in the absence ~f a jointly developed plan for
this property in Area B, the PACC agreement qalls for the University to use
its best efforts to comply with the County's {land use plan, which is already
in place. Mr. Lindstrom said the deal betwe~ the Division of Forestry and
the University directly benefits the University: the proposal would free up
property on the corner of Alderman and McCorMick Roads currently being used by
the Division of Forestry and Mineral Resources and the University Real Estate
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
Foundation will get an option to buy 33 acres that the Division of Forestry
owns on Fontaine Avenue, contiguous to 25 acres just bought by the University.
Mr. Lindstrom said these plans were originally proposed for property on the
south side of Route 53. For several reasons these plans would not work, so
the proposal has been switched to the north side of Route 53. Mr. Lindstrom
said this proposal for the north side of Route 53 has never been formally
submitted to the County. The proposal was Submitted to the Planning Commis-
sion, then withdrawn and deferred until November.
Mr. Lindstrom said the County has no authority to impose any of its land
use regulations on the University, unless t~e property is owned by the Univer-
sity Real Estate Foundation. He said this property is owned by the University
proper and the project is being undertaken gor another state agency. However,
the University has agreed, under the PACC agreement, to use its best efforts
to comply with the County's land use policies. Mr. Lindstrom said he is
concerned about this proposal for the Blue Ridge site because it is completely
incompatible with the County's zoning and would have a major impact on an
international historic site. He said no one will be able to miss the new
buildings when they drive to Monticello. Mqreover, this 25 acres represents
only one-tenth of the property the Universit~ owns there, so a lot of other
things may be built at this site. Mr. Lind~trom said he believes that if the
spirit of the PACC agreement is to be folloW'ed, the County should be involved
in a review of the entire 250 acres before Jhything is built there, so County
staff could consider how the project might Be sited to minimize the impact on
Monticello.
After a great deal of discussion at th~ PACC meeting, Mr. Lindstrom said,
the University agreed to allow a committee dhosen by the Chairman to meet with
representatives of the University to consider the entire Blue Ridge Hospital
site to determine whether there may be another location on this site for the
Division of Forestry that would have less i~act on Monticello and the rural
character of the area. If the committee cannot find a better site, then it is
to consider how the building might be best pi~aced on the 25 acres. According
to Mr. O'Neil, Mr. Lindstrom said, the Board'iihas about one week to ten days to
participate in this process.
Mr. Way said the committee should be ap~.ointed immediately. He suggested
the following appointees: Mr. Lindstrom, Mf~ Tucker, and Mr. Cilimberg. Mr
L '~. '
indstrom suggested that Mr. David Bowerman,.~Chairman of the Planning Commis-
sion, and Mr. Dave Wood, a member of the Board for the Thomas Jefferson
Memorial Foundation, be appointed. If a meeting of the committee must be
scheduled before Mr. Wood returns from Spain~ then Mr. Dan Jordan, also of the
Foundation, will attend the meeting in his slead.~ Mr. Way said that all
members of the Board are encouraged to atten~ the meeting. He said he also
wants to invite the Mayor of Charlottesvillei~and members of her staff to
participate in the meetings.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to appoint
Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., MrJ David P. Bowerman, Mr. David
Wood, and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg to a UVA/Blde Ridge Hospital Site Committee
to study the site and determine whether anot~.er location might have less
impact on Monticello and the rural area; and,i~to look at the 25 acres for
planned development for orientation of the b~ildings on that site.
Roll was called and the motion carried ~y the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkin~s and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
For the record, Mr. Bowie said he is tiC'ed of hearing that State agencies
can do what they want and localities are poweyless to stop them. He said it
may be time for the County to test this claiMj; the County may lose, but at
least it will have done something, j
(Mrs. Cooke arrived at 9:26 A.M.)
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
8O
Mr. Way asked the Board's opinion of drafting a letter addressed to the
search committee for a President of the University of Virginia, outlining
qualities that particularly relate to the community. He said the present
president had achieved more dialogue between the community and the University,
and he would like to see that continue. There was a consensus that the Board
discuss such a letter at the October 18, 1989, work session.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minute~: October 19(A), 1988; Janu-
ary 18(N), March 22, April 5(A) and April 12, 1989. No minutes had been read.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: ~Hequest to vacate right-of-way in
Berkeley Subdivision between 2704 Commonwealth Drive and 2800 Commonwealth
Drive.
Mr. Cilimberg said this request was presented by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph
Moore and Mrs. Sylvia L. Nichols, residents ~of Commonwealth Drive in the
Berkeley Subdivision. They request vacation of the public right-of-way
between their two lots. He said the right-of-way has been retained in recent
years to allow the possibility of having an ~emergency access to and from
Berkeley and to provide a direct route for ~hrough traffic. Originally the
connection was planned to provide an alternative for traffic in Berkeley when
and if the Dominion Drive crossover on Route~ 29 was closed. He said the
Planning Commission, during its review of th~ Comprehensive Plan, expressed
concern about allowing through traffic. Th~.~iiactual reference to this connec-
tion in the Comprehensive Plan was eliminat~ by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Board that in 1985, a request was received to
vacate this particular right-of-way and two .Pther similar stubs at this same
end of Commonwealth Drive. The other two rii~hts-of-way were vacated at that
time. He said staff feels that although the!~.connection is not shown in the
Comprehensive Plan any longer, the same city, stances which warranted the
maintaining of this particular right-of-way iln 1985 still exist. He explained
that this right-of-way continues to provide !~he potential for emergency access
to Berkeley, although that there are currenti~y two poles and a block-off cable
located there. He mentioned that the area i~ overgrown with vegetation, and
there is no more than a path from Berkmar Dr~ve to Commonwealth Drive. If the
Dominion Drive crossover is closed when the Route 29 improvements are made,
then the possibilities for alternative acces~ would still be there. He added
that this particular right-of-way could be m~intained as a pedestrian and bike
access to the Berkeley Subdivision from Berk~ar Drive. He said that it is for
those reasons that the staff does not recommend vacating the right-of-way.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, agreed with Mr. Cilimberg's
comments, and quoted from the Route 29 North~Corridor Study that was jointly
adopted by the Department of Highways and th~ County in 1979, where it states
that Dominion Drive could be eliminated and ~ connector from Commonwealth
Drive to Berkmar Drive constructed. He added that he was not aware that the
Planning Commission had taken action concernmng th~s connectzon zn the Compre-
hensive Plan. The Department still conszdersi this as an option and the
Department's position is that this right-of-Way should not be vacated.
Mrs. Moore spoke next. She mentioned th~ t the access was retained so
that the Seminole Trail Fire Department couldl~ have access to the Berkeley
Community. She said that Chief Ron Slaughter?i could not be present at the
meeting today, but he is willing to support Mks. Moore's request and agrees
that the right-of-way is a bad idea. She st~ted that she is also representing
the Berkeley Homeowners' Association, and sh~',! reiterated that the neighborhood
needs this road closed. She also noted that ~ommonwealth Drive cannot accom-
modate any additional traffic flow. She rema'~ked, that this is a family
neighborhood and the Homeowners' Association ~'is not in favor of retaining this
right-of-way. She then mentioned the bike path and said that she would hate
to see there be no bike path. She said the P~anning Commission discussed the
fact that people drive along Com~nonwealth Drive over to Greenbrier Drive and
do not even go out on Route 29. She mentione~, that there is access from Route
29 through Four Seasons out to Rio Road. She~ then urged the Board to vacate
this right-of-way.
81
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with the residents of Berkeley that the
right-of-way should be closed. She believes that to open the right-of-way to
through traffic would cause a great hardship on that neighborhood and would
create problems and hazardous conditions. She said that anytime there is an
easy access through a neighborhood, people are going to use it. The roads in
Berkeley were not designed to handle this sort of traffic. She urged the
Board to approve the vacation of this right,of-way.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Roosevelt if the Highway Department sees an extensive
use for this right-of-way when the Dominion Drive crossover is closed. He
asked if a traffic analysis has been made that would show the point of origin
for the people who could use this right-of-way. Mr. Roosevelt replied that no
study has been made of what the increase in :volume of traffic would be or the
origin and destination of traffic that would use that connection. He remarked
that when the Corridor Study was made in 19%9, it was felt this right-of-way
would be a way for the residents in the northern end of the Berkeley Subdivi-
sion to get out to Route 29.
Mr. Bain asked if the study in 1979 considered this right-of-way as
access for the Berkeley Subdivision but not necessarily for other people
driving through Berkeley. Mr. Roosevelt answered that he does not see the
right-of-way as a through connection for traffic going to the Albemarle High
School area. If Four Seasons traffic is considered as through traffic, the
people in Four Seasons who live closest to GOmmonwealth Drive would go out
that way.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the right-of-wa~! could be reserved for emergency
vehicles to get into Berkeley. Mr. Cilimbe~g responded that the request is to
vacate this right-of-way to public use.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed with the through t?affic issue. He said there is no
question that this right-of-way could get emergency vehicles there faster.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it is his opinion!ithat emergency vehicles could not
use the right-of-way now because it is so oVergrown.
Mr. Way asked Mrs. Moore if she has evg~ known emergency vehicles to use
the right-of-way. Mrs. Moore answered that :~hief Slaughter thinks the fire
trucks can get to Berkeley as quickly via Route 29. She added that Chief
Slaughter and the Homeowners' Association think that the right-of-way should
not be an issue any more. She went on to sa~ that the Fire Department has
been in Berkeley for small fires, etc., and ~he emergency vehicles got there
in plenty of time. She said that no one in ~he neighborhood has complained
about the Fire Department's response time.
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that he is not c6ncerned about vacating the
right-of-way, but wonders if access should b~ reserved for the Fire Company to
get through in case of an emergency. He sai~ he cannot imagine that it is
preferable for the Fire Department to traveliion Route 29 instead of going
directly through the neighborhood.
Mr. Bowie commented that the right-of-way is overgrown, and he doubts if
the Fire Department will remove the trees just in case there is a fire, as
long as there is another route available. H~ does not believe the County has
any plans to either maintain the right-of-waM or build a road there.
Mrs. Cooke said the two parties that argl directly affected by the use or
non-use of the road are not interested in maintaining or using the road. She
added that the people who live there have des~cribed what they want to happen
with the right-of-way, and she thinks that i6~ is ridiculous for the Board to
waste time deliberating over what should hapP~en. She cannot see that the
right-of-way serves any purpose, and the peop~le in that neighborhood don't
want it. She does not think that this Board 'should impose anything other than
what the neighborhood people feel that they need and want.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there has been a formal resolution by the Berkeley
Homeowner's Association. Mrs. Cooke replied that she has received many
telephone calls concerning this matter, and s,~e suggested that a public
hearing be set so that everybody involved could make their opinions known.
82
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
In reply to a question, Mr. Roosevelt said that to make the right-of-way
an access from the fire station to Commonwealth Drive, would take more than
just the removal of a few trees. He said that some grading and stabilization
will have to be done also.
Mr. Agnor said the Board needs to determine if a public hearing will be
held. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bain to set a
public hearing for November 8, 1989, to consider adoption of an ordinance
vacating this right-of-way. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MesSrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Roosevelt reminded the Board members that he had written to them
approximately three weeks ago concerning the proposed improvement on Route 671
and indicated that he would like for the Board to consider a resolution
stating its position on this project at today's meeting.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he and Mr. P~kins both went to the public
hearing that was held for the Route 671 proj~,eCto He said he has a copy of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement that wa~ prepared for that project. He
then read a statement from Page Five of this! report which involved social
impacts and the coordination of the project,~!~.and he 'noted that this statement
is incorrect. He next read a resolution th~'~ he had prepared which gives the
history of the Board's opposition and point~i out the fact that the Board has
no other choice but to accept this alternative, unless the Board accepts
something that could be worse. He suggeste~i that the Clerk have someone type
the resolution for discussion later in the meeting.
Mr. Way agreed. He then said that Mr. ~orbes Reback is interested in
this project, and he asked him to speak to t~e Board.
Mr. Reback mentioned that Mr. Lindstrom~had made a reference in his draft
resolution to taking the project out of the Six Year Plan in November of 1988.
He stated that the date that the project was?taken out of the Six Year Plan
was April 6, 1988. He also noted that in Mr~~ Lindstrom's recitation of
reasons for not supporting the project, he n~glected to include the fact that
Virginia Spining has now been found in the M~orman's River. He went on to
explain that Virginia Spining is the fresh w~ter muscle that is on the list of
endangered species and will require a complete Federal Environmental Assess-
ment.
Mr. Lindstrom answered that he did not know about the Virginia Spining
when he prepared the resolution.
Mr. Reback then summarized the actions at the meeting that was held at
Crozet School on September 28, 1989, by saying that VDOT made a very complete
presentation, and there were at least a doze~ people who spoke in opposition
to the project, but there was not even one p~rson who spoke in favor. He
mentioned that there was also a petition wit~ approximately 100 signatures on
it that opposed the project. He stated thatithe Millington Neighborhood
Association is monitoring this situation and~ihopes that the Board will pass
the proposed resolution.
Mr. Bain stated that the resolution prepBred by Mr. Lindstrom does give
the history of the Board's discussion of the project. He said that the
current cost estimate seems to be considerabl~ higher than the initial esti-
mate. He asked why the costs have increased,~and he wondered how the funds
will be acquired for this additional increase~i
Mr. Way asked Mr. Roosevelt if he could respond to Mr. Bain's questions
at this time. Mr. Roosevelt answered that helcould respond to the second
question, and he stated that the funds are co~ing from the secondary road
funds allocated to Albemarle County.
Mr. Bain then asked if the funds are coming from the bridge replacement
fund. Mr. Roosevelt replied, "no." He said that the money is allocated for
secondary improvements on the roads in Albemarle County, and the only break-
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
83
down in those funds is that there is a minimum amount that must be used for
gravel road improvements. He added that there are various categories of
Federal funds available to the Department of Highways at the State level, but
by the time the money is further distributed to the counties, there are no
barriers as to how the money has to be used, with the exception that a certain
percentage has to be used for gravel road improvements.
Mr. Bain inquired if, from the Department's point of view, the funds for
the improvement of this bridge on Route 671 were taken from another project.
Mr. Roosevelt answered that he has been adjusting his financial portion of the
Six Year Plan on a continuous basis as more~detailed estimates are received on
the projects. In an attempt to answer Mr. Bain's first question about the
increased costs, Mr. Roosevelt mentioned that the original estimates were
within the $670,000 range and were based on!a schematic plan. Since that
time, more detailed estimates have been obtained, and cost items such as the
rail and stone facing requested by this Board have added approximately
$100,000 to the project. He explained that~ithese are the two basic reasons
that the estimate is now $900,000. ~
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Roosevelt to respond to the possible roadway width of
18 feet. Mr. Roosevelt replied that the Department is applying for Federal
funds for this project which would mean tha~ there will have to be a waiver of
the Federal requirements on roadway width if there is an 18 foot width. He
added that 20 feet is the minimum that Federal requirements allow, and it is
also the State minimum. He pointed out thaC if the project was constructed
with State funds, there would only be the problem of convincing the Location
and Design Engineer that it is proper to construct the narrow roadway and only
the State's own requirements would have to he waived. He said, however, that
with Federal funds, the Federal authorities ~ill have to be convinced that the
narrow width will be acceptable. He added ~ihat if the narrow width recommen-
dation is included in the Board's resolution~ it will certainly be something
that the Highway Department will consider, iHe then referred to the problem of
the endangered species, and he stated that since this project is a Federal
project, this problem will have to be addresDed to the satisfaction of the
Federal authorities before the project can p~oceed with Federal funds. He
said the question of what has to be done and?how this problem with the endan-
gered species will affect this project will ~ave to be considered.
Mr. Way said the Board would discuss th~ resolution in the afternoon,
after it has been typed. Mr. Lindstrom stat'ed that he appreciates all of the
time and effort that has been devoted to thi~ project by Mr. Roosevelt and the
staff in the Transportation Office in Richmo~d, even though the project has
not been designed in the way that this Boardli*~requested.
Mr. Bain said the Board had been informed earlier that the General
Assembly was going to approve a number of neW employees, and the Culpeper
District would get an additional engineer. Me wanted to know the situation
relating to this new position. He mentionedlthat he has had a number of
complaints recently from people who have told him that their plans are being
delayed by the Highway Department. it
Mr. Roosevelt responded that none of th~ additional positions that were
approved by the General Assembly were designated for Charlottesville. The
Department has done a study of the needs in this area for an additional site
plan and subdivision review person, and he h~s received approval to advertise
for and hire a second Assistant Resident Engi~neer. However, in order to hire
this new Assistant Resident Engineer, he will~ have to give up a Maintenance
Operator position which should not affect th~ Department's ability to handle
overall maintenance. The Department has been{ contracting some maintenance for
a few years and will continue to do that. H~ said that he expects to adver-
tise for the position within the next two we~s, and the job will probably be
filled by the first of December.
Mr. Bain then referred to the Route 631 ~improvements at the entrance to
Pen Park, and he wondered if the Improvements. will take care of the additional
traffic from River Run at that intersection.
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
84
Mr. Roosevelt replied that, as part of the first phases of the devel-
opment of River Run, the developer widened the road into Pen Park from Rio
Road. This allows for a left and right turn lane as Rio Road is approached.
He said that the Department's project at that intersection will create a left
turn lane from Rio Road into Pen Park, and a right turn lane for traffic
coming from Charlottesville turning into Pen Park. He believes this should
improve the traffic flow by keeping the thr6ugh traffic moving. The antici-
pated traffic from River Run did not indicate a need for a traffic signal at
that intersection, however, if the traffic necessitates, a traffic signal may
be installed in the future. He added that even if a traffic light is in-
stalled, one through lane that will not be delayed by turning traffic is as
fast as can be expected at that intersection. He hopes that the Meadow Creek
Parkway can be built to take a considerable~amount of Rio Road traffic.
Mr. Perkins stated that he would like ~o comment on the Moorman's River
(Route 671) project and express the frustration that this project has caused
him and a lot of other people. He remarked~ithat it seems as though the State
is going to build only what it wants to build. He said that the people have
expressed the need for some improvements toi~ithat bridge, and they cannot
understand why the new bridge can't be put b~ack into the same place where the
current bridge now exists. He said that th~ State's reply to that idea is
that the location does not meet its standargs so there would be liabilities
involved when making improvements.
Next, Mr. Perkins discussed the railroa~d underpass in Crozet. He com-
mented that another trailer was destroyed a~out two weeks ago, and he said
that one solution to the problem would be t~ move the bridge. He noted that
he had already suggested a second solution at an earlier time which was to
install caution lights. He added that not all of the signage on Route 250 can
be read if vehicles are traveling at the normal speed limit. He pointed out
that, with the additional trucks that are c~ming from ConAgra, there will be
new drivers who are not familiar with that ~ituation.
Mr. Bain pointed out that the City of Charlottesville has installed an
electric eye on the Fourteenth Street Br~dgs, underpass that gets the drivers'
attention with a blowing horn. Mr. Perkins i~oted that at night drivers cannot
see the overhead structures. ~
Agenda Item No. 7. Discussion: Maste~iPlan for Grounds around Build-
ings on Court Square. 'i~
Mrs. Cooke asked staff to summarize th~ilwritten report. Mr. Agnor said
there are periodic requests to locate commemorative structures on Court Square
property. The concept of having a plan available when reviewing these re-
quests to make them compatible with the surroundings is proposed. Also, the
development of a suitable memorial structure~on which memorial plates could be
installed over a period of time. A master l~ndscaping plan of the premises
showing locations designated for benches and facilities could be developed.
That plan would need to be coordinated with ~he Charlottesville Historical
Review Board. An indoor memorial plan would!:only have to be coordinated with
Judge Tremblay. He then noted that the indoor memorial would be estimated to
cost approximately $1000, and the outdoor master landscaping plan would cost
approximately $5000. ~
Mrs. Cooke commented that it was her feeling, as well as a number of
members of this Board, that consideration be!given to doing the $5000 land-
scaping plan for that area. She said if large memorials, such as benches, are
accepted without some strict guidelines, the!grounds around the Courthouse
would be inundated with benches and large memorials. She believes this Board
needs to determine whether or no~ it wants t~ spend $5000, and if so the
Board will need to determine how to obtain the funds.
Mr. Way remarked that Mr. Leigh Middled~tch is present at the meeting,
and he would like to give him the opportunity to add to the discussion.
Mr. Middleditch said the Charlottesville/Albemarle Bar Association,
thought that the number and condition of the lbenches on Court Square were
inadequate. It was determined that it would~be appropriate to raise funds for
85
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
a bench in honor of Professor T. Munford Boyd, who practiced so long with this
Bar. He said this bench was placed in 1987~ The Board next requested permis-
sion to place a bench in memory of Eaton Brooks. The Bar then requested
permission to place a bench in honor of C. Venable Minor, who practiced in
Charlottesville his entire life.
Mr. Middleditch said he then went through the same procedure and wrote
Judge Gerald Tramblay on November 11, 1988. He had a meeting with him, and
described the location of the proposed bench. Judge Tremblay approved this
plan. Mr. Middleditch then wrote to Peter Way on November 27 enclosing a copy
of his letter to Judge Tremblay. At its December 14, 1988, meeting, the Board
of Supervisors voted to form a committee composed of persons of the local Bar
Association, the Albemarle County Historical Society and the County's Beauti-
fication Committee to prepare a report on a i'long range plan for the Court
Square buildings and grounds. He has been waiting since that time for a
reply.
Mrs. Cooke wondered how other prominent:attorneys and judges would be
honored when there are no more bench sites in the yard. She thinks that this
is a sensitive issue and needs to be addressed.
Mr. Middleditch replied that the Bar A~sociation has just appointed Mr.
Lewis Martin as the Chairman of a committeeito consider indoor memorials for
lawyers who have practiced here. He said tliat this committee has not yet had
its first meeting, but he thinks that there~'.~will be plaque suggestions for the
inside of the Court buildings with respect t0 lawyers.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board at least allow this bench to be
placed because the funds are available, and Mr. Middleditch has been request-
ing that this be done for a long time. He W~uld be surprised if the Bar would
want to take on another such project for a !~ng time, and if it did, he is
sure that the Bar is fully aware of the Boar. d's concern about the prolifera-
tion of benches. He asked that this bench ~ allowed to be placed, even if
the Board wishes to hire a consultant. He S~id that he feels the grounds of
the Courthouse look good, and he is not sure.~that spending $5000 for an
overall master landscaping plan makes sense ~o him. He thinks that the
County's own staff has the capability of developing a plan whereby if other
memorials were requested, those memorials could be located on the grounds
according to some schedule, so that there wi'll not be too many benches placed
in the yard.
Mr. Bain thinks that now is the time to~ address this matter, and he
believes that the County staff has the capability to do it.
Mr. Bowie stated that he is not concerned about installing another
memorial bench, but he thinks that a determiqation has to be made as to how
many benches are needed.
Mrs. Cooke said when the Board appointe~ it committee to study this
request, it was stated that it was appropriate that the staff study this
matter. She does not think that the Board t~lked about a consultant, but the
Board believed that there would be an expenditure of approximately $5000 to
have a plan drawn that was suitable. She al~o recalls that there was a
maintenance problem involved. She mentioned ~hat if the yard is full of
benches, maintenance will have to be done on ~hem. She agreed with Mr. Bain
that if benches are needed in the park, then ithey certainly should be there.
She thinks, however, that a determination has' to be made through a master
plan, as to where those benches are to be pla~ed. She said the Board may wish
to put in this particular bencb and make it known that this will be the last
one installed until a master plan can be devised. She believes the County's
planning staff and the Parks and Recreation Department can devise such a plan.
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that Mr. Middleditch has been faced with a year
and a half of political delay.
Mr. Bain said Mr. Middleditch has been involved with this project for 11
months, and he asked that the Board members ni~t to be too hasty in their
decisions.
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
86
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to allow
this bench to be placed in honor of C. Venable Minor as requested by the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Bar Association. Mrs. Cooke stated that she does
not have a problem supporting this motion given the history and frustration
that has been involved with this project, and based on the stipulation that no
more benches will be placed in that park until a plan is devised. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to have a
Bench Committee including Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, a member of the Planning staff,
Mrs. Patricia Cooke, Mr. Patrick Mullaney, and Mr. Lewis Martin, to meet with
Judge Gerald Tremblay after a plan has beenlproposed by staff some time before
the end of 1989. There will be no further outdoor memorials allowed until a
plan is developed and approved by the Boardof Supervisors.
Mr. Way asked Mrs. Cooke if she is agreeable to serving on the committee.
Mrs. Cooke answered that she is willing to serve on this committee. She
wondered, however, if this plan is devised and the location of a number of
benches is determined, will those benches b~ designated only as memorials to
lawyers and judges, or should the memorials .be opened up to other prominent
citizens in the community.
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that the committee may not even decide that
benches are the proper way to handle this s{i~uation. He added that an indoor
memorial might be more appropriate, but if ~ere is a need for a master
landscaping plan and there is a source of p~vate funds to help fulfill that
plan, he thinks that it is a shame to not make it possible to utilize those
funds to benefit the public. He also believes that the Courthouse is the
logical place to honor people in that profession. He pointed out that the
only money that has been given in honor of anybody has come from the Bar
Association.
Mr. Bain responded that no one has kno~ that something of this nature
could be done, and that is part of the problem. He said this is why he thinks
Mr. Lindstrom's second motion is a mistake, iMr. St. John said the Circuit
Court judge has exclusive control over everything that is done on Courthouse
property. He pointed out that the Board cannot just consult the Judge and
bring him into this process. Mrs. Cooke asked Why this matter was even
brought to this Board. Mr. St. John replied!that he is assumes that Judge
Tremblay welcomes this kind of assistance an'~ participation by the County.
Mr. Bain stated that he did not know that the Judge could make this
decision. He said that the Judge does have ~he ultimate authority on improve-
ment of facilities at the Courthouse to serv~ the court, but that is different
from the surrounding court yard. Mr. St. JoVan responded that this issue came
up in Louisa County. He said that a small p~aque was going to be installed
somewhere on the courthouse grounds, and the i!Judge finally approved it. He
added that the Judge was incensed that he was not consulted about the plan.
Mr. St. 3ohn believes that the Courthouse property, including the grounds and
building, interior and exterior, are subjecti~to the State statute. He stated
that this is not the real issue, but he want~'d the Board to be aware of the
Judge's important role in this matter.
Roll was then called on Mr. Lindstrom's imotion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess{s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(The Board recessed at 10:54 A.M. and r~onvened at 11:06 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 9. Report: Airport Fi~ing Range.
Mr. Agnor said that staff had looked at !Ways to improve the safety and
security of the firing range at the Airport Cb alleviate concerns of the
citizens in the Earlysville Forest community.~' After meeting with residents
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
87
and with input from Mr. Bowie and the management of the Airport, the following
improvements have been recommended:
To redirect the range firing lines away from the residents'
homes;
To complete the fencing of the Airport to limit the amount of
trespassing that occurs at this location;
To place appropriate "Warning - Police Firing Range" and "No
Trespassing" signage around the range area;
To work with the community in establishing a warning signal such
as a red flag which would fly anytime the range is in use;
To establish a policy that whenever night time firing is sched-
uled, the police department will send out pamphlets notifying the
community of the scheduled dates ~nd times;
That the range be enclosed with a berm on three sides instead of
one and that it be higher than the berm presently being used.
Mr. Bowie said the ultimate desire of the community would be to remove
the firing range altogether. He said that WOuld not be practical because
there was no alternate location, and the County Police are not the only users
of this range. He said he thought this was an excellent list of improvements
with regard to the. safety issue. ~:
Mr. Whit Paris, representative of the E~rlysville Forest Homeowners'
Association, said he appreciated the Board'8'.itimely response to their con-
cerns. He requested a sketch as to how the ~new firing direction would be
located and where the berm would be placed, ii! He asked the Board to delay any
final action until his group had a chance to consider the list of improvements
in their open meeting in November. .~
Mr. Agnor said the fencing, signing, et'8. can be deferred, but the
earth-moving on the Airport project would bed completed by mid-October if the
work proceeded on schedule so the berming wi~il need to be done immediately.
Mr. Bowie remarked that the fencing needs toi. be done, whether or not there is
a firing range located there. He said therei:.are too many places where chil-
dren or unauthorized persons could come onto!! the Airport property. Mr.
Perkins asked if the fencing would enclose the whole airport and not just the
firing range. Mr. Bowie answered,"yes." He:ireiterated that this is not a
County range and it is not on County property. He said that the range is on
Airport property and is controlled by the Airport police. He stated that even
if the County police firing range was moved elsewhere, this Board would not
have any control over whether or not the Joi~t Security Complex, the Airport
or the Federal Bureau of Investigation used this range. He thinks that
whether or not there should be a local range!i'there is not a matter that this
Board can determine. He said that the exten6 of what this Board can do is to
determine where the County police will have ~ firing range and how safe can it
be. i
Mr. Way commented that it makes sense tq him to go ahead with these
recommendations from Chief Miller. He said ~'hat this will not preclude any
additional recommendations as a result of th~ community meeting.
Agenda Item No. 10. Appoint Proxy to V~te Stock Shares at JAUNT'S Annual
Meeting.
Mr. Agnor said that Albemarle County ho~s five shares in JAUNT, and they
are requesting that a proxy be appointed to ~ote the County's shares at their
annual meeting on Wednesday, November 15. H~ said staff recommended that Mr.
Way be appointed.
Mr. Way said since the meeting occurs at.~ithe same time as a Board meet-
ing, he suggested that Mr. Tucker be appointe~.
88
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to
appoint Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. to vote the County's shares. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to add Section 12-8.2
to Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, in the Code of Albemarle re:
Enforcement of Parking Regulations. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
September 26 and October 3, 1989.)
Mr. Agnor said that new State legislation gives the County authority to
enact and enforce ordinances regulating parring in handicapped spaces on
public or private property and on private Parking lots with fifty or more
parking spaces. The ordinance will enable police officers to place tickets on
the windshield of vehicles violating handicapped parking regulations instead
of serving a summons on the driver of the vehicle, which is the current
procedure. The ordinance also establishes an administrative procedure for
voluntary payments of fines at the County's i~Finance Department windows or by
mail. If voluntary payment of the fine is not chosen, the recipient of a
notice of violation can fill out a form provided by the Finance Department and
request an administrative review and dismissal of charges. The Commonwealth's
Attorney would decide whether the charge shOUld be dismissed. If it is not
dismissed, a hearing in General District Coq~t could be requested. The fine
is $50 if paid within 48 hours. After 48 hdurs, the fine is $100. If the
review procedure is chosen, the fine must tdi:ibe paid 48 hours after denial, or
the fine is doubled, unless a court procedu~.a is demanded.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. He~ry Dean came forward to speak. He
said that he has been trying to get this lay{ into effect for five years. He
mentioned that in most places disabled veterans are authorized to write these
tickets, as well. He noted that this activi~y Creates a good revenue for the
County and helps the Police Department. He '~hinks that this is a wonderful
ordinance, but he suggested that one more thi~ng needed to be added. He said
there are approximately 140 habitual offenders in this vicinity. He kept a
record at one time of 300 habitual offenders{ and he went to Mr. Agnor and
asked for help. This was after he had talke~ to Congress to try to get a more
severe penalty for violators. He commented .that President Reagan signed a
Presidential Order for a $100 fine for violators. He said this community has
many parking areas where handicapped personsi!icannot park to get medicine or
use bathrooms because the handicapped parkin~ spaces are used by other people.
Mr. Dean suggested that the ordinance iHclude a $100 fine for a habitual
offender. He noted that this would bring in~:i.more revenue for the County. In
Richmond, Virginia, there is a tow truck tha~ picks up the vehicles with
parking violations and impounds them. He sa~d it costs the driver $35 to
retrieve the vehicle, and that $35 goes to t~e City. He feels this added
revenue could be used to improve the handzcapped facilities, and would be more
revenue added into the County's budget. He ~aid that if there is authorized
towing, the police officers will not have roi:spend as much time with parking
violations and it would not be as expensive {or the County. He remarked that
authorized towing has worked in other citiesi!and in other states. He feels
that it would be wonderful to have this ordiJance on the County's books and he
would appreciate it if the Board would adopt~ithis ordinance.
Mr. Agnor told the Board that people at !the Independent Resource Center
have already contacted Police Chief John Mil~er and have offered their ser-
vices. He suggested that possibly Mr. Dean ~ould participate in the Center's
activities concerning this matter as well. He noted that the Center has a
brief training program that is required, and ~has offered to provide the same
type of service for the County that it has a~ready provided for the City and
University. He then commented that because ~f the $50 fine, the habitual
offender situation has disappeared in the Citiy and in the University area. He
said the County intends to aggressively pursue the collection of the fines.
He added that habitual offenders were more pr!ominent when the fines were of
smaller amounts of money. ,i'
Mr. Way closed the Public Hearing, at this time, since there was no one
else who wished to speak. ~
89
October 11,~1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
' Mr. Lindstrom inquired if it is within !the Board's authority to create a
towing provision in the ordinance. Mr. Agnor said he would prefer that Mr.
St. John answer the question. Mr. St. John said a towing provision is a
totally different thing and is under a different statute. He mentioned that
the vehicle does not have to have a ticket on it before it can be towed. He
noted that private individuals who own property where vehicles are illegally
parked can have them towed. These private property owners cannot, however,
give tickets. The police can tow or ticket icars for illegal parking, but
private individuals can have vehicles towed,i He said that owners of the
shopping centers are constantly calling the jpolice to come and enforce their
parking regulations, but these owners already have a remedy, because they
could have the vehicles towed away. He indicated that this is a separate
matter, and an ordinance is not needed to give private owners the power to
tow. He added that the towing provision shduld not be mingled with the
ticketing ordinance. :~
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County police should see a vehicle in the
County's parking lot that is unauthorized t~ be in a handicapped' space, would
they have the authority to call up a towing ~i~service and have the vehicle towed
away. Mr. St. Jo.hn answered that the County police have always had this
authority. He noted that the handicapped s~aces have special requirements,
and he said that an emblem painted on the pavement is not good enough. He
added that there has to be an up-right sign!~ He said that once those require-
ments are met, then the towing provision is i!available.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt
the following ordinance amending and reenacCiing Chapter 12 of the Albemarle
County Code by the addition of new Section 112-8.2 to become effective January
1, 1990.
Roll was called and the motion carried ibY the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messi~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND I~EENACT
CHAPTER 12, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
OF THE ALBEMARLE iCOUNTY CODE
ARTICLE I, BY THE!! ADDITION OF
SECTION 12138.2
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of S~pervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Code of Albemarle ~?unty be and is hereby amended
to add Section 12-8.2 as follows: ~
Sec. 12-8.2. Enforcement of Parking Regulations; Waiver of Trial;
Contesting Charges; PenaltieS.
(a) Police officers and other u~iformed personnel designated
by the Chief of Police to enforce the~'parking provisions of this
Code shall post a written notice of vtblation on the windshield of
each vehicle found illegally parked, iSuch notices of violation
shall state that the recipient of the motice may elect to waive his
or her right to appear and be tried foic the offense or offenses
indicated in the notice. ~
(b) Persons desiring to waive trial may do so by voluntarily
remitting to the office of the Director of Finance the amount of the
fine stipulated for each violation marked on the notice. Such fines
shall be levied in accordance with the~, schedule set forth in sub-
section (e) of this section. If the ~&quired amount is not received
in the office of the Director of Finance or mailed and postmarked
within forty-eight hours after the notice of violation is issued,
the amount of the applicable fine sha~l be doubled.
(c) Whenever the fines are paid 'b,y mail, the responsibility
for receipt of the payment by the Direator of Finance shall lie with
the registered owner of the vehicle pa~ked in violation. Payment
may be made by personal check; providec~, that if such check is
9O
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
returned for insufficient funds, the vehicle owner shall remain
liable for the parking violations, and shall likewise be subject to
a service charge of fifteen dollars for processing the returned
check.
(d) Any recipient of a notice of violation desiring to contest
the charges cited in the notice shall appear at the office of the
Director of Finance and, on forms provided by the Director of
Finance, file a written request for administrative review and
dismissal of the charges. The facts.lof the request shall be re-
viewed and con~nented upon by a representative of the Director of
Finance and a representative of the Police Department who shall
recommend whether the request should!ibe approved or denied. Acting
on such request and recommendation, ~he attorney for the Common-
wealth or his assistant shall decide whether the charge shall be
dismissed. The recipient of the not~ce shall indicate on the
request for review whether a hearingi!in court is demanded in the
event the request for dismissal is denied. If the request for
review is made within forty-eight hoHrs of the violation, the
recipient shall have an additional forty-eight hoUrs after denial of
the request to remit the fine, before: the amount thereof is doubled.
(e)
The schedule of fines shall be as follows:
If paid within 48 hours ,-~
If paid after 48 hours
$ 50.00
$100.00
(f) Any vehicle owner who fails~ilto respond to a notice of
violation either by paying the stipu]~ated fines or by filing a
request for review of hearing with th~ Director of Finance within
ten days shall be subject to summons i!~nd arrest pursuant to Section
46.1-179.01 of the Code of Virginia..
AND FURTHER, that this ordinance' shall be effective on and
after January 1, 1990.
(For State law as to authority o~ county to adopt this section,
see Code of Virginia, Section 46.1-254.1).
Mr. Lindstrom said he believes Mr. Dean~ is primarily responsible for this
matter being brought before the Board, and i~ has taken a long time for it to
get this far. He said he did not believe th'& Board had the authority to adopt
this ordinance when Mr. Dean first brought t~is matter to the Board's atten-
tion. He added, though, that now the Code ox Virginia has changed and the
Board has this authority. He said that he appreciates Mr. Dean's persistence.
He added that he knows that it is a very frustrating situation for the handi-
capped people, and Mr. Dean has represented ~hem well. He is pleased to offer
his support for the ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 12. Police Department: i! Fees for Overtime.
Mr. Agnor explained that Mr. St. John w~uld brief the Board on overtime
fees for the Police Department. He said tha~' this information was requested
by Mr. Bain at last month's meeting.
Mr. Bain stated that his concern is limited to the last paragraph of Page
Two of Mr. St. John's letter of September 22,~ 1989, in which he states: "My
specific concern in this area has been the fa~t that on some occasions our
officers have been put in the dual role of e~forcing the law as County police-
men, and at the same time enforcing the owner's private, in-house rules at
private events such as Foxfield. The difficulty with this dual role is
self-evident and in my opinion our officers si~ould not be put in this position
but should at all times when on duty either 0~ regular time or overtime, be
acting exclusively as County police and not ~i~ private rule enforcers."
Mr. St. John stated that, if the Board agrees, the people who are now the
sponsors of events at which these policemen g~e active in this dual role will
receive a letter telling them that the police~aen are no longer going to act in
this dual role.
91
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Bain remarked that his concern is if police officers continue in this
dual role, someone will file a Civil Rights 'Act of 1983 suit. He said that
the County could be brought into the suit, and the Federal courts might look
at the situation as though the County is condoning it.
Mr. St. John stated that the Federal GOvernment could allege that the
County was indifferent to the situation by allowing this dual role of the
police officers to continue. He indicated that Chief Miller is more concerned
than anyone else.
Mr. Agnor commented that Chief Miller has discussed the matter with him,
and Mr. Agnor has asked Chief Miller to prepare a written memorandum to be
passed to this Board. He said the new regulation will propose that the County
police will act only as County police· and n6t as an enforcer of private rules.
He noted that overtime will not be authorized in situations where police
officers are enforcing private rules. He pqinted out that the focus is
primarily on the Foxfield Races that occur ~wice a year.
Mr. Bain stated that this regulation could also focus on the County Fair.
Mr. St. John agreed and said that the regulation could focus on a lot of
different things. He said that there could~ibe a request for police officers
by someone who has a permit for a concert, eltc., and he feels that it is
better for the Board to deal with the situation as a generic issue rather than
to have to make a sudden reaction.
Mr. Bain concurred with Mr. St. John's i~tatement. He is glad that
something in writing will be given to the B6!~rd so that a decision can be
made.
Mr. Bowie brought out the fact that poi!ice work overtime at high school
football games. He assumes that only CountYliilaws are being enforced at these
games. He does not know if private rules a~ involved, but he does know that
it is important to have policemen at these ~mes. He asked that the proposed
regulation cover everything that involves th;~ police officers. Mr. St. JOhn
assured Mr. Bowie that all police actlvltmes~iwould be covered with the pro-
posed regulation.
Mr. Agnor explained that the Board, at ~oday's meeting, would need to
give its approval of the proposed overtime flute for police officers.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve the
new rate of $20/hOur to be charged private i~dividuals, businesses, or gr°ups,
for additional police security, as recommended by Mr. Agnor in his memorandum
to the Board dated September 6, 1989. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Update on Ordinanc~ Revisions.
Mr. St. John said that his letter of October 2, 1989, to the Clerk of the
Board, was self-explanatory, but if necessary, he would be glad to summarize
the ordinance revisions.
Mr. Bain asked what type of timeframe
· s~ involved with the ordinance
revisions. Mr. St. John responded that all d~if the ordinance revisions could
be brought before the Board by February exce~'.t, perhaps, the ordinances that
would implement the Chesapeake Bay regulationP which are complicated and
involve considerable field work.
Mr. Bain asked about a statement concer~ing the protection of groundwater
_ being Used as one of the considerations in zo~Ding. Mr. St. John replied that
he does not know when this item can be broug~t before the Board because there
is nothing in hand with which to draft an ord!inance relating to the protectiOn
of groundwater, but there are seminars schedu!led where model ordinances and
programs for doing this will be presented. He noted that members of the
Planning staff and his staff will attend these seminars.
92
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Bain stated that just because there has been no technical guidance
given at the State level, it does not mean that the Board cannot take action
because the authority is there in the general zoning language. Mr. St. John
responded that the Board has the legal power to take action, but he and staff
need some education as to what should be included in the ordinance. He noted
that field work will probably also have to be done as a basis for the regula-
tions.
Mr. Bowie inquired about the eleventh ordinance listed in Mr. St. John's
letter, concerning regulations for "historic entrance corridors." Mr. St.
John responded that the Planning staff is trying to coordinate work on the
"historic entrance corridors" with the City '~planning staff because the City is
also working on an ordinance which is exactly what the County has in mind. He
pointed out that a lot of the roads involved continue from the County into the
City. He believes that by February the Board will be in receipt of a report
or draft ordinance relative to this matter. Mr. Bowie commented that he is
not sure what is involved with "historic entrance corridors." He asked if
this is relative to an overlay so that all ~outes, north, south, east and west
would be regulated as development occurs. Mr. St. John answered, "yes." He
said that either one or both of the architectural and landscaping designs
would be subject to review and control undeCi this ordinance.
Mr. Bain then asked about Number 13 in,Mr. St. John's letter involving a
"Mountainside Development Ordinance." He no~ed that Mr. St. John indicates
that it is up to the staff, Planning Commis~lion and the Board as to whether to
take this matter any further. He suggested.'~that staff members might need more
time to consider whether or not this is a matter they wish to bring forward.
Mr. St. John replied that he has not discusS~d this with staff. He said staff
would need to develop an analysis of the ordinance provisions and bring back a
report before proceeding further.
Mrs. Cooke wondered what an ordinance dealing with "Mountainside Develop-
ment'' encompasses. Mr. Bain replied that tl~& ordinance would involve protec-
tion as well as how mountainside developmentj~should be handled. Mr. Lindstrom
pointed out that Ashcroft was the first maj~ subdivision on a mountainside in
Albemarle County. He said there were provis!~ons under the County's current
regulations that dealt with the siting of tl~ houses on the parcel and the
removal of trees on the parcel. He said the4proposed ordinance would involve
the protection of the view of the ridges so i~hat they would not be denuded of
trees, etc.
Mr. Bain then related the ordinance to ~he manner in which the Alderman
Road Water Tower was built. He said that concerns of the landowner were
expressed and addressed.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that on Route 2~ South, a developer, Mr. Wendell
Wood, is working on a project where there ar~ 300 foot long pipe stems that go
to the mountain ridge. He sa~d he does not Rnow what the County can do about
that situation, but the proposed ordinance w~uld be designed to require
consideration be given when a structure is b~ilt above a certain elevation.
Mrs. Cooke asked what has happened with !all of the concerns relating to
the Westminster-Canterbury development. Mr. ~Lindstrom said he remembers the
Westminster-Canterbury officials telling the i?Board that 50 feet would be
removed from the top of the hill. Until it Was actually done, it was hard to
imagine how it would look. Mrs. Cooke commented that Board members should
look at the Westminster-Canterbury site from,~,the top of Carter's Mountain.
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that he had looked at i~the Westminster-Canterbury site
from a helicopter. He asked Mr. Bowie if he .!had heard any comments from the
people in that area. Mr. Bowie replied that ~he had gotten some questions from
Ashcroft residents as to whether or not 35 f~et was actually taken off of the
mountain. He told Mr. Lindstrom that he bel{~ves that 35 feet was supposed to
be taken off the top of the hill rather than '50 feet. He said that he, and
the County Engineer went to the site and meaSUred and 35 feet was, in fact,
taken off of the hill. He went on to say tha'~,t it really does not make that
much difference, though, because it is such a!iihuge project. He said that he
is hoping that the project will be landscape~/, and that screening will be done.
He added that, otherwise, the project will not turn out in the manner in which
he had hoped.
93
October 11,-1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Lindstrom commented that the top of the hill was also removed at the
site of the University Village Retirement COmplex. He stated that these are
the sorts of things that this proposed ordinance will involve.
Mr. Bain said that the ordinance may cover the height of individual
residences, also. He then told Mr. St. John that he would like to see a copy
of this ordinance. He said that he is not ~sking the staff to analyze it,
though. ~
Mr. Bowie asked if the Board could get~ia statement from the officials at
Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge aslito their intentions forlandscap-
ing, screening, etc. He mentioned that thehill and road are both gone, and
this is not exactly what he had in mind whe~ the Westminster-Canterbury
officials came before the Board with their ~lans. He said that the only
concern he has is whether or not the County!~s requirements are being met. He
added that he is sure there is a plan, but he would like to know what it is.
He suggested that if the Board does not have time to get involved with this
matter, then perhaps he could set up a time ito meet individually with the
Westminster-Canterbury officials.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that when some Df the dirt was excavated at the
Westminster-Canterbury project, a problem deVeloped relative to the fact that
the bearing capacity of some of the earth w~s not sufficient. He does not
know if fill had to be used, or if more earth had to be excavated.
Mr. Bowie remarked that when the whole lWestminster-Canterbury project is
finished, it will probably be fine, but now~The is concerned.
Mr. Cilimberg told the Board members that he could bring the Westminster-
Canterbury site plan to a meeting where he ~-~uld cover the landscaping tee
ments, or the staff could go over the landsdiping requirements individually
with the Board members. Mr. Lindstrom repl~d that he believes that the whole
Board would be interested in a review of th~i~Westminster-Canterbury land-
scaping requirements.
It was agreed that staff would review t~e plan with the Board at the next
afternoon meeting.
Mr. Lindstrom questioned the subdivisior~ on Route 20 that is being
developed by Wendell Wood. He asked where ti%is project is in the approval
process. He said that Mr. Wood had built a =oad without a permit, calling it
a farm road. He added that now the road is '~erving a subdivision, and origi-
nally the subdivision lots were 3,000 feet l~ng and 300 feet wide. He asked
if these are not unusually shaped lots in terms of the County's ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the staff has m~et with the people involved with
Mr. Wood's project several times, and right n.ow, the project is basically "on
hold". Mr. Lindstrom remarked that it would~.?be nice if Mr. Wood would take
advantage of the new County policy relative ~o clustering. He said that this
might preserve some of the scenic qualities ~f that area.
Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Recreational Facilities Authority.
Mr. St. John stated that the Code of Virginia indicates that a Recrea-
tional Facilities Authority can be established by resolution or by an ordi-
nance. He said he is presenting this matter ~n the form of a resolution which
would adopt the articles of incorporation of ilthe Public Recreational Facili-
ties Authority. He added that this resolutidfn tracks the language of the Code
and selects from among the purposes that are ~mvailable to this kind of Author-
ity, the real purpose for establishing this particular Authority is to re-
ceive, accept and hold title to open space easements.
Mr. Way inquired as to what the word, "~dminister" means with respect to
how it is used in the following sentence: "T~e purpose for which the Authori-
ty is created is to accept, hold and administer .... " Mr. St. John replied
that there are certain decisions and question~ that can be put to the holder
of one of these open space easements under th~ Open Space Land Act. He went
on to say that the holder of such an easementf~ may receive a request to abandon
or relinquish that easement in exchange for s~me other easement located
94
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
elsewhere in the County. He said that this is all pursuant to the Open Space
Act. He added that there are standards tha~ have to be complied with before
it can be determined that the easement is no longer needed and that there is
no benefit in continuing to keep it, and that other open space is available or
has been offered in exchange. He said, however, that there is not much
administration involved, but this Authority.would have the duty to take action
to defend a title to an easement and defend .the easement from encroachment,
etc.
Mr. Bain pointed out that the word, "administration" could relate to a
situation where an owner of the property might get a request from someone to
cut trees, etc., on an easement. This request would, however, have to go to
the holder of the easement.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if legal services Would be provided by the County
staff. Mr. St. John replied that the Board and the Authority would have to
decide whether or not they want the County's legal services. He said, howev-
er, that the Authority is free to hire another attorney.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that since the Authority has no mechanism for
funding legal services, it would be dependent on the County. Mr. St. John
agreed that the Authority would be dependent]on the Board of Supervisors to
fund legal services.
Mr. Lindstrom wondered if the Authority.could accept cash donations if
somebody wanted to give the Authority an easement and money to see that it was
protected. Mr. St. John responded that this'provision would have to be
written into the regulations.
Mr. Bain explained that the articles a~e all that is available at this
time. He said that there are no bylaws and ~there are no instructions as to
how people will be appointed to the Authority. Mr. St. John stated that the
number of appointments is stipulated, and the first Board has to be named in
the articles. After that, the bylaws provida for how the successors are
named.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if "Public Recreational Facilities" has to be used as
the name of the Authority. He mentioned tha'~ he had heard some people say
that they were donating an easement, but thei~ didn't want to make it open to
the public. He noted, however, that these open space easements are not
necessarily open to public access. Mr. St. ~ohn replied that he can see how
the name of the Authority could concern someilpeople because it implies that
the facilities would be open to the public, i!He added that the name does track
the State statute and the statute requires that "Public Recreational Facili-
ties'' be part of the name.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the words, "nor So make plans subject to easements
conveyed to and open to the public without the express provision therefor
being contained in the instrument of conveying the easement," could be added
to the last sentence of the articles or in an[ appropriate place. Mr. St. John
responded that these words could be put intojthe articles, but he thinks as a
matter of law that the document creating the ieasement has absolute control, no
matter what the name of it is. He said that lithe public would have no right to
go on land that is subject only to an open s~ace easement. Mr. Lindstrom
stated that the reason for setting up the Authority is to put some distance
between the political decision about land use~ and holding easements.
At this time, Mr. Bain made a motion to ~set a public hearing on this
matter.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the names, addresses and terms of office of the
officers and how they would succeed themselve~ would have to be put in the
bylaws. He stated that he is not sure who wo'hld amend the bylaws, but he
thinks that it should be stipulated in the ar~{icles how many officers there
would be and how they will be appointed. He ~ent on to say that the differ-
ence between this A~thority and the Parks Authority is that the Parks Authori-
ty was strictly limited in the number of directors that it would have. He
thinks that there should be an uneven number .~6f directors appointed, such as
11 or 13. He said that if there were 13 directors, there could be three
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
staggered terms. He added that there would always be the continuity of eight
directors, and they would be appointed so that their terms would coincide with
the odd years for the Board of Supervisors ~lections.
Mr. Bowie remarked that he is concerned that 13 directors may be too
many, and he thinks that seven directors may be more appropriate. He agrees
that an odd number of directors is desirabl~.
Mr. Bain stated that at least seven directors are necessary and two more
at large might be appropriate.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that sometimesiBoards are set up to include
certain interests that need to be represented.
Mr. St. John stated that a public hearing has to be held whether this
Authority is created by resolution or by ordinance. He said that the terms
and process of replacing the original members has to be spelled out in the
resolution or in the articles. He then read from the Code that "such notice
shall contain a brief statement of the substance of the resolution, shall set
forth the proposed articles of incorporation and shall state the time and
place of the hearing." He said that the Code then states what has to be
included in the articles, and this leads him to believe that the names of the
directors, have to be included.
Mr. Way next stated that this matter w~Uld be taken up by the Board again
at its work session next Wednesday.
Not Docketed: At 12:19 P.M., motion wa~ offered by Mr. Bain and seconded
by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn into executive s~ssion for the purpose of discuss-
ing land acquisition and personnel matters phrsuant to Section 2.1-344.A.1 and
Section 2.1-344.A.3 of the Virginia Code. ~.!i
Roll was called and the motion carried bY the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
At 1:35 P.M., the Board reconvened into~open session.
Agenda Item No. 16. Presentation of ReSolution of Appreciation.
Mr. Way said that last March when Policg Chief Frank Johnstone left his
position, Commander Tom Maxwell served in the interim for a period of several
months and did an outstanding job far and above the call of duty. He stated
that this Board was so impressed with Commander Maxwell's accomplishments
during that period that the Board wanted to ~ecognize him in a special and
formal setting. He then read the resolution that was prepared for Commander
Maxwell.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. L~ndstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie
to adopt the following resolution of appreciation. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess{~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~'
WHEREAS, Thomas Henry Maxwell, Commander in the Albemarle County
Police Department, was called upon to s~rve as Acting Chief of Police
between March 1, 1989, and July 31, 1989~, during the County's search
for a police chief; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Maxwell, while guidin~i the day-to-day work of the
police force proved himself to be a true, public servant whose dedica-
tion and leadership facilitated the orderly transition from one chief
to the next.
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
96
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby publicly commend and thank Mr.
Maxwell for his tireless efforts on behalf of the citizens of
Albemarle County.
Mr. Way presented the resolution to Commander Maxwell and thanked him for
his efforts.
Commander Maxwell told the Board that the presentation took him com-
pletely by surprise, and he appreciated the recognition of the Board. He said
that he also appreciated the opportunity to serve in this capacity.
Mr. Way asked Chief John Miller if he wished to make any comments.
Chief Miller thanked Commander Maxwell.for everything that he has done
since Chief Miller began his position and also before he arrived. He said
that when he arrived, he found an agency that had its spirits lifted and was
willing to accept a new chief. He added that he knows how difficult it is
during a transitional period, because he also was an acting chief at one time.
He stated that that Commander Maxwell did an outstanding job.
Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: OrdinAnces re: Removal of trash,
garbage, refuse, etc.; inoperable vehicles; i~iolations of provisions in the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Way asked the County Attorney to eiplain these ordinances.
Mr. St. John informed the Board that t~ first ordinance, which involves
trash removal, tracks the language of the St.ate Code. He said there has been
a section similar to this in the County Code~.all along, but this section has
now been amended to state the "owner or owners of any property in Albemarle
County," so that it will cover outdoor refuse. He said that for some reason
the previous ordinance stated the "owners ori~owners of any building in
Albemarle County." He stated believes that this ordinance is self-explanato-
ry, and it is not complicated.
Mr. St. John next discussed the ordinance to amend Section 36.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance entitled "Violations". Sin~e he drafted this amendment, he
now thinks that "approval of any subdivisioni'! should not be added to this
section because this is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Subdivision
Ordinance enforcement is not a duty of the Z6ning Administrator. Subdivision
Ordinance violations should be kept separate'and enforced by the Agent to the
Board of Supervisors, who is the Director of iPlanning. He added that this was
pointed out to him by Ms. Amelia Patterson, fihe Zoning Administrator, because
she did not want her department to be assigned the function of enforcement of
subdivision conditions since State Code does?not give her that authority.
Next, Mr. St. John discussed the "Inoperable Vehicle Ordinance", and he
said that this ordinance was more complicated than the others, and it is not
ready for a public hearing. This ordinance Us not to be part of the Zoning
Ordinance because the State enabling legislation is not in the title on
zoning, planning, land use, etc. Section 15~!~-11 of the Virginia Code gives
counties the power to enact and enforce this brdinance. There is also another
section of the Code in Title 46 which provide~ for reimbursement to any county
that sets up this program of $50 each for den{olished, inoperable vehicles. He
said the impetus for this ordinance came fro~ the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Clean Community Commission (CAC3) which has undertaken to explore the possibi-
lities of setting up the program in Albemarle~County. He said that Ms.
Rosemary Cheuchenko is Executive Director of ~AC3 and is present at this
meeting and she has some brochures which explain this program.
Mr. St. John restated the history of a p~evious attempt to enact an
ordinance of this nature to show the Board th~ problems that arose and why it
was not enacted. When Mr. Joe Goldsmith was ironing Administrator in the
mid-1970~s, there was a ground swell of citizen outcry concerning the number
of inoperable vehicles in Albemarle County. Mr. Goldsmith undertook to set up
and recommend a program, the keystone of which would have been an ordinance
very much like this one. The problem at that~time arose from the fact that
although it was unlawful for someone to have a junk car on his property, the
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
97
person had to be told how he can dispose of the car. At that time, it was not
possible to tell a person where a junk car could be taken. He added that a
junk yard or demolisher cannot be forced into hauling a junk car away, and the
owner of the land may not even be responsible for putting the car there. He
commented that there are as many as 50 cars.~on given pieces of land in the
County, and some of these cars have been there for years. The cars are
immovable under their own power. Mr. St. John remarked that in order for this
type of situation to be a criminal offense,'ithere has to be information
provided as to where and how the violator can solve the problem. In the
mid-1970's this could not be done.
Mr. St. John said the program of which this ordinance would be a part,
hopefully would provide that information. He said there will be a chain of
performance from the County through a private contractor and probably more
than one entrepreneur. He said it will take one person or entrepreneur to go
out and bring these vehicles to a central l~cation, and this would make it
worthwhile for a demolisher to send his equ~pment out to demolish the junk
cars, and ultimately it would be economicalI~ feasible for a scrap dealer to
dismantle the cars and recycle them or ship ~hem off as scrap. He added that
CAC3 is in the process of looking at this program. He Ms. Cheuchenko can
discuss the program. After the program has been further developed, he will
bring the ordinance back to the Board. He iL not asking for any action at
this time.
Ms. Cheuchenko distributed a publication from the State Department of
Waste Management and the Department of Motori'iVehicles. She stated that the
ordinance, if it is adopted by the Board, wi!il make it unlawful for a person
to have an inoperable vehicle in view. ThiJll law does not mean that everybody
will have to get rid of their inoperable veklcles. People can still keep
their old, inoperable vehicles for antiquity~value by shielding the vehicle
from public view. If a person does not shield his or her inoperable vehicle,
then it can be taken away. Ms. Cheuchenko m~ntioned that this ordinance was
not popular before because only a $10 bounty,!could be collected for the
demolishment of such vehicles. The price h~ been raised to $50, which Ms.
Cheuchenko thinks is much more reasonable, i~he added that she has talked with
Mr. Preston Coiner, and he is willing to par=.~icipate in this program and would
perhaps be the private contractor who would p~rlng these vehicles to his yard
and dispose of them correctly. She stated ~hat she and Mr. Roger Flint,
President of CAC3, will meet with Mr. Coine~isome time next week to look at
this matter more carefully. She hopes that some of the $50 could come back
into the CAC3 organization, but Mr. Coiner h~s explained to her that it
depends on the locality of the inoperable ve~icles as to the cost, because the
towing fee will be more if the vehicle is oniithe outskirts of the County. She
went on to say that as part of the recyclingi~!
program, she feels that to remove~
the unsightly vehicles would be a good program to promote, and CAC3, as an
organization, would be happy to work with th~ County to identify the extent of
the problem and to work with Mr. Coiner to t~y to reduce the number of inoper-
able vehicles.
Mr. Bowie asked if it would be part of t~he program for the contractor to
go and get the vehicles. Mrs. Cheuchenko answered that the contractor would
either pick up the vehicles personally or he'would hire someone to go get
them. Mr. Bowie then asked if someone reported an abandoned vehicle, would he
or she simply make a call to have the problen~ corrected. Mrs. Cheuchenko
answered, "yes."
Mr. Lindstrom read from the brochure a p~ortion that involved obtaining
titles to the vehicles in order to remove them. He asked Mr. St. John to
explain this situation to the Board. Mr. St.'~ John replied that he does not
know why the brochure refers to ordinances because the procedure involving
titles to the vehicles is described in Title 46. He went on to say that there
is a procedure for obtaining title when it is: obtainable from the division,
and when it is not, the registration numbers mre used. When the registration
numbers are no longer available, an affidavitill is taken from the owner of the
property as to how long the vehicle has been there and the fact that it is
abandoned. He does not believe that this procedure should go in the County's
ordinance.
Mr. Way said that basically what Mr. St.'i John is recommending to the
Board is that a resolution of intent be adopted for the first two ordinances
98
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
discussed. He asked Mr. St. John if the Board should wait to adopt the
resolution of intent relative to the "Inoperative Vehicle Ordinance". Mr. St.
John responded that the Board needs to tell .him if it is interested in pursu-
ing the ordinance further. Mr. Lindstrom stated that if the Board is inter-
ested in actually adopting the ordinance, then perhaps the Board should
approve a resolution of intent.
Mr. St. John responded that he hopes CAC3 will remain interested in the
ordinance, but unfortunately CAC3 members thought at first if they were the
ones to get the ordinance started, they would get the $50 per vehicle. He
thinks that the purpose for that fee is so the County can pay someone to haul
and dispose of the vehicles and make it cost-effective to the private haulers.
Mr. Bowie commented that he supports the concept of the ordinance. He
said that in conjunction with another recent application, he was led to
believe that the person who picked up the c~r paid the person from whom they
got the car. He added that there is the cost of towing, but there is a profit
when the car is actually demolished. He said, too, that there may not be
anybody who wants to have the responsibility for picking up these cars when
they find out that they won't get the $50 f~e per car.
Mr. St. John mentioned that there are factors that figure into this
equation. He said that the distance, the type of terrain, and the condition
and age of the vehicle are factors. He added that if the market is the only
source of the funds, then the contractor witl pick and choose only those
vehicles that are cost-effective. He said this type of program is designed to
make up the difference in those cases that are not cost-effective.
Mr. Bowie remarked that he would hate tp hold a public hearing on an
ordinance that the Board could neither enforce nor enact. He suggested that
the staff or CAC3 come back to the Board wi~ ideas on how the ordinance will
work if it is enacted and a public hearing e~an then be held. Mr. St. John
responded that he will see to it that the ori~inance is not forgotten. He then
suggested that, instead of setting a public i~earing, the Board should set a
date for a report relative to the inoperabl~ivehicle ordinance.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and secionded by Mr. Bain to set a public
hearing for November 8, 1989, to consider a~ending Section 16-5 of the
Albemarle County Code regarding trash removal; and to adopt the Resolution of
Intent to amend Section 36.1 of the Zoning O~dinance as set out below; and to
refer the draft ordinance regarding inoperable vehicles back to the County
Attorney for a report on November 8.
Roll was called and the motion carried ~y the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messiahs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby state its intent ~o amend the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance in Section 36.1 as follows:
VIOLATIONS GENERALLY.
Any building erected contrary to a~y of the provisions of this
ordinance or contrary to any condition ~posed upon any conditional
rezon~ng, issuance of a special use per~it or approval of a site plan
and any use of any building or land whid~h is conducted, operated or
maintained contrary to any of the provisions of this ordinance or any
condition imposed upon any conditional ~ezoning, issuance of a special
use permit or approval of a site plan, shall be a violation of this
ordinance and the same is hereby declar~ to be unlawful. The Zoning
Administrator may initiate injunction, mandamus, abatement, criminal
warrant, or any other appropriate actio~ to prevent, enjoin, abate or
remove such erection or use in violationiof any provision of this
ordinance. ~'
AND, FURTHE~ requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to
hold public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
99
does request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to
this Board at the earliest possible date.
Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Mr'. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie
certifying the Executive Session which occurred during lunch, as follows:
CERTIFICATION OF. EXECUTIVEM~,~TING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vone 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 thai 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 ~ere heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Boar~ of Supervisors.
Roll was called and the motion carried ~y the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. SP-89-70. Wendelli~ood. To allow for fill within
the one hundred year flood zone. Property lO~ated on the east side of Rt. 29
North adjoining the south side of the South F~rk Rivanna River (Deferred from
October 4, 1989). ~
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this is a r~quest for a Special Use Permit to
put fill in a one hundred year flood plain, iHe said that Mr. Wood's request
involves the Federal Express site on U. S. ROute 29 North. He noted that an
indication was made last week of the amount Of fill that has occurred and the
amount that is requested with this application. He referred to a letter of
September 12, 1989, from Mr. Wood to the Plan.ning Commission, in which Mr.
Wood wrote: "It appears that only 250 to 500. cubic yards of fill had been
placed in the flood plain" to tha't date. Mr.'i Cilimberg understands that no
more fill has been placed there since that time. Mr. Cilimberg went on to say
that Mr. Wood's request would require "approX~.imately 1000 additional yards of
fill." He pointed out the area of fill on a map for the Board, and he said
that this area was based on the applicant's ihformation. He mentioned that
the approved site plan does not show the additional parking or aisle adjacent
to the area of fill. He then read from the okiginal July 24 application, the
"Justification" section of the request which ~tated: "In order to place a
roadway and parking lot in the northeast corner of the building, we wish to
place fill within the one hundred year flood .~one as shown on attached plat."
He said that Mr. Wood's latest indication is-a request to provide fill over an
area that would extend to the drainage pipe. iiHe pointed out the drainage pipe
on the map, and said that Mr. Wood would cons:~ruct a junction box and with a
drop to an outlet that would bring the drainage closer to the river to try to
eliminate the erosion. He went on to say tha.~ from the staff's standpoint,
this request can be regarded as a change in ~
c~rcumstance for fill as it
relates to the drainage pipe rather than the ~arking area and aisle. He said
the Board requested last week that the Engineering Department look further at
the situation and come back to the Board with]'some kind of determination as to
the amount of fill .....
necessary for that dra~nag~ p~pe. He sa~d that the Engi-
neering Department has done so, and Mr. Rzchacd Moring is present to comment.
Mr. Moring told the Board that he would ~se the map that is posted to
illustrate the conditions on site. He said t~at he, Mr. Peter Parsons of his
staff and Mr. Ring, with the Virginia Forestr~ Department, went to the site
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
~_OO
yesterday morning. ~The area of fill that actually exists is much less exten-
sive than the shaded area on the map would inHicate. He mentioned that there.
is one red oak tree and one hickory tree that are approximately 20 to 24
inches in diameter to which Mr. Ring indicates there has already been damage
_ to the root system, and the trees will probably die in two to three years. He
said there is further tree damage in the area because of trees being pushed
into the woods during clearing. He understands this was done to clear the
land in conjunction with the relocation of thewater line by the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority. Mr. Moring said the correction of the erosion problem at
this large outfall pipe was first discovered by Mr. Bobbie Shaw, Soil Erosion
Control Inspector, when he was making an inspection. Mr. Shaw discovered that
this fill had been placed beyond the limits oflfill that was authorized on the
site plan and within the flood plain. Mr. ShaW, in investigating the entire
area, noticed the amount of erosion that was happening in this area. Mr.
Moring pointed out that from the existing end of the 60 inch reinforced
concrete pipe, there is a concrete slab that £alls~ approximately eight to ten
feet where there is a large eroded ditch that ~uns all the way down to the
river and varies from 12 to 14 feet deep. Mr.i!Moring said that at the time
this was discovered, the staff suggested to Mr{ Wood that he correct this
problem, and Mr. Wood proposed a junction box to reduce the velocity and
energy in the water coming out of that pipe. He stated that Mr. Wood was
reluctant to make this correction at that tim~ii~because of the cost involved.
Since that time, however, Mr. Wood has realize'~ that something has to be done.
Mr. Moring went on to say that the original sii~e plan shows large rip rap at
the pipe outfall, but the large rocks and quar,~y rip rap have been washed
away. He noted that a detailed design would H~ve to be done along with
careful hydraulic calculations to decide what needs to be done to control the
erosion in that area in the future. He said t~at the staff cannot say pre-
cisely what needs to be done, but feels that p~ltting in the drop chamber will
reduce the velocity. He added that the staff.~oes not feel that the fill area
needs to be nearly as extensive as is shown on?,the plan. He said that the
staff thinks that the pipe could be put in the!'!ditch, and the back fill could
be placed in the eroded ditch and could be made level with the existing rail
around the side of it. Mr. Moring next said t~at. to remove the fill that is
already there would not accomplish anything, b~cause the damage has already
been done. He added that the slopes have beeni.~fairly well stabilized on a
temporary basis. ~'
Mr. Lindstrom asked what needs to be done~to make it permanently stable.
Mr. Moring replied that the slopes have to be dressed, and permanent seeding
done so the slopes would not have to be reseeded periodically. He added that
he does not think there is any need for velocity protection because the water
will be coming from the woods and he does not ~hink the slopes will wash away.
Mr. Lindstrom said that he has ascertaine~ from the conversation that it
would be more damaging to remove the fill that~is already there then to stabi-
lize it permanently. Secondly, Mr. Lindstrom ~ointed out that to take care of
the erosion problem at the pipe does not require as extensive a fill area as
had been originally proposed. He then stated ~hat he is not happy about
adopting a special permit to leave things as t~ey are, because he does not
know how this would affect the staff if a continuing violation was left as it
is.~ He said he would like to add some conditions to ensure that once the
erosion control ordinance has automatically taken care of the problem, that
the site is properly and permanently stabilize~i. He then asked the staff's
recommendation based upon Mr. Moring's report, i~
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff could makela recommendation that the
special use permit be denied for the area of fi~ll requested and indicate to
the Zoning Administrator that the area that is currently filled shall remain
as it is. He added that this is a situation that has been created and there
is not a lot that can be done to correct it no~ He noted another alternative
that would allow the Board to adopt a special ~Se permit that only covers the
area that has already been filled.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would be possible to instruct the Zoning
Administrator to leave the fill area as it already is and then to instruct Mr.
Shaw to see that the area is stabilized. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he
believes Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion is possiblei and he asked if Mr. St. John
had any further thoughts on the subject. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that Mr.
Bowerman had also expressed this feeling in the denial of the special use
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
101
permit by the Commission. Mr. St. John pointed out that there is also a site
plan request involved in this situation. He said the area that is filled does
not comply with the site plan. He also mentioned a road that goes around the
building that does not comply with the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg responded
that the road has not yet been built. Mr. St.~John. then said that the only
thing that is different from the approved siteiplan is the fill. Mr.
Cilimberg suggested that the applicant could amend the site plan to show the
area of additional fill.
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that he is convinced that environmentally it would
probably be better to leave the fill that has already been put in the area.
He wanted to make sure, however, that the areaii, is stabilized and inspected.
He is not particularly interested in approvingi a special use permit that does
this, but he does not know how it will affect the staff.
John
commented
that
at some point!, there will have to be a plan
developed to deal with the drain pipe. Mr. Lipdstrom replied that he is
trying to separate the drain pipe issue from the problem with the fill area.
Mr. St. 3ohn responded that he does not take i~sue with Mr. Lindstrom's
comment, but whatever is done with that pipe will involve some fill in the
flood plain which will also require a special iUse permit, or it will be a
violation. He said that the Zoning Administrator could be instructed by the
Board that a special use permit is not needed.il He is concerned about the
precedent that is being set for the future eve~ though he understands why the
Board feels the way it does about this particd~ar issue.
Mr. Lindstrom said that he wanted to hear '.Mr. St. John's feelings on the
matter. Mr. St. John said that another violet:ion will occur in order to envi-
ronmentally improve that pipe. Mr. Cilimberg ~kaid he did not think that
improving the pipe would be considered a violation. Mr. St. John responded
that another fill would have to be done in th~ flood plain in order to deal
with the pipe. Mr. Lindstrom said that he do~ not want the amount of fill at
that site to become larger than the minimum ne'9essary to take care of the
erosion problem at the end of the pipe.
Mr. Bowie asked if the request is denied,i~would it mean that the fill has
to be removed. He wondered if the amendment concerning the fill could be
considered at the same time that the amendment~i'to fix the drain pipe is
considered.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed that this could be done, but he said that he wanted
to be sure that if there are two fills, they d9 not merge. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that a simple approach would be to have a special use permit that would
address the area that has been filled and the srea that will need fill for the
drainage. He added that this would involve another special permit and a site
plan amendment. Mr. St. John agreed with Mr. ~ilimberg.
Mr. Bowie said that a provision could be ~dded that would state that if
the permit was not forthcoming within a reasonable time, then the existing
fill would have to be removed. Mr. St. John said he thinks that another
special use permit should be done because he does not think it is a good idea~
to tell the Zoning Administrator to ignore thei~situation when there is a
violation, and it is environmentally worse to Qorrect it. He said that this
type of situation would make the Zoning Administrator subject to an accusation
of malfeasance and not enforcing the law.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked if Mr. Bowie is Suggesting that this special
permit be denied. He said that in doing so, the Board is not telling the
Zoning Administrator to ignore the situation, but a special permit is being
encouraged that would institutionalize this vi~lation, and in a separate fill,
provide for part of the cure to the erosion at,the end of the drainage pipe.
Mr. St. John agreed and added that if the Zoning Administrator knows that a
new permit is being pursued in good faith, the~ it is up to her to uphold the
immediate enforcement of the ordinance while t~e permit is being considered.
He thinks that this is the best solution to th~ problem.
Mr. Bowie wondered if a reasonable deadliJe for the new permit was neces-
sary. Mr. Bain responded that it may take somM time to get the calculations
ready for a new permit. He said that he did n~t object to a reasonable time
frame. Mr. Lindstrom stated that given the situation, the staff could be
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
102
asked to watch for the application, and if it is not forthcoming in a reason-
able and prompt period of time, then the violation could be pursued.
At this time, Mr. Agnor said that a special permit application is already
before the Board. He stated that this same permit could be approved with
conditions which would state that no further fill would be allowed, and there
would be no removal of the fill that has already occurred. He said also that
the conditions could state that the fill that would result from the design of
the outfall pipe could be subject to the approval of the Director of Engineer-
ing. He went on to say that if this is done, the request will not have to be
recycled.
Mr. Bowie asked what would happen if there is not a design for an outfall
pipe. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the permit~'would only be approving the
fill that is already there, if a design for an~ outfall pipe is not forth-
coming. He said that he would want to tie these permit conditions to a site
plan amendment that would address the minimum of fill that has occurred and
the maximum that is required for the new drainage pipe. He went on to say
that the site plan now shows none of this, andi-'if the Board takes Mr. Agnor's
suggestion, the special use permit will allow for some fill to occur. He
would want the special use permit condition allowing for the existing fill to
remain and additional fill with the drainage p~!pe to be connected directly to
a site plan amendment that indicates those addictions. Mr. Agnor agreed that
these conditions should involve a site plan amendment.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that he has no o~b~ection to the suggested proce-
dure, but he would feel more comfortable if th~ staff revises the conditions
of approval rather than the Board. Mr. Bain a~reed that the same thing can be
accomplished by adding the conditions to this i~pecial use permit, and he also
agreed with Mr. Lindstrom that the staff should compose the conditions.
Mr. Way stated that Mr. Wood might want t6 say something to the Board.
Mr. Wood said that he had nothing to add excep~ to say that he has met with
Mr. Moring, and Mr. Moring seemed to agree with Mr. Buddy Edwards that it
would be better for the property if the outfal~ pipe was redesigned. He said
that he is agreeable to this condition. Mr. C~limberg remarked that it would
take him a few minutes to work out the conditions to the special use permit.
Mr. Way stated that while Mr. Cilimberg is wor~ing on the conditions, the
Board would discuss Agenda Item Eight, which involves the sale of land.
Agenda Item No. 8. Report: Sale of 2.1 ~cres and Building north of
Scottsville. .
Mr. Bowie reported that this property was~advertised for sealed bids
before, and the Board rejected all of the bids2 The property was then adver-
tised through normal real estate channels, and an offer has been made to buy
the property. He said that the bid was $18,500 and the Building Committee
recommends that the Board accept that offer and instruct the staff to proceed
with the sale. He immediately offered motion ~o accept the offer, to instruct
staff to proceed with the sale, and to authorize the Chairman to sign the
deed. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs.~ Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15a. Transferred from th~ Consent Agenda: Letter from
George R. St. John, County Attorney, addressed i~o. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., dated
September 22, 1989, regarding enforcement of Ai~ Pollution Control Board
Regulations. ~"
Mr. St. John discussed the question of whether, by enactment of the State
Water Control Board regulations by reference in~o the County's ordinance, the
County had pre-empted the Air Pollution ControllBoard's enforcement of its own
regulations and had undertaken sole enforcement~i He said that is not the case
and by enacting the ordinance, the County will enforce it. He stated that
this does not relieve the State agency from enf6rcement. He added that this
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
103
question arose in connection with a complaint that there was trash burning
going on in and near Batesville.
Mr. Way asked Mr. St. John to tell the Board the status of that burning
situation. Mr. St. John said a citizen from the Batesville area (Mr. Webb)
called him and reported that some of his neighbOrs were involved with illegal
burning. He believes that this same person has already reported the same
thing to this Board. He discussed this with the County's fire official and
the regional officer of the Air Pollution Control Board, Mr. Ward Butler. Mr.
Butler then looked at the site of the burnings~ and came to the conclusion
that he had no probable cause to get a warrant~ against anybody. Mr. St. John
discussed this Mr. Webb. Mr. St. John also discussed the situation with Mr.
Bill Colony, who is interested in this issue, and as a result Mr. St. John
wrote a letter to Mr. Webb saying that if Mr. Webb would give Mr. St. John a
list of the names and addresses of the individuals in his area who were
engaged in this activity, then Mr. St. John would write a letter to each
individual offender. This letter would inform{ the offenders of the law, and a
copy of the regulations would be enclosed. Mr~i St. John went on to say that
if the burning did not stop then, he will helplMr. Webb go through the process
of obtaining a warrant against those people, ff Mr. Webb would agree to appear
as a witness when the case came to trial. In i!Order to prosecute a case of
this type, it has to be proven that the law w~ violated as well as proving
who was in violation, beyond a reasonable doubt. Witnesses are necessary to
prove this, and neither he nor the County stafi~ haVe witnessed this burning at
Batesville.
Mr. St. John said he sent a letter to Mr.ilWebb on September 25 and has
not heard anything from him. He said that meaDwhile Mr. Jesse Hurt, Fire
Official, and Mr. Robert Jenkins, Fire Officeri;. have developed a proposed
standard procedure for staff to deal with thes~ burning complaints at staff
level. Mr. St. John dealt with this complaint~.ilpersonally while a policy was
being developed.
Mrs. Cooke asked the procedure fOr dealing with these complaints, at the
staff level. Mr. Agnor said if a complaint is~.ireceived concerning the burning
of trash, a written form or a letter that is s~gned by the complaining party
will be needed. After receiving the written c~mPlaint, the staff will deter-
mine if trash pickup is available in the area. !~i If trash pickup is available
at a reasonable fee, the individual who is conducting the burning will be
notified that the burning is against regulations. Mr. Agnor went on to say
that documentation indicating the violation will be necessary, and if the
individual continues to burn, documentation of!ithe County staff's actions will
need to be submitted for review by the County Attorney's office. He said that
this is essentially the way Mr. St. John handled the situation with Mr. Webb.
Mrs. Cooke inquired if it would be worthwI~ile to have a notice published
explaining the procedure for reporting burning ~sltuations and the recourse
that is available to citizens when someone is {n violation of the ordinance.
Mr. St. John replied that a public notice coUl~ legally be done, and he
believeS that a lot of people do not realize th~at~ some of this burning is
against
the law.
Mr. Way agreed that he does not believe a/~lot of people realize it is
against the law to burn certain things. Also, ilhe does not know how many
people read public notices. Mrs. Cooke responded that Some people may not
read the notice, but the Board would have made ~n effort to inform the public
by taking out a public notice. Mr. St. John brought out the fact that letters
are sent to people in violation of the ordinan~ informing them of the law.
He said the procedure does not require that puhlshment be administered before
the person is informed of the law. He thinks that the letters will be more
effective than a newsletter advertisement.
Mr. Way answered that a letter to the violator comes only after the fact.
Mr. Bain agreed that an advertisement would deSCribe the procedure for citi-
zens to report illegal burning.
Mrs. Cooke stated that citizens need to kn~w how to handle illegal
burning situations and what their recourse willI be. She said she is not
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 28)
104
talking about a specific offense, but rather, she would like to have an
advertisement run in the newspaper that would be an informative notice to the
public.
At 2:37 P.M., Mr. Way said that the Board~would take a break until Mr.
Cilimberg had finished composing the conditions that will accompany Mr.
Wendell Wood's special permit. At 2:50 P.M., Mr. Way called the meeting back
to order. He asked Mr. Cilimberg to report to the Board the conditions that
will be attached to Mr. Wood's special permit. (Note: Mr. Bain did not return
to the meeting.)
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the first condition would be that the special
use permit would encompass only that fill currently in place and the minimum
fill necessary to reconstruct the 60 inch storm drain outfall.
The second condition described by Mr. Cil%mberg is the staff approval of
a revised site plan showing fill currently in ~lace and a detailed design of
the storm drain outfall.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the third condition would be the same as the
existing Condition Number One in the staff report, which is Department of
Engineering approval of the amended grading and drainage plans and calcula-
tions.
The fourth condition would be the existing Condition Number Two in the
staff report, which involves the Department of!Engineering's issuance of an
amended erosion control permit.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that Condition Three. in the staff report would be
struck because it has already been covered with the new Condition Two.
Mr. Cilimberg said that Condition Five would be that a Certificate of
Occupancy will not be issued until the followiJg condition has been met: (a)
Verification by a soils engineer that the embankment fill (including that
which has already been placed) is compacted and stable. Any fill material
found to have been improperly compacted must b~ replaced.
The sixth condition requires that the disturbed area is to be replanted
with landscaping equivalent to that lost with filling activities that have
taken place.
The seventh condition states that a special use permit is to be issued
concurrently with revised site plan approval, i!:Mr. Cilimberg stated that he
hopes that both current fill and the fill associated with the drainage problem
can both be addressed with these conditions. I{e believes that, with these
conditions landscaping can be required that w{ll replace those trees that
have been lost due to the existing fill.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve
SP-89-70 subject to the conditions set out below in lieu of the conditions
recommended by staff in the staff's report. R~ll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstron~, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bain.
(Note: The conditions of approval are se~ out in full below: )
1. This special use permit encompasses ~nly that fill currently in
place and the minimum fill necessary ~ilto reconstruct the 60-inch
storm drain outfall;
2. Staff approval of a revised site plan~ showing fill currently in
place and detailing the design of th~ storm drain outfall;
3. Department of Engineering approval ofj the amended grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 29)
105
Department of Engineering issuance of an amended erosion control
permit;
Certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition is met:
verification by a Soils Engineer that the embankment fill
(including that already placed) is compacted and stable.
Any fill material found to be improperly compacted must be
replaced;
Disturbed areas to be replanted with landscaping equal to that
lost by fill activities that have taken place;
Special use permit to be issued concurrently with revised site
plan approval.
(Note: Mrs. Cooke left the meeting at 2::'55 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 18. Work Session: Personnel Policies.
Dr. Hastings stated that five years ago i~ October the first set of
personnel policies was brought to the Board fo'~ approval. Last spring she
began to work with a committee of local government employees, and subsequently
with school division employees, to review the ~ntire set of personnel poli-
cies. An overriding objective was to make sur9 that commonality was achieved
between the two divisions wherever possible. ~he also recognizes that after
five years, there was a need for some revisionS, so an entire review of the
personnel policies was done. To facilitate th~s matter, she mentioned her
memorandum dated September 6, 1989, and discus~ the major changes.
Dr. Hastings said the first policy is a new one relative to outside
employment by County employees. Thxs policy e~itablishes a review and approval
procedure to assist in compliance with the Con~'lict of Interest Act. She said
that frequently employees take on auxiliary employment elsewhere that is in
conflict with their position as a County agent'/or employee. This policy would
require prior approval by their department head for any type of employment
outside of the County. She said the intention!{is to avoid any potential
problems with that conflict before it occurs. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he assumes the term, "County employees," does not
encompass the Board of Supervisors, since the Supervisors do not have a
department head. Dr. Hastings responded that bhe policy does not relate to
elected officials. She said that she would specify that in the policy, if the
Board wishes.
Dr. Hastings then discussed the new polic~ on harassment which provides
notification to employees that harassment is unmcceptable and will be dealt
with through disciplinary procedures. She added that the School Board has
requested that this policy be expanded to inclB~e not only an expectation that
employees will be respectful to their peers, b~ also that the public be
included in this particular policy. She said ~hat she would amend the policy
to say, "with their peers and the public."
Next, Dr. Hastings discussed the policy on sexual harassment which she
said would bring the County into compliance witch the Federal law. This law
requires that training be provided to supervisors that sexual harassment is
against the law. She stated that a training prpgramhas been set up and this
sequence of training is being taught already within the School Division and to
the local government administrators.
Mr. Bowie suggested that, because of the i~plication of the title of the
policy, "ProCedures for Sexual Harassment," the!title be changed.
Dr. Hastings agreed that Mr. Bowie had brought out a good point, and she
suggested that the wording be changed to, "Procedures for Complying to the
Sexual Harassment Policy."
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 30)
106
The next policy that Dr. Hastings talked about is entitled "Advanced
Study", which she said creates a commonality issue. She stated that this
policy would provide for advanced degree stipends of $1,000 for those employ-
ees who have a degree over and above the minimal requirements for their posi-
tion. She said that at this time degree levels for local government employees
are not specifically known, but she estimates that it will affect approximate-
ly nine people working for local government. She went on to say that a list
of positions will be established that have a Bachelor's Degree as a minimum
requirement, and if a degree is achieved above this level that is related to
the position, the employee would be eligible for this stipend. The policy is
meant to encourage people to do advanced degree work so they would become more
valuable employees to the County. She said that a survey was done, and it was
determined that Albemarle County would probably be the only locality in
Virginia with such a procedure that is extended to local government employees.
Mr. Way said he has some difficulties with this policy because it is one
of the few areas where he can see a difference between the employees of the
school system and the employees of local government.
Mr. Perkins said he also has problems with the policy. When the School
Board decided to extend this policy to personnel in school administration, he
thinks it created bad feelings for those people who did not have advanced
degrees. He added that sometimes these people are working just as hard as the
people with advanced degrees. He can understand paying stipends to teachers,
and perhaps this is what should be considered, because this is where it is
justified. Since there are different requirements for the different posi-
tions, he feels the employee's degree attainment will be reflected in his
performance, and thus on his appraisal. He said he does not like to see
people get more money because they have a Master's degree. He pointed out
that so many times people who are educated lack a certain amount of common
sense.
Mr. Way stated that a recommendation could be made to the School Board
concerning this policy, and he said that Mr. Perkins' point is very well
taken.
Dr. Hastings said it is a common practice in school administration to pay
for advanced degrees with the idea that school administrators are the leaders
of the teachers and should be helping them towards professional advancement.
She noted that the stipend is not given to the school administrators for a
Master's degree because it is already required. She said, however, that if a
Bachelor's degree was required in County Government, and a person had a
Master's degree, he or she would be eligible for the stipend.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Agnor if he had some points that he would like to make
concerning this issue. Mr. Agnor said Dr. Hastings had accurately described
the stipend situation as not being a common practice in local government, but
it is common in the school system. He pointed out that neither is it common
to have a personnel function that covers both schools and local government.
He said that this policy arose only because of the commonality issue. He said
the stipend issue has been focused on the field of education, but he thinks
that Mr. Perkins has made a good point. If the stipends were concentrated
with the educational program in the classroom, then that would not be a
requirement of the commonality issue. Even though the administrators in the
school system are directly related to the school teachers, the effort is to
encourage them to obtain a higher level of education than the job requires.
He said this is what local government is also trying to do, and it has moved
rather dramatically in the last ten years to require certain educational
levels. Local government administrators are being advised to get more educa-
tion so they will be more useful and become more effective. He said it covers
management of people and finances and other things that are not directly
related. He then mentioned the field of Social Services. He said that one
employee might have a Bachelor's Degree in Social Work, and another employee
could hold a Master's Degree in Social Work. He said that this Master's
Degree should make the person a better employee, but these employees are being
evaluated on their financial management of the budget, administration of
personnel, etc., and these things are not related to the field of Social Work.
He stated that this stipend is meant to be specifically job oriented, so that
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 31)
107
if the degree does not match the job, then the stipend is not given to the
individual. He noted that the County government has some employees with
Master's Degrees who will not get the stipend because the degrees are not in
their area of work. He said that the intent~of this policy is to focus on the
degree, itself, and the job that is being filled and not mix it into the
performance system. Mr. Agnor said he had mixed emotions about being the
first local government to introduce the policy, but in the interest of promot-
ing educational requirements, he thinks it ils worthwhile. He also believes
that the policy is important in the interestlof commonality.
Mr. Way said the Board will need to vot& on this policy, but he.is
reluctant to do so before Mr. Bain returns t° the meeting. He thinks Mr. Bain
will have an interest in this policy.
Mr. Bowie said there are some very competent people who work in local
government who did not apply for jobs, for which Mr. Bowie thought they would
qualify, because they did not feel they had enough education. He said the
fact is that they did not need more education. He added that such a stigma
has been attached to degrees that sometimes ~ualified people are overlooked.
He agreed with Mr. Perkins that the only option the Board has relative to
stipends for school administrators is not to'~pay them. He said he has not
made up his mind concerning the policy, but ~e does have problems with it.
At this time Dr. Hastings discussed ano~her new policy that deals with
"Retirement Pay". She said this policy woul~d replace the current practice of
paying for unused sick leave when a person l~aves County employment. The
policy would establish a payment of $200 per lyear for each year of continuous
service up to a maximum of 25 years. She added that at the recent joint
meeting between the Supervisors and the SchoOl Board, it was requested that
cost estimates be provided as to what this c~ange would cost versus the cost
of the existing policy. She noted that ther~ are not many employees who
retire from local government, but in the sch6ol division, there are many more
each year. She pointed out that if this policy had been in effect last June,
the local government would have paid $2500 to a person retiring under the
unused sick leave program and $5000 as a ret~Mement bonus under this proposal.
In the school division, $32,000 was paid out.,:~or the unused sick leave program
versus $62,000 which would have been paid for~ this program. She said the
intention in local government is to "grandfather" the people who like the idea
of being paid for their unused sick leave, so that anyone who is currently
employed in the County would have a choice as to what he or she wanss. She
said one member expressed his sentiment that the employee should choose a plan
now so that it will be in place only for whatever sick leave has been accumu-
lated to this point. She said that this coui'd be done. Dr. Hastings went on
to say that there is not support on the School side for adopting the policy of
paying $25 for unused sick leave. She said this goes against the idea of
letting people think of sick leave as an insurance policy which is there when
it is needed as opposed to an earned benefit Chat is owed to the employee if
it is not used.
Mr. Agnor explained that the present policy of paying $25 per day for
unused sick leave is applicable to any employee whether or not he or she is
retiring. He noted that local government employees., draw this money if they
are just leaving the County. He said that this policy would limit the option
to retirees only. He stated that even though/the money might double with the
example that Dr. Hastings gave for one person:~; the costs will not be great
because the policy would apply only to people;i'who retire from service.
Mr. Lindstrom said if employees don't ha~e any reason to accumulate sick
leave, he believes the employee will feel that he or she will not benefit
unless the employee is sick. He said that wit:h the new policy it seems to him
that the County will have to pay for sick leav. e twice, and now the County only
pays once. He added that if there is a significant additional cost for the
new policy from a fiscal standpoint, he would ~'be likely to question this
change in policy.
Dr. Hastings replied that she will have to get the consensus of the
Committee and report back to the Board. She said the service payment could be
reduced from $200 per year to $100 per year, and the maximum number of years
from which money could be drawn could also be reduced. She added that now the
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting) 3_08
(Page 32)
maximum that can be received is $2,500 under the current sick leave plan. She
said that if the Board is concerned about a cost neutral plan as opposed to
paying a retirement bonus, then $100 per year for 25 years service would make
it cost neutral. ,
Mr. Agnor said that he would agree with Dr. Hastings' statements if both
plans applied only to retirement, but the policy is much broader now. In
reply to Mr. Lindstrom's comment that there was no encouragement to accumulate
sick leave, Mr. Agnor said that later in the meeting the Board will be consid-
ering a new "Satisfactory Attendance" policy, i.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the current policy has been working well, and
the new policy may cost the County more money.~
Dr. Hastings said there is not any data to show that the current policy
has discouraged people from using sick leave. She said that statistically
over the past three or four years, usage has not changed at all. Mr.
Lindstrom commented that there is no indication of what will happen if the
policy is eliminated. Dr. Hastings replied that when the School Board elimi-
nated the policy, there was no change in absenteeism. Mr. Agnor said the
statistics for the School Board's rate of usag~ and for that of local govern-
ment employees are within a fraction of one percent of each other. He noted
the fact that local government has the policy ~now and the School Division does
not, has no affect on the attendance record. ~
Dr. Hastings pointed out that this is a COmmonality issue which is
difficult to manage. ~
"Employee Relations Principles" was the n~xt policy that Dr. Hastings
reviewed. She said that the only change in th~s policy is that under the
procedure it will be stated that "Equal emploY~3ent opportunity will be the
guiding principle by which the Board conducts ~ts business with employees."
Dr. Hastings next discussed P-02, "Definition of Employee Status". She
said that this section clarifies current practices in terms of when payments
and benefits begin for new employees. She added that it is better to have
things in writing, rather than to have them only as a practice. She noted
that this particular revision reflects the fac~ that if an employee is hired
as of a certain date, he or she will know when~ito expect salary payments and
when benefits will take effect. She said that!!!this revision clarifies the
difference between permanent and temporary status.
Mr. Perkins asked if teachers are considered full-time employees. Dr.
Hastings answered that teachers are in the "Re§~lar Employment" category,
which is full-time for the school year. She s~id that this category was just
eliminated in general government, because no e~ployee fit into this category.
Next, Dr. Hastings stated that there were!two changes in P-03, "Grievance
Procedure". She said the first change is that!the dismissal of an appointed
department head is being eliminated as a grievable issue under the local
government grievance procedure. Other local governments have been researched,
and when any department head who is appointed ~y a Board is dismissed, it is
usually not grievable in those localities. Th~s change was made on the advice
of the County Attorney.
The second change, as explained by Dr. HaStings, is clarifying the fact
that law enforcement officers have the right t~ file under either the General
Government Grievance Procedure or the State La~ Enforcement Officers' Griev-
ance Procedure, but not both. She said the Per!sonnel Director is being elimi-
nated as a problem solving step in the Grievance Procedure because this has
not been successful. She found that people wil~l ask her questions concerning
the Grievance Procedure, anyway. She added thait forcing the employees into
the step of meeting with her, after they have pgrhaps talked with her sepa-
rately, does not usually stop the employee fromi~going forward with the pro-
cess. This step was eliminated to expedite the,!.process.
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 33)
109
Mr. Bowie said he had a question that related to P-02, "Definition of
Employee Status". He said that he did not understand the answer to Mr.
Perkins' question, and he asked into which category will the teachers be
placed.
Dr. Hastings responded that in the school division policy, the definition
of "Regular Employment" will be retained for teachers. Mr. Agnor explained
that teachers are not shown in the policy being reviewed today because it
relates only to local government employees. Dr. Hastings stated that local
government department heads thought that it might be confusing to have a
definition in this policy about a school year employee when it does not apply
to anybody in local government, i
Mr. Bowie asked if there will be two poli~ies that are essentially the
same, but with a few differences. Dr. Hastings agreed that this is true. Mr.
Agnor said the differences will not affect the~:commonality issue, because
these are differences that only apply to teachers.
Dr. Hastings commented that even after the process is finished, there
will still not be the same policy manual in both divisions because the School
Board has a large personnel manual that deals !With teacher-oriented issues.
She said that general government employees do ihot need those policies and
there is nothing essential in terms of the content that would be different.
The next policy discussed by Dr. Hasting~!~was P-04, "Personnel Records".
She said that the procedure for this policy ha~. been clarified. She added
that derogatory material will not be placed inl.lan employees' file unless that
employee has signed the material saying that ~/she had the opportunity to
receive a copy. She mentioned that sometimes lan employee will refuse to sign
the material, and the department heads wanted ~{o make the policy clear as what
to do when this happened. She said that, in t_l~is case, a witness would have
to verify that the person received a copy of the material.
Mr. Bowie asked if the witness has to sigD anything. Dr. Hastings
replied that the witness would sign on the bottom of the correspondence, and
the employee would receive a copy. ~
Dr. Hastings then talked about P-05, "Criminal Convictions". She said
there used to be an attachment to the applicat{on and now it is written as a
statement on the application that there is a ctiminal investigation policy.
She said that the word, "permanent" has also bgen taken out, because criminal
investigations are done on all employees even Sf they are only temporary. She
noted, for example, that substitute teachers aS1 go through the criminal
investigation. However, the criminal investiggtion is limited to Virginia.
When a national criminal record is involved, the State police charge $14 for
each application that would be investigated. She believes that the Board
should consider whether or not this out-of-sta~e investigation is important,
because now it is not being done.
(Mr. Bain returned at 3:24 p.m.)
Mr. Bowie said that the policy implies that certain convictions will not
matter, and the person will be hired anyway. ~e asked why criminals would be
employed. ~
Dr. Hastings replied that there is case law showing that certain convic-
tions may be discriminatory against certain grqups of people. She said there
should not be a blanket policy. She went on tq say that the statement says
that if the conviction is related to the positron for which the person is
applying, he or she will not be hired. She then~ gave an example of a person
who is 45 years old and is applying for a posit~ion for which he or she is
highly qualified, but the applicant had a conviction when he or she was 18
years old. If there has been no further crimiHal history, Dr. Hastings does
not feel as though it would be fair to penalizelthe applicant for that. She
added that it is a matter of fairness to let people know that it is not just
that they may hold a criminal record, but it is what they have done since that
time, and whether the criminal record relates ~o the job for which they are
applying.
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting) ]_2[O
(Page 34)
Dr. Hastings next discussed P-20, "Conditions of Employment". She said
this policy provides for certain circumstances when federal monies have been
received by the County. She referred to the CETA Program, and stated that it
was specifically stated in that program that retirement benefits could not be
paid for these employees. She stated that if the County is prohibited from
giving employees a benefit by Federal or State law, it is clarified that this
will be an exception to the policy.
Dr. Hastings then mentioned P-21, "Equal Employment Opportunity", and
said that this policy clarifies that the County will abide by Section 504 of
the Handicapped Rehabilitation Act. She added-that the County is required to
abide by this Act, and it was felt that this should be in writing.
Next, Dr. Hastings referred Board members to P-22, "Employee Discipline",
under the "Dismissal" section. She said that this policy was clarified to
indicate that the Grievance Procedure would apply to any dismissal except for
that of appointed department heads. Dr. HastiHgs said it was clarified that
written disciplinary action must be forwarded to the Personnel Department for
inclusion in the official personnel file. She. said the language in the
previous policy was redundant.
Mr. Bain mentioned the fact that the polf~ies refer to department heads
or designee and not supervisors.
Dr. Hastings responded that, as she worke~ through these procedures with
the department heads, they felt that they had,?under law, the employing
authority within that department and needed to!i~exercise those responsibilities
that are referred to in these policies. She s~ated that when the word,
"designee," is used, the department heads will,make sure that they have
~ctually designated the persons in their departments and have those persons
known to their employees. She went on to say t'hat it was felt that the word,
"supervisor," was not very clear to employees ~ecause sometimes they do not
know to whom it refers.
Mr. Way then brought Mr. Bain up-to-date Oh the discussion by saying that
there have been two individual policies that the Board members had questions
about and on which they were not in total agreement. He said that the two
policies refer to degree stipends and retireme~ payments. He said it was
felt that the whole Board should be present before voting on the controversial
policies.
Dr. Hastings told the Board that the next~ipolicy, P-23, "Performance
Review", was left off of the summary memo, butila copy was forwarded to the
Board members. She said that the probationary period for new employees has
been clarified in this policy, and it will be six months, whereas the existing
policy stated that the probationary period wou~d be from six to 12 months.
She added that the only people who were experiencing a 12 months probationary
period were police officers. She said that the policy has been clarified so
that the 12 months probationary period will reIate only to police officers who
have no previous experience in Virginia law enJorcement. She went on to say
that another clarification was done because th~'~policy should have been
amended when the pay for performance program w~s implemented. This clarifica-
tion indicates that the due date for evaluations is May 1 of each year, and
evaluations are done on a once a year basis fo=i everyone.
The next policy that Dr. Hastings mentioned was P-24, "Recruitment and
Selection of Personnel". She said that under ~he procedure it is clarified
that department heads need to assure that all p~rsons involved in interviewing
candidates have been trained in the legal aspec~ts of interviewing. She stated
that it is too risky to have people interviewing candidates who don't know the
kinds of questions that should not be asked be~muse considerable EEO charges
can come from this sort of situation. She sai~!she would rather have training
for the interviewers. She then mentioned promotions and transfers and said
that all promotions that involve a vacancy or g~ditional positions will be
advertised externally and internally. She added that this is a change because
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 35)
it used to be at the department heads' discretion as to whether they wanted to
open up the advertising as an internal posting or open it to the public. She
said the Affirmative Action Plan recommends that all positions be open to
everyone, and the best qualified candidate shall come forward. She went on to
_ say that the selection procedure specifies that interviews will be conducted
from candidates whose applications have already been screened through the
personnel office.
Mr. Bowie asked what is meant when the policy states that if a reor-
ganization occurs in a department and it does not create a vacancy, an inter-
nal posting will take place. Dr. Hastings answered by giving an example of a
deputy director position that is being created during the budget process. If
there has never been a deputy director in this department before, and the
position will be a replacement for a lower level position in that same depart-
ment, the lower level position will not be replaced, so the new position will
be posted in that department and anyone interested could apply. She noted,
however, that in this case total staff is not igoing to be increased. Mr.
Agnor explained that if a person outside of t~ department was hired, then
some employee within the department would have to be eliminated. He said
that this type of situation does not happen very often, but it did happen this
summer in one department.
Mr. Bain asked if, when the past Plannin~iDirector left, that created a
vacancy. Dr. Hastings replied, "yes." She s~id that in another department
where a deputy position was created and the division supervisor was going to
be eliminated, the deputy position was filled ~rom one of two people in that
department.
Mr. Bain asked if the reason for posting ~he notice for the public is
because of Affirmative Action. He asked if, w~en a notice is posted internal-
ly even in situations such as the one that Dr.!Hastings explained, the County
is at risk if someone challenged this action, iDr. Hastings replied that this
situation does not happen very often. She said that there would be a problem
if the vacancy was posted outside of the department, and a better qualified
candidate applied. She added that this would qause an overstaffing in that
department, and someone would have to be eliminated from that staff. She said
that since this type of situation does not happen very often, she believes
that this is a valid exception.
Mr. Bowie remarked that the County might Ye better off with a better
qualified candidate. Dr. Hastings agreed.
Mr. Way stated that he can see the reasoning behind Dr. Hastings state-
ments because it would be difficult to eliminate someone who is qualified for
the position and is already working for the department. Dr. Hastings said
that is especially true when a department has two good people who have had
good performance evaluations.
Mr. Bain asked if this policy would stop m department from advertising a
position externally even if there was no one i~ that department who would be
considered for it. Dr. Hastings replied that ghe "Reduction in Force" policy
would be engaged. Mr. Bowie remarked that this policy implies that the
Reduction in Force policy cannot be engaged. Dr. Hastings remarked that she
could use the word, "may," instead of "will." Mr. Bowie agreed that he
believes this will solve the problem.
Dr. Hastings then reported to the Board o~ P-25, "Standards of Conduct".
She noted that two additional standards are expected of all employees. The
first standard is appropriate attire, although this has not been defined. She
added that this will be open for the departmen~ heads to define for their own
departments because what is appropriate in one idepartment might not be appro-
priate in another. The next standard deals with courteous and professional
behavior toward the public and fellow employees~.
Mr. Bain then asked what is the thought behind Number Nine of P-24,
"Recruitment and Selection of Employees". Dr. Hastings responded that lan-
guage concerning policies that were not being f~llowed was eliminated. She
said the legal opinion is that if the County requires satisfactory health
certificates, the County needs to pay for them, tin terms of the examination.
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 36)
112
She noted that mandatory tubercular tests are already paid for school employ-
ees because that is the State law. She added that health certificates could
become very expensive and may not be necessary for every employee coming into
county employment. She stated that the right is reserved, however, to ask for
such a certificate from certain types of employees, such as maintenance
employees, people who might be lifting objects, or police officers, but the
County will pay for those particular examinations.
Mr. Bain wondered if this approach is discriminatory, even if the word,
"may," is used. Dr. Hastings replied that th~s policy relates to particular
job classes rather than individuals. She said that the County's insurance
carrier recommends that certain positions need health certificates. Mr. Bain
said that if there is some basis for following this procedure, then he can
agree to it.
Dr. Hastings then talked about No. 11, under P-25, "Standards of Con-
duct". She ~said that "Unacceptable Conduct, Violation of Safety Rules" was
amended to say that this section of the policy, would include negligent driving
of a county-owned vehicle. She mentioned that later, when she discusses the
County Vehicle Usage Policy~ the Board will see that the specific disciplinary
language under that policy has been eliminated~ She said this was done
because it was felt that it could be handled Bnder normal disciplinary proce-
dures. She added that it was also clarified Under the Standards of Conduct
Policy that an individual department may have .~dditional standards as defined
by its department head. She mentioned that t~ Police Department, for exam-
ple, has a lot of regulations that are not co~red under this policy. She
said that the School Board will also adopt th{~ new policy, because the school
system has never had a Standards of Conduct Poi~icy.
At this time, Mr. Agnor commented that he~i~had seen an article in the
paper where some eastern c~ty ~n V~rg~n~a was ~pursu~ng payment of taxes by
their employees through the payroll system. H~ said that Albemarle County has
been doing this for a number of years. He asked if there was anything in
these policies that relates to the timely payment of County taxes.
Dr. Hastings replied that P-28, "Indebtedness to the County" covers the
payment of County taxes by employees.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that Mr. Agnor had ialked about attendance. He
asked if there have been any guidelines established as to what is unacceptable
conduct. Dr. Hastings responded that a new policy is included that relates to
unacceptable conduct. ~
She then discussed P-26, "Termination of E~mployment", and said that this
policy deletes the mandatory retirement age which was deleted a few years ago
by State and Federal law. She said that this policy also clarifies that
probationary employees may be released, or may ~resign, prior to or at the end
of their probationary periods without obligation on the part of the employer
or employee. She added that this is a trial p~riod for both parties. She
added that the mandatory exit interview was deleted because she could not
force people to come in for that reason. She aaid that employees are asked to
come in for an exit interview, and employees do~ complete an exit survey Which
tracks some interesting data as to why people ~re leaving county employment.
Mr. Bowie asked what type of obligation e~ployees would have under this
policy. Dr. Hastings responded that usually someone leaves, and it could
reflect negatively on his or her employment re,lord. She said that this policy
would free the employee from any negative repercussions on their performance
record.
The next policy discussed was P-27, "Conflict of Interest", and Dr.
Hastings said that language was clarified which, stated that, "no officer or
employee of a state or local government or adv~sory agency shall accept any
money, loan, gift, favor, service or opportunity that reasonably tends to
influence them in the performance of their off{eial duties."
L
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 37)
113
Mr. Bain stated that the word, "or" has been deleted, from this policy,
and he thinks that it needs to be put back. Dr. Hastings agreed. She said
that, "business, professional, etc.," was deleted from this policy because it
was covered under another policy. She went on to say that an addition is made
_ to this policy requiring that an annual statement be submitted by the employee
specifying to whom he is related within his department. She added that this
will assist the staff in monitoring the conflict of interest situation.
Mr. Bain referred to the section of this policy relating to "Political
Activity", and he said that the second sentence reading needs to be reworded.
Mr. Bain remarked that he believes that the sentence should state, "exercise
of employees," and Dr. Hastings agreed. ~
At this time, Mr. Lindstrom stated that h~ is concerned that if people
come to work for the County and read these policies, they may think that all
they have to do is to adhere to these particular conflict of interest poli-
cies, and this is not true. He added that if there are situations where there
is also a State law which specifically applies~ he thinks that it should be
referenced in the Personnel Manual so that employees are aware of every law
that is applicable to them. He suggested thatla statement be added that would
indicate this requirement. He noted that people innocently do things that are
a violation of the Conflict of Interest Act in!the State Code.
Mr. Bowie said that throughout these poli~6ies it is sometimes unclear as
to whether members of the Board of Supervisorsl, School Board and Planning
Commission are considered County employees. He pointed out that under the
second paragraph of Political Activities, the ~situation is made very clear with
the statement, "when an employee, except an ellected official." He next stated
that if the elected officials are included as .employees, then the previous
paragraph under this same section is something:i~with which elected officials
cannot comply.
Dr. Hastings answered that Mr. Bowie has ~aised an interesting point.
She said that that there has been considerableli!confusion because the Supervi-
sors and the School Board are the only two boa=ds that are allowed to have any
benefits. Mr. Lindstrom asked what Dr. Hastings means when she talks about,
"benefits." Dr. Hastings responded that she i~g speaking of insurance cover-
age. She added that it might be well to have a policy where the Board of
Supervisors and the School Board are considere~ employees for the purposes of
fringe benefits, but are then excluded from all other personnel policies. Mr.
Bain agreed. He said that any time someone campaigns for or serves on a
board, time has to be taken from their regulari~ijobs. He stated that he does
not know if "employee" has been defined as a p~rson who works 40 hours a week.
Dr. Hastings answered that "employee" hasl,been defined as working 40
hours a week. She said that this would mean t~at not any Board members would
qualify for benefits, except on a part-time basis.
Mr. Bowie commented that he would be surprised if any member of this
Board has consistently worked less than 20 hours a week. He said that the
easiest week that he has spent since he has be~n on this Board was one week
when there was one Board meeting and one outside meeting, and with his travel
time, he worked 18 hours.
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that this issue should be addressed in a general
way. He said that this is the point of his question concerning outside
employment by County employees. He stated thai the policy does not exempt
Board members but Dr. Hastings has said that the policy could state, "except
for elected officials." He asked how this wouid affect appointed officials.
He said that he is not upset about the School foard having benefits, but he is
curious as to how this has happened, since the !iPlanning Commission is the
other major appointed function.
Dr. Hastings responded that she does not ~now why the School Board
receives benefits. It is not a written policy.I
Mr. Lindstrom stated that if benefits are available to School Board
members,, it should be made clear to them, and he thinks thai benefits should
be available to the Planning Commission also. 'Dr. Hastings commented that the
benefits could be given to members of boards who are on a salaried basis.
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 38)
114
Mr. Bain pointed out that members of the Board of Zoning Appeals get $25
a meeting. Mr. Lindstrom wondered if this $25 a meeting would be considered a
salary amount. Dr. Hastings stated that the Boards who qualify for the
benefits could be named in the policy. She said that she would design a
sample policy for the Board to review.
Mr. Lindstrom said that he did not know if this would cause a problem
relative to the benefits that the Board members already have, but he does not
think that it will. Dr. Hastings remarked that the policy is not clear as to
who is eligible for benefits.
At this time, Mr. Bowie asked if it would:be a problem to change the
policies in lieu of the suggestions concerning elected officials. Dr.
Hastings answered that this could be done without too much trouble.
Mr. Bain commented that in one of the preambles, the State Conflict of
Interest Act is referred to as a requirement.
Mr. Lindstrom said that perhaps the most straightforward way to handle
who is and who is not covered by this policy is to state that members of the
Board of Supervisors, School Board, Planning Cpmmission and the other appoint-
ed bodies, such as the Board of Zoning Appealsl~ who might possibly be consid-
ered to be employees, are exempt from these p~bvisions, because he does not
think it is intended for the policy to apply ~ such persons.
Dr. Hastings agreed with Mr. Lindstrom's ~suggestion except that she does
need to define which board members a're eligible for fringe benefits. Mr.
Agnor pointed out to Dr. Hastings that she wi~ need to define which benefits
are eligible to Board members. He noted that ~oard members are not eligible
for State retirement or sick leave. He then m~ntioned to Mr. Lindstrom that
when he leaves office, the County will have to~.offer him the Blue Cross/Blue
Shield plan for the next 18 months, as long as~he is willing to pay for it.
This is a new Federal law.
Dr. Hastings then discussed P-28, "Indebtedness to the County", and said
that certain Virginia Code sections are cited.~
Mr. Bowie wondered if indebtedness to the lCounty is unacceptable conduct
for the employees. Dr. Hastings replied that ~ndebtedness to the County is
not specifically listed as unacceptable conduct because that is covered by a
separate policy. She said that she does not s~e any problem with listing it
as unacceptable conduct.
At this point, Dr. Hastings stated that relating to P-29, "County Vehicle
Usage", some examples of things which are considered unacceptable when using
County vehicles are cited. She mentioned some of the examples such as shop-
ping, taking children to child care, etc. She Said the specific disciplinary
action was eliminated from this policy because~ithere is a separate discipli-
nary procedure which should apply to all infractions.
Mr. Way said that he understands the Count~yVehicle Usage policy to
indicate that any department head has the authority to allow a County employee
to take a car home. He asked if this is correct. Dr. Hastings agreed that
Mr. Way is correct. ~
Mr. Way wondered if this policy should sta{e that the department heads
should have the consent of the County Executiv~ or the Superintendent of
Schools. Dr. Hastings replied that the School ~oard has also questioned this
policy. !:
Mr. Lindstrom asked the School Board's question concerning this policy.
Dr. Hastings answered that this is a new policy for the School Board, and the
School Board members thought that there was a r~le that County cars should not
be taken home. By adopting this policy, it would give the School Board's
department heads the authority to allow someone~to take a County car home.
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 39)
115
Mr. Way said that this policy gives him some concern. Mr. Agnor replied
that if his office was just notified when a department head was interested in
granting someone permission to take a car home', it would keep his office aware
of those situations. He said that the policy is intended to relate to the
situation where an employee is leaving on a trip for the County early the next
morning, then he or she would be authorized bythe department head to take the
car home and leave from there instead of coming to the County Building to pick
up a car. He noted that this policy does not mean that a department head
would allow an employee to take a car home because he or she is on call, etc.
Mr. Way said this is a sensitive issue, and he thinks the policy needs to
be very specific. He feels it would be easy f~r this policy to be abused, and
he woUld rather be overly cautious at this point.
Mr. Agnor pointed out that the policy states that these situations would
be considered temporary assignments.
Mr. Bain commented that the more that is .Spelled out in the policy, the
more complicated it becomes. He does not havel· a concern if department heads
are instructed to inform the County Executive 16r Superintendent of Schools if
they are approving a County vehicle for an employee to take home. He noted,
however, that the permanent assignments of CoUnty vehicles already requires
the approval of the County Executive. He said~:~.that Mr. Agnor had specified
that when the policy relates to an employee ta~ing a COUnty vehicle home
overnight, it concerns temporary assignments ~.~ly.
Mr. Bowie agreed that this is a very sensiitive issue. He commented that
when he sees a County car on the road before 81ii00 a.m., he writes down the
license number and inquires as to who was driving in a County vehicle that
early in the morning. He stated that the Couni~y's policy is that there should
not be County vehicles parked in front of employees' houses unless there is an
unusual situation, and he thinks that the poli~y Should be stated clearly to
this effect.
Mr. Agnor suggested that a statement be a~ded that the policy of the
County is not to have employees take County vehicles home at night or to have
them parked at employees' residences.
Dr. Hastings told the Board that there ne~ds to be a blanket policy that
specifies the Board's philosophy concerning thls matter. She said she would
work up a draft and bring it back to the Boardi'.
Mr. Bowie questioned removing the discipl{inary action portion of this
policy. Dr. Hastings explained that there ar~ some situations that require
an employee to drive/~e°t their job done. She ~aid the second offense in the
existing policy states that the employee will ~e demoted and will lose the use
of the vehicle. She noted that if the employe~ can't be demoted because there
is no lower level position and if the car is tJken away, the employee can't do
his job. This would create problems, specifically in the Police Department.
It was difficult fOr that Department to comply iWith~ this policy. She thought
that if violations to this policy were coveredlii~nder the normal disciplinary
procedure, they could handle it in terms of reprimands, suspensions without
pay, etc., and whatever might be appropriate a~ oppOsed to instructing a
department to follow a procedure that was imposlSible for that department to
cOmply with. She mentioned that it was the on!~y policy that had its own
disciplinary action because everything else fal!is under the normal discipli-
nary procedures.
Mr. Bowie was still concerned about taking, disciplinary action out of the
Vehicle Usage Policy.' He was concerned that e~Ployees will feel as though
they can do What they want to do, if they get ~he department heads' approval.
Dr. Hastings replied that infractions of the ve~icle Usage Policy, even though
stated under Standards of Conduct, will be deailt with through disciplinary
- procedures .
Mr. Lindstrom stated that this may seem t°i imply that infractions of the
other policies will not be dealt with.
Mr. Perkins called attention to the secti°n of the policy dealing with
employees attending meetings after working hours and other conditions where
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 40)
]_]_6
employees are called out for different reasons. He thinks that it would be
cheaper for the County to have those persons use their own vehicles. He
suggested that a statement be included in the policy that, if employees use
their own vehicles, they will be reimbursed at a certain rate per mile.
Mr. Bain said that under Section B of this policy, it states that employ-
ees will be reimbursed for the use of their personal vehicles. Mr. Perkins
responded that he thinks the actual rate of reimbursement should be shown in
the policy. Dr. Hastings answered that this would cause a problem because
every time the rate changes, the policy would have to be changed.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Sheriff's Department is still included with this
policy. Dr. Hastings answered that the Sheriff's Department is no longer
covered by the County's policies.
Dr. Hastings then stated that all that she did with P-30, "Reduction in
Force", was to clarify that Social Services employees are covered under the
State's Reduction In Force Policy and not the County's.
Mr. Bowie asked what would happen if the ~County did not fund the Social
Services Department. Mr. Agnor explained tha~iif the County refused to fund
what the State approves, the State could fund ~he Social Services Department
itself, and take the money away from State funds that the County is receiving
for something else. He said that this has nob~ihappened, but the authority is
available to the State under the law. ~
Next, Dr. Hastings mentioned P-40, "Course Reimbursement", and called
attention to No. Three under this policy, whic~ states that, "The course is
not taken to fulfill degree requirements." Sh& said that this wording was
added because people were saying that they wer~ taking a course which was
directly related to their jobs, but the courseiljwas used to fulfill a degree
requirement, so the policy was unfair. She sa~d the intent behind this policy
was so that people would not fund their whole ~egree program through the
County reimbursement program. She went on to ~ay that the policy specified
that it is not meant to fund general education!~requirements leading toward a
degree. She stated that a maximum of $100 per~!fiscal year has been included
as part of the policy. She added that this is~ia commonality issue because the
School Board does not have any course reimbursement, at this time, other than
for teachers. She said that this $100 is equa~ to what the teachers receive,
so this policy would cause everyone to be subject to the same maximum.
Mr. Bowie questioned how this policy rela~es to the Master's Degree
stipend. Dr. Hastings responded that when theJadvance degree stipend is ap-
proved, the employee will get the $1,000 stipend. She said that $100 would
also be available to the employee to help him gr her offset the cost of the
courses. ~.
Next, Mr. Bowie questioned the section of;'~he policy that stated that ten
percent of an employee's pay would be taken from the employee who is pursuing
an "advanced degree". Dr. Hastings answered t~t ten percent of an employees'
pay will be taken from him only if the employee takes time from work during
the work day to take the courses. She stated ~hat this part of the policy
guards against people using County time to take'University courses. She said
this has happened more often with the School D~Vision, and the School Board
had to incorporate a regulation to guard agains~.t this situation.
Dr. Hastings then discussed P-60, "Salary Administration, Position
Classification" and said that under this policy~ it is specified that requests
for re-evaluation need to be made by October 1. The other major change in
- this policy involves reclassification payments.~~ She said that now an employee
gets nothing if that employee is reclassified t~ a higher range, unless his
salary is off the scale, but this policy will p~ovide for a five percent
payment in salary for any reclassification. Sh~ went on to say that when the
last pay study was done, there were a significant number of people moved to a
higher range at a cost of approximately $250,00~. She noted that the employ-
ees had asked, at that time, that the salary stgp be honored in the higher
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting) 117
(Page 41)
range, and this would have cost approximately $1,500,000. She added that an
alternative was also considered whereby for every range that an employee was
moved, he or she would receive a step on the salary scale. She pointed out
that the proposed policy limits the increase to five percent, but it does
provide something extra for the employee. She said that, with the last
reclassification plan there were a considerable number of employees at the
beginning of their pay range, and this hampersl the County's ability of hiring
new employees without creating a morale problem for the people who already
work for the County. She said that this policy should avoid that problem.
Mr. Agnor explained that there has been a ten percent increase in pay for
a promotion while the reclassification has notl involved any payment. He noted
that the recommendation now is that the person!reclassified would also get a
five percent increase in salary. He said that!this will help the situation
but it will not eliminate the problem, becauselthe employee will only be given
a five percent raise, but the range will increase 15 percent.
Mr. Way remarked that at least the curren~ employee with the County will
get a slightly larger salary than a new employee. Mr. Agnor answered, "possi-
Dr. Hastings stated that a new classification study will be done in
1991-92, and then the cost of implementing thiJ policy will occur at that
Mr. Bain commented that he thinks this policy is a step in the right
direction in terms of being able to keep key pgople. He noted that the County
trains its employees, and so many times, the eidployees will leave the County
to go to other jobs for more money. Mr. Bow~e~iremarked that qu~te often it is
to the County's advantage to let an employee g~, if he or she is leaving for
more money. He mentioned that it is sometimeslilbetter to have two or three of
an employee's most productive years, and then {hey can go to the higher paying
job elsewhere.
Dr. Hastings said with the low employments!rate being experienced in this
vicinity, it is very difficult to fill some positions. Mr. Bowie wondered if
it would be advantageous to change the policy Ko relate to the jobs that are
troublesome to fill and leave the others alone.~
Dr. Hastings replied that this is theoretically what the pay and classi-
fication study should do
Dr. Hastings then discussed Section K of ~his policy relating to a new
payment procedure for "Temporary Work in a HigRer Classification". She gave
an example of a department head leaving, and a-~'deputy being named as an acting
department head. She said this always causes a' decision to be made as to
whether or not to pay the acting department he~d any more money. She added
that Section K specifies the procedure when thai occurs.
Mr. Bain asked if Tom Maxwell was paid moKe for acting as Chief of Police
before Chief Miller was hired. Dr. Hastings rePlied that nothing was done for
Mr. Maxwell because there was not a policy relating to this type of situation.
Mr. Bain asked if this policy had been in effect at that time, would the Chief
of Police position have qualified for extra pay~ since Commander Maxwell was
in that position for more than 80 hours. Dr. Hastings indicated that the
position would have qualified for extra pay.
Mr. Bain agrees that a person should be compensated, if he or she is put
into a higher position. Mr. Bowie stated that '~he likes the policy, but he
wonders if 80 hours is a reasonable time limit.i~i
Mr. Agnor stated that he understands the B~ard. members' reasoning, but
the employee would only get paid for those hours that exceed the two consecu-
tive weeks. He added that the two weeks are in~ended to include the normal,
routine types of assignments that occur wheneve~ a department head goes on
vacation. He asked if the Board wished to chan~e the 80 days stipulation.
Mr. Bowie replied that he did not want it changed.
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 42)
118
Next, Dr. Hastings said the major change in P-61/P-62, "Overtime" and
"Compensatory Time" is that at the current time, employees can accumulate
compensatory time up to a maximum of 240 hours, and not until after that total
is reached does an employee receive any pay. This policy has not been very
popular with the employees. A survey of the market area showed that Albemarle
County was the only local government in that~marketing area that gave only
compensatory time. She said that most employers give a choice of time or
payment. She noted that a problem arises because most departments are not
budgeted for overtime payments this fiscal year. She pointed out that this
policy is also related to the commonality issue, because there is some over-
time budgeted in the School budget, and some employees are being paid for
their overtime and others are not. She saidthat in theory it is nice to
provide a choice for employees, but there is a cost element involved. She
went on to say that if all of the compensatory time had been paid that was
approved in 1988-89, the County would have paid an additional $117,000 from
local government funds.
Dr. Hastings said that department heads need to plan the usage of over-
time, because it is worked at their direction. She stated that the overtime
would have to be funded within the department's own budget.
Mr. Bain suggested that sometimes the solution is to hire more people
rather than to have constant overtime for certain employees. He noted that an
entry level employee would be making less money than the money that would be
paid to the overtime employee. Mr. Bain questioned the first paragraph of the
policy which referred to the County Executiv~ approving a listing of positions
that are exempt from the Federal Labor Standards Act. He asked what positions
are involved with this listing. Dr. Hasting~ responded that the only employ-
ees on that list are those who are evaluated~.under the Administration Evalua-
tion Plan, persons holding jobs which are supervisory in nature. She said
that these people are department heads, deputies and division chiefs.
Mr. Bowie referred to the sentence that!~:deals with law enforcement
personnel working for 28 days before overtime is paid, and he asked what this
means. Dr. Hastings answered that the law clarifies that for law enforcement
personnel, a 28 day cycle has to be considered. After 28 consecutive days,
overtime can be paid, as opposed to the normal 40 hour work week. Mr. Bain
commented that he believes, when given the choice, 90 percent of the employees
will want to be paid, rather than take compensatory time.
Mr. Way suggested that the meeting concerning personnel policies be
concluded at this time, because the Board had another matter to consider.
Most of the Board members wanted to continue~with the policy changes, and Dr.
Hastings and Mr. Agnor both indicated that the other policies would not take
very long to discuss. Mr. Way was agreeable{to continuing.
Dr. Hastings next discussed P-63, "Voluntary Early Retirement". She said
that the policy clarifies that instead of a general adjustment, which the
County is not likely to have because of the Psy for Performance procedure, the
County Executive would recommend an adjustment for early retirees during the
budget cycle. She said that this adjustment ;ould probably be based on what
the State Retirement System is going to pay C~gular retirees.
Mr. Bowie asked if the $25 per day paymE'~t for sick leave, is being
eliminated from the policy. Dr. Hastings re].iied that the $25 per day is
being removed because the other retirement boSus is being recommended. Mr.
Bowie asked if the $25 per day will be put ba~k into the policy if the other
recommendation is not approved. He wonderedlif employees will be encouraged
to stay at home and also get a bonus. He asked if this policy could be
examined with a report coming back to the Bo~d. Dr. Hastings answered that
she did not see how she could look into this lmatter except to say that the
County's experience has been that there has bi~en no difference in the usage of
sick leave when this type of payment was given to the school division employ-
ees and the $25 per day payment for sick lea~e was eliminated.
Mr. Bain asked if adoption of the career!'iladder program, which was partly
geared to absences, made a difference in the Achool system. Dr. Hastings
replied that the acceptable attendance policyldefines the guidelines by which
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 43)
119
the career ladder provision dealing with absences will be evaluated as to
whether or not it is successful. She has been trying to get this matter
resolved for approximately three years, and there is no criteria by which to
judge the success of the provision. Therefore, there has not been any appli-
cation of that particular career ladder provision. She said she is still
trying to get an acceptable attendance design for local government and also
for the school system. She reiterated that the career ladder provision has
not made any difference, as of this date.
Mr. Bain asked if the provision has not made any difference for the
people who are on the career ladder. Dr. Ha~tings responded that the majority
of the teachers who are eligible for the career ladder program are now on the
career ladder. She said that the average usage of sick leave has remained the
ss~le. ~
Mr. Bowie commented that part of the reason for putting the teachers on
the career ladder was to get better attendance. Dr. Hastings answered that
the problem is that until acceptable attendance has been defined, there has
not been any way to measure acceptable attendance.
Mr. Bowie asked Dr. Hastings if she would say that the teachers are using
as many days for sick leave as they were usidg before the career ladder began.
Dr. Hastings answered, "yes,"
Mr. Bowie said then the career ladder r~garding attendance has not been
successful. Dr. Hastings replied that the r~ason that this provision has not
worked is because there was no means by whic~ to define acceptable attendance.
Mr. Agnor stated that the standard for ~ttendance is proposed for both
the school system and the local government, i':He said the wording is part of
the Sick Leave Policy, and Dr. Hastings will?discuss it before the meeting is
over ....
Mr. Bowie asked what option employees h~ve for payment if accumulated
sick leave, if the $25 per day payment is de~:eted. Dr. Hastings replied that
the payment will be deleted only if the polid~y on retirement pay is adopted.
Mr. Perkins called attention to the facfi that there is a limit of 100
days relative to the sick leave payment that!mn employee can receive, and he
asked if there was a limit on the number of ~ays of sick leave that can be
accumulated. Dr. Hastings said "no".
Mr. Perkins then asked how many teacher~ have more than 100 sick leave
days accumulated. Dr. Hastings replied that !there are, "many." She mentioned
that the reason for not having a ceiling on fhe number of sick leave days that
can be accumulated is because the County doeg not carry any disability insur-
ance. She noted that employees are encouraged to save their sick leave days
in case they have a serious illness.
Mr. Perkins commented that the teachers ~ho have a large number of
accumulated days are the ones with a good attendance record. He feels that a
teacher with a good attendance record needs tO be recognized in some way.
Dr. Hastings then discussed P-80, "AbsenCes". She said that the Police
Department and the 911 Dispatch Center employ&es are not covered by the notice
of unexpected absence part of this policy because they work under different
regulations. She said that if a department h~ad requires someone to have a
physical, the employee must specify whether the physical was done with his or
her own physician or the County physician.
Mr. Bowie asked if the County has a physician. Dr. Hastings replied that
the County has a contract with the Martha Jefferson Hospital to provide
mandatory examinations for certain employees such as school bus drivers.
The P-81, "Holidays" policy was then brought before the Board by Dr.
Hastings. She said that the method was clarified by which an employee can
leave employment and still get holiday pay. She noted that an employee
resigned the day after Thanksgiving last yearj which made it possible for that
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 44)
120
employee to get paid for two holidays. She added that it needs to be defined
in the policy that an employee has to work the day after the holiday in order
to get holiday pay.
Dr. Hastings said that the P-83, "Military Leave" policy specifies that
there are 15 calendar days per fiscal year that a person may go on military
leave and receive military pay and County salary.
Mr. Bowie suggested to Dr. Hastings that the word, "calendar" be added to
this policy because he said that the policy now reads "days per fiscal year,"
instead of "calendar days per fiscal year."
Dr. Hastings then discussed P-84, "Vacation Leave". She said the policy
is changed to require that employees who have five years or more of service
must take at least five days of vacation lea~e per fiscal year, however, a
maximum of 36 vacation leave days can be acc0mulated.
Mr. Bowie stated that if employees takeionly five days of vacation leave
per year, they will accumulate more than 36 days. He wondered what happens in
this situation. Mr. Agnor responded that the employee loses any vacation
leave accumulated over the 36 days.
Dr. Hastings then explained the philosophy behind the P-85, "Sick Leave"
policy, by saying that sick leave is available for employees who need it, that
people are expected to be at work, and the p~imary purpose of sick leave is to
provide for paid time for long term illnesseS, which encourages people to bank
that time. She said that sporadic absenteeism must be limited to maintain
efficient operations, and when an unsatisfactory pattern exists, the problem
must be identified and rectified. In reference to the procedure under this
policy, Dr. Hastings explained that the $25 per day payment for unused sick
leave has been eliminated, but if the Board Wishes, this procedure can be put
back into the policy.
Dr. Hastings next referred to the "Sick'~Leave Bank", and explained that
this portion of the policy was changed becausie local government employees had
to use all of their annual leave, sick leave,i and compensatory time before
they could apply to use leave from the Sick Lieave Bank. She said this was a
commonality issue because school employees died not have to use all of their
time before applying to the Sick Leave Bank. ?i She added that she has also
defined acceptable attendance, and she read from this policy that "acceptable
attendance shall be defined as not missing mo~e than two percent of one's
available work time in any fiscal year for r~asons of personal illness or
illness in the family." She noted that natiOnal statistics show that two
percent is probably a reasonable level of ab~Pnteeism to be considered accept-
able. '?!,
Dr. Hastings went on to say that absences for an extended illness do not
count. She noted that two percent, as appli~d to a local government person,
would amount to five days. She sa~d that abs~entee~sm from two percent to four
percent would be monitored and it would then .i~e determined whether or not a
pattern existed. The employee would be counsieled. Over four percent, if a
pattern existed, would be considered unacceptable attendance. She added that
reasons for absences in excess of four percen~ of the available work time will
be used as part of the employees' evaluation i~nd dealt with through the
disciplinary procedure. She stated that a pattern would be considered over a
three year period. She commented that any employee can have a bad year. She
remarked that the data base for an employee W'ill be examined to determine if
the absenteeism occurred just in that one yeai~ or if it is a continuing
pattern. ,t
Mr. Bain wondered if absenteeism in the ~school system will be reviewed in
the same way. Dr. Hastings replied that it has not been reviewed, yet,
although there are comments being sent to her!regarding the situation. She
said that it is not a very popular Policy. ~
Mr. Bain commented that he thought this ~olicy should be in place,
because it disturbed him when he was a member of the School Board that 8.6 was
the average number of days missed for sick leave. He said that some employees
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 45)
121
always missed one day a mOnth. He went on to say that the week for spring
vacation is in 'the calendar so that employees will not feel compelledto take
time during the rest of the year, however, employees still use their sick
leave.
Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Bain, and said he thinks two percent is very
generous. He thinks that if a teacher misses more than two percent of atten-
dance time, he or she should probably be taken off of the career ladder. Dr.
Hastings replied that enforcement of this policy would cause a teacher to be
taken off of the career ladder. Mr. Bowie remarked that he does not think
that the three year period should even be considered. He thinks that if two
percent of attendance time is missed one yea~, then the person should be taken
off the career ladder without exception. ~
Mr. Way said he thinks the reason a person misses time should be consid-
ered. Mr. Bowie stated that it is clear in khe policy that it is referring to
sporadic absences. Mr. Bain pointed out that a person might be absent more
than the two percent of the attendance time the first year, but might not miss
that much time the next couple of years. ~
Dr. Hastings said that on the first page of this policy, the commonality
issue is brought out. She sa~d the recommenaatlon ms that the accumulation of
sick leave days be increased to one and one-~uarter days per month rather than
one day for local government employees.
Mr. Agnor indicated that the local govemnment department heads did not
agree with the accumulation of one and one-q~arter days per month for sick
leave. He said they felt that one day was a'~sufficient amount. He said
representatives from several local businesses called him because they saw the
article in the newspaper indicating that the!'.*i~County was considering this
policy, and these people felt the policy was~iunusually liberal. He suggested
that if the Board does not agree with this p~licy, that it recommend to the
School Board that its Sick Leave Policy be c~anged from a day and one-quarter
to a day a month, but that existing employees. be "grandfathered," so that
through attrition, new employees coming into ~the system will not get the new
sick leave accumulation. The existing employees, however, could keep the
accumulation that they have had for a number~'of years.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board has no~ already discussed this change.
Mr. Agnor replied that the difference in polilcy for the two systems was
discussed at the Joint School Board Meeting, 'but the "grandfather" clause was
not discussed. Dr. Hastings pointed out that the teachers have received that
benefit for years and it is unpopular to do ~way with it. She believes that a
"grandfather" clause needs to be included bedlause it would eliminate the
problem as it relates to the teachers, and would, perhaps, not cause problems
with the existing staff.
Mr. Bain asked if other school divisions: grant a day and one-quarter of
sick leave. Dr. Hastings replied that of the 134 divisions in the State, only
nine grant more than one day of sick leave pe~ month. She said that Albemarle
County is one of those nine divisions. Mr. B6wie said that he supports the
"grandfather" clause. Mr. Bain agreed. He S~id this could amount to a
substantial savings if a number of new emploMees are hired each year. Dr.
Hastings reported that 224 people have been ~tred s~nce September for the
school division. Mr. Lindstrom asked how many teachers were hired out of the
224 figure. Dr. Hastings replied that 92 of i~he 224 people hired for the
school system were teachers.
The last policy that Dr. Hastings discussed was the "Pay for Performance
Policy". She explained that now employees ha~e to wait for an extended period
of time before they can receive a vested salary increase. She said that the
recommendation is that this stipulation be eliminated.
Mr. Bowie commented on the "Sick Leave Policy". He said it seems incon-
sistent regarding the Sick Leave Bank, and he~,read from the policy: "The
Board of Supervisors will maintain "He pointed out that the Board does
not maintain anything. He said that this is the only section that refers to
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 46)
122
maintenance of anything by the Board of Supervisors. He added that local
government should be named in place of the Board of Supervisors in this
policy.
Mr. Way asked if Dr. Hastings is going to bring back a new copy of the
revisions to the Supervisors. Dr. Hastings answered, "yes."
Mr. Way then asked Dr. Hastings to highlight those revisions that need
the Board's action.
Dr. Hastings replied that at the School~Board's work session on October
24, she will report that the Board of Supervisors does not wish to increase
the sick leave accumulation to one and one-quarter days per month.
Dr. Hastings asked if the Board wanted to think about eliminating the $25
per day payment for sick leave and adding in its place the retirement bonus.
Mr. Way said he thinks the Board members need to consider this policy change
further.
Mr. Bowie commented that he feels the "Advanced Study" policy needs
further consideration by this Board. He said he would support the County
Executive's recommendation of keeping one day a month for the sick leave as
the policy for general government employees,~regardless of what the School
Board does. Mr. Bain stated that he would still like to urge the School Board
to change its policy to one day of sick leave per month for its employees. He
said that this policy should not cause too mgny problems for the School Board,
if the "grandfather" clause is included.
Mr. Perkins referred to the "Vacation L&ave" policy and the maximum
accumulation of annual leave being 36 days. "He recalled a company where he
used to work, and he said that their auditorsq said that vacations and opera-
tions had to be on the same basis because th~~ company had incurred liabilities
that had to be eliminated. He said it would ~amount to a lot of money if every
employee had 36 days of vacation, and it would be a considerable liability for
the County. Dr. Hastings explained to Mr. Perkins that the only time that the
County pays for the annual leave is if the p~rson leaves County employ. Mr.
Perkins said the leave is carried over from year to year, and he thinks that
this policy should gradually be phased out.
Mr. Bain asked if general government is"iinvolved with this policy more
than the school system. Dr. Hastings answerejd, "no." She said that every
employee is on the same schedule. Mr. Agnor?lsaid the County's auditors have
indicated that accumulated leave would soon ~tart showing on the Audit Report
as an incurred liability, but it doesn't actq'-'ally involve funds until the
employee leaves County employment.
Mr. Perkins said that he still does not ~gree with the policy, even if
the State and Federal governments have thesame~ policy.
Mr. Way thanked Dr. Hastings for presenting the policy changes to the
Board.
Not Docketed: At this point, Mr. Lindsti~om distributed the typed resolu-
tion regarding the Route 671 project for the ~oard's review.
Mr. Bowie suggested that the word "entire" be added to the second para-
graph on Page 2. Mr. Bowie called attention ko the second "Whereas" on Page 2
of the resolution and suggested that the wording, "entire six year budget,"
would make the resolution stronger. He asked'~ if the alignment referred to as
the "green line" had been verified as the oneithe Board wanted to use. The
answer was "yes". Mr. Lindstrom pointed out On a chart the land that is
involved with the Virginia Outdoors Foundatio~ easement. He said it seems
bizarre that the Department of Highways will go ahead with its engineering and
design work without consulting the Virginia O~tdoors Foundation. He feels the
Board needs to be sure that the County's posi.tion is one that does not endorse
this project. His resolution makes it clear that the Board is endorsing the
"green" alignment versus what the Board has been told will actually be con-
structed, but the Board does not endorse thisi~change, per se.
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 47)
123
Mr. Bowie asked if this statement, in Mr. Lindstrom's opinion, would
handle the situation. Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way agreed that the statement is
clear as to the wishes of the Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the resolution set out
below and directing that copies be sent to Mr. Tyson Van Auken, Director of
the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, and to Mr. Ray Pethtel, Highway Commission-
er, Virginia Department of Transportation.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors supports the repair of the
bridge over the Moorman's River on State Route 671 at Millington, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has not supported changing the
alignments at the approaches to this bridge as proposed by the Virgin-
ia Department of Transportation because of the following:
its concern over the negative aesthetic impact on the
Moorman's River and its environs, the Moorman's being both a
state and county scenic riverlwith land at Millington
through which the so-called improvements will pass having
recently been covered by open-space easements donated to the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation;
its concern over the negative.impact upon land in actual
agricultural use in the Moorman's River Agricultural/
Forestal District and the negative impact upon adjoining
properties; ~
its concern that such realignment and widening of the
approaches as proposed by thelVirginia Department of Trans-
portation will encourage vehiCular-traffic to travel faster
than is safe for State Route 671, given the sharp curves and
narrow pavement at either end'of the proposed improvement;
and
its concern that the proposed~improvements are inconsistent
with the character of State R6ute 671 and the surrounding
environs; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors did evidence its concerns over
these impacts, and its belief that more~icritical secondary road safety
improvements existed in the County othe~ than the realignment of the
approaches to said bridge, by unanimously voting to remove said bridge
project from the Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Budget in
April 6, 1988, allocating such funds to~!other secondary road safety
improvements, and ~;
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors ~as later notified that its
entire Six Year Budget had been rejecte~ by the Virginia Department of
Transportation as a result of the Board'~s deletion of this project,
and ~
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors ~ppealed this action to the
Commissioner of the Virginia Department ~of Transportation, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, ~after the hearing of its
appeal by the Commissioner, reasonably 5~lieved its appeal would be
denied and the improvements constructed ~s originally proposed by the
Virginia Department of Transportation, a~d
WHEREAS, believing that such improy~,~ments were inevitable and
would be excessively damaging, the Boardi'of Supervisors agreed to
support an alternative alignment to tha~=~originally proposed by the
Virginia Department of Transportation, ~&lled the "Green Line" align-
ment, believing such alternative to be ~ss damaging than the project
originally proposed by the Virginia Depal~tment of Transportation,
although the Board of Supervisors st~ll ~refers that no change in the
alignment of the bridge be constructed a~d that the bridge be repaired
in place, for all of the reasons hereinabove stated,
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 48)
124
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that it continues to prefer that no change
in the alignment and design of the approaches to said bridge be
undertaken and that said bridge be repaired in place for all of the
reasons stated previously. However, ifl the Virginia Department of
Transportation continues to reject this alternative, then the Board of
Supervisors believes the "Green Line" a%ignment with a 30 mile per
hour design, 18 feet of pavement and shOulders and ditching to conform
as nearly as possible to the existing State Route 671, with aggregate
treatment of the bridge and parapet surfaces and an anodized bronze
alnminum rail to be the least damaging alternative.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mrs. Bain. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
;
Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public and Board Members.
Mr. Agnor commented that last year he had created an Employee Advisory
Council which meets monthly with himself and Dr. Hastings. He said this
Council asked for an employee recognition program which has been developed by
the staff. This program will begin this month, and it involves nominations by
any County employee for the recognition of a~:fellow employee. There is a
selection committee and criteria has been de~eloped for this type of selec-
tion. He went on to say that there will be a framed picture of the employee
in the hallway on the first floor of the Couhty Office Building, with an
announcement that this employee is the employee of the month. He stated, too,
that the employee's name will also appear in,Bits and Pieces.
Mr. Bain referred back to Item 4.3 on the Consent Agenda relating to the
request on behalf of the local exchange telephone companies providing service
in Virginia. This request involved reducing!the directory assistance monthly
free call allowance from eight calls per month down to two calls per month for
residential customers and to zero for busineHs customers. He said he does not
know if the Board has taken a stand on theselitypes of things in the past, but
he believes that this affects the people in albemarle County. He noted that
CENTEL is one of the applicants that would like to reduce the number of these
free calls for directory assistance. He is concerned because there are so
many changes in the County during the year, ~nd people are charged when they
call for a new number.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks these calls shOuld be paid for by the customer.
He said that he looks up the numbers in the yellow pages, and other people
call directory assistance instead of looking '~p the numbers. Mr. Bain said
Mr. Bowie has pointed out the other side of the argument. He isn't concerned
about the people having to pay for the calls iwhen the number is listed in the
telephone book. Mr. Bowie said he believes ~he Board should respond to this
issue, for clarification purposes. Mr. Bain ~iagreed with Mr. Bowie.
Mr. Bowie reiterated that he could suppo'Ct the idea of not charging
people for directory assistance if the numberl is not in the telephone book.
Otherwise, he thinks that the people should p~y for this assistance.
Mr. Bain next discussed the Planning Commission's minutes relative to the
critical slopes at River Run. He said this is a site plan issue, but it
involves the final 180 units that are proposed to be constructed there. He
added that a substantial part of these buildings are being built on slopes of
greater than 25 percent. He went on to say that the Commission has asked that
the plan be brought back, and he would like f6r the Board to follow the plan
through the Commission's process.
Mr. Bowie commented that it will be visually obtrusive if units are built
on the critical slopes toward the river. He ~aid he is glad to hear that all
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 49)
125
of the units have not been approved by the Planning Commission. He added that
he would like to make sure that less units will be approved than the number
shown in the plan.
Mr. Bain explained that the Commission had considered the possibility of
putting some roads on some of the critical slopes and putting the buildings
elsewhere. He does not think that the developer wanted to do that, however.
He said he believes this Board should follow this process.
Mr. Bain said he plans on going to the VACO Annual meeting. He said it
would be helpful if Board members could be at the meeting in time to attend
some of the policy steering committee meetings which start on Sunday at 2:00
p.m. He believes that a lot of decisions are made in these steering commit-
tees before work sessions are held.
Mr. Way agreed. He said he could not go early to the VACO meeting, but
Mr. Bowie usually goes early. He asked Mr. Perkins if he was going to attend
the VACO meeting. Mr. Perkins indicated that he was going to attend. Mr.
Agnor stated that he is on the committee for general government so he will be
present.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about the plan for The Colonnades. He asked if the
tree removal which is occurring was started under the preliminary plan. He
asked the legality for requiring a dedication of right-of-way on the final
site plan when it is approved. Mr. Tucker said that if the Route 29 North
alternative called the Ivy Creek Parkway was shown in the County's Comprehen-
sive Plan, he thinks that reservation of right-of-way could be given. The
Parkway is not in the Plan, so the only thing that can be done is to get some
sort of dedication of right-of-way along the<ifrontage of the property.
Mr. Way mentioned that he has a requesti~'.from Mr. Benjamin Dick to have a
rehearing scheduled on some of David Spradllq's petltmons. He said he knows
that this matter has been discussed but he wanted to officially give Board
members the opportunity to make a motion for!ia rehearing. He added that this
would be the time to make such a motion, or ~a can respond to Mr. Dick's
request and tell him what the Board's action ihas been. He asked if any member
of the Board wished to make a motion for any irehearings.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that the motion !would have to come from a Board
member who wanted to change his or her vote. i Mr. Way stated that Mr. Dick had
indicated that one of the petitions had not actually been acted upon by the
Board. Mr. Bain asked if this was the petition that Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. St.
John had requested to be withdrawn. Mr. Agndr answered that Mr. Cilimberg and
Mr. St. John had requested a deferral of thi~ particular petition. Mr. Bowie
stated that if the Board neglected to take action on one of the Spradlin's
petitions, then he would support the rehearing.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that if the Boa~'d did not act on the request,
then it does not have to be reheard. Mr. BoWie said, again, that if the Board
had a public hearing and did not act on the petition, then the Board should
probably take action on it.
Mr. Lindstrom explained that he had mad~'.the motion concerning this
issue, and the motion referred to all of the matters pertaining to the
Spradlin Garage before the Board. He though~ithat the Board's discussion
eliminated everything except for the one that!i maybe was not brought up to the
Board because of the attorney's strategy pla~ He said that if the Board
needs to take action on this petition, then i~ will need to be presented in
the normal course of events. ..
Mr. Agnor remarked that the petition was!!ideferred because it was tied to
a special permit, and the special permit was idenied.
Mr. Way stated that, hearing no motions relative to the Spradlin peti-
tions, he would rule that there are none. -~
October 11, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 50)
126
Mr. Way reminded the Board members that there is going to be a reception
for the Italians at 5:30 P.M. today at the Omni Hotel. He said that he would
be attending this reception.
(NOTE: The following appropriation was approved at the October 4, 1989,
Board meeting, but the appropriation form was not available for printing at
the time those minutes were prepared. That appropriation is set out in full
as follows:
FISCAL YEAR:
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
89./90
SCHOOL
FUNDING OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1211561101601200
1211561101601600
1211561101800700
1211561311312700
1211561311550400
1211561311601600
1211561311800700
1211561320312700
1211561320601600
1211561320800700
1211561411312700
1211561411601600
1211561411800700
BOOKS & SUBSCRIPTIONS
DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES
ADP EQUIPMENT
CONSULTANTS
TRAVEL-EDUCATION
DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES
ADP EQUIPMENT :
CONSULTANTS ·
DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES
ADP EQUIPMENT
CONSULTANTS :.
DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES
ADP EQUIPMENT
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
$75.00
13,017.00
32,033.00
1,000.00
1,900.00
2,818.00
14,266.00
500.00
11,625.00
10,740.00
1,000.00
550.00
10,476.00
$100,000.00
AMOUNT
2200051000510100
APPROPRIATED FROM SCHOQL BALANCE
~ TOTAL
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn to Octoberi~18, 1989, at 3:00 P.M.
At 5:07 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. :Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to
adjourn to October 18, 1989, at 3:00 P.M. in.Meeting Rooms 5/6 for a work
session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Chairman