1987-03-11March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 1.
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
March'll, 1987, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patric±a H. Cooke (arrived at 9:05 A.M.),
Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T, Way.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
Deputy County Executive; Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 9:08 A.M., by the
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom, to accept the items of information on the consent agenda. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item No. 4.1. Copy of letter from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Highway
Department, dated February 9, 1987, to Mr. John W. Kluge, Albemarle Farms, re: Route 627,
was received as information:
"Reference is made to your letter of January 16, 1987, addressed to
Gerald E. Fisher, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Rev. Peter T. Way and me. This
letter concerned Route 627 between Route 20 and your home.
I am in receipt of the Board members' reply to you dated January 16, 1987.
I am by copy of this letter to them advising them that right-of-way for the
widening and hard surfacing of Route 627 has been dedicated and I have
forwarded these deeds to my Culpeper Office for recording in the land
records of Albemarle County. This being the case, I will recommend to the
Board that Route 627 be included in the Six Year Plan when this plan is
updated. The current schedule is for the plan update to occur between July
1987 and February 1988. As funding currently stands, I anticipate Route 627
could be widened and hard surfaced as early as the 1989 construction season.
If you wish further details concerning this project or its construction
schedule, I suggest you get in touch with me."
Item No. 4.2. Copy of letter from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Highway
Department, dated February 9, 1987, to Mr. Harold I. Taylor, Jr., President, Northfields
Community Association, re: Route 1427, was received as information:
"Reference is made to your letter of December 9, 1986, and my response of
December 15, 1986, concerning your request for a traffic signal at the
intersection of Rio Road and Northfields Road.
The Department has reviewed traffic and accident data for this intersection
and finds that the intersection does not meet the warrants for a traffic
signal. As a part of this study, traffic volumes and accident data for Old
Brook Road were also studied.
For your information, I have included a copy of the traffic volumes obtained
at the intersection. Please note that the volume on the side street is the
higher of the volumes for that hour occurring on either of the two side
streets studied. Also attached is a copy of the comparison for warrants one
and two. These are the major comparisons which usually warrant a traffic
signal.
Our review of accidents covered the period from January 1, 1983 to
October 16, 1986. During that time, a total of sixteen accidents were
recorded. Of these accidents only seven were angle accidents which might
have been prevented had a signal been in place. In none of the years
studied did more than two angle-type accidents occur in this area. Although
no accident is unimportant, it should be understood that two accidents per
year which might have been prevented by a traffic signal is not considered
as an accident-prone location or as warranting the installation of a traffic
signal."
Item No. 4.3. The County Executive's Financial Report for the period of July 1, 1986 to
3anuary 31, 1987 was received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-605. The follow-
ing memorandum dated February 26, 1987 accompanied the report:
"Attached (on file) is the County's financial report for the period of
July 1, 1986 to January 31, 1987.
Listed below are the major department and object codes that have forced
certain functions to be above budget projections:
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Paqe 2
GENERAL FUND
Judicial Administration
Circuit Court Clerk
Public Safety Police
- Indexing Services
Overtime Compensation
Insurance-Public Liability
Insurance-Vehicles
Motor Vehicles-Replacement
Volunteer Fire Departments
Ambulance/Rescue Services
Parks, Recreation and Culture
Contribution to Regional Library
Nondepartmental
City/County Revenue Sharing Agreement
Refunds
SCHOOL FUND
Attendance and Health Services
Flow-Through
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
Public Safety
Fire Service Vehicles - New
% OBLIGATED
93.00%
110.45%
116.14%
76.24%
82.94%
88.50%
100.00%
il00%
1 00%
98.80%
112.23%
98.35%"
Item No. 4.4. Memorandum to the Board of Supervisors from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., dated
March 4, 1987, accompanied by a staff report on the status of the Greenwood Chemical site:
"The Greenwood Chemical Company site has been nominated to be placed on the
United States Environmental Protection Agency's National Priorities list for
Superfund cleanup. A technical evaluation of the site by the Environmental
Protection Agency's Region III personnel is planned for the near future.
This evaluation will be used to determine the requirements for cleanup of
the site.
Environmental Protection Agency has retained the services of Resource
Applications, Inc. to determine the extent of responsibility and liability
for the problems at the site related to the ultimate cleanup of the site.
representative of Resource Applications, Inc., has initiated the local
review of the site, and has indicated that an attempt will be made to
contact and interview all of the company's past employees, and all others
familiar with the site. The goal of this process will be to determine the
party or parties that will be held financially responsible for the cleanup
of the site."
A
Item No. 4.5. Memorandum to the Board of Supervisors from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., dated
March 6, 1987, entitled "School Fund Balance":
"Mr. Bowie requested information on the School Fund balance as to its
available use. The FY 85-86 Audit Report shows $409,604 in the School Fund,
$184,448 of which is unobligated as of July 1, 1986. Subsequent to the
audit, $5,025 was used as a reappropriation into FY 86-87 for carry forward
operational needs. Additionally, in balancing the FY 86-87 operational
budget, $158,706 was reserved for use in meeting operational expenses. The
use of carry over funds in the 86-87 operating budget are not recognized in
an audit report as an obligation of a fund balance at the end of an audit
year. Therefore, beyond the June 30 closing date of the 1985-86 Audit, the
unobligated School Fund balance has been decreased by $163,731 to a current
balance of $20,717. It is recommended that this amount be retained in the
School Fund.
For the current fiscal year, the School Fund balance is estimated to in-
crease approximately $440,000. Of this amount $425,000 has been included as
revenue in next year's operational budget. As you realize, the change in
the fund balance is an estimate, and will be determined in actual numbers by
the next audit. As you can see, the School Fund balance is being maintained
at a near zero level."
Item No. 4.6. Memorandum to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, from Ms. Karen L.
Morris, Director of Social Services, dated February 5, 1987, entitled "1986-87 Revenues".
Ms. Morris indicated in her memorandum that current projections show that the Department of
Social Services will have expended all its purchase allocation during March. A request has
been made for additional money, but to date no response has been received, although a previ-
ous response from the state indicated that localities will have to pick up the shortfalls if
a department overspends. It appears unlikely that the Department will receive the additional
funds.
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: May 8 and June 19, 1985.
Mr. Bowie read the minutes of June 19, 1985, pages 5 through the end and found them to
be in order. He then offered motion to approve the same. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6a.
Route 678.
Highway Matters:
Use of Revenue Sharing Funds for improvements to
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum to his office from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, Highway Department, dated February 13, 1987:
"I am writing you concerning the above captioned project which is the
revenue sharing improvement to Route 678 at Ivy.
As you are aware, the Department has approved funds in its 1986-87 budget to
match revenue sharing funds available to the County. These funds were
allocated with the understanding that this project would be under construc-
tion during the current fiscal year. From the current plan development and
right-of-way acquisition schedule, however, it appears it will be spring of
1988 before this project goes to construction. I have, therefore, been
advised that these revenue sharing funds should be transferred to improve-
ments to be constructed during this fiscal year or the application should be
withdrawn. If the application is withdrawn, a new application could be made
in the year in which the construction is to take place.
I recognize that it was the County's desire to fund this specific project
with revenue sharing funds and the County has not proposed to use revenue
sharing funds for other secondary projects. I think their desires can be
fulfilled, however, if they transfer the revenue sharing funds to a current
secondary project and then construct the Route 678 improvement using regular
secondary funds in a future year. This alternative is open to the Board.
They may wish to consider this alternative rather than withdrawing their
application for revenue sharing funds."
Mr. Agnor said the staff has examined Mr. Roosevelt's recommendation and is in agree-
ment, recognizing that the intersection is geared to the construction time frame for the
Meriwether Lewis School. Mr. Fisher asked if improvements to the intersection Would substan-
tially help during the construction of the Meriwether Lewis School. Mr. Agnor replied yes.
Mr. Fisher commented that he has received requests from citizens that the County require
contractors to use certain roads. Although that can not be required, if the improvement is
to be made, it seems to be of some value to do so as quickly as possible. He then asked if
it is the County's responsibility to obtain any right-of-way, which is necessary for the
project. Mr. Roosevelt replied yes. In addition to obtaining right-of-way, the County is
responsible for drawing the plans. He does not think it is possible for the County to get
the right-of-way, nor will the County be ready by the next construction season.
Mr. Fisher asked to which project the funds would be shifted. Mr. Roosevelt suggested
the funds be used for Route 727, on which he anticipates construction to begin shortly, or
the funds can be transferred to the plant mix schedule. Mr. Way said he agreed with Mr.
Roosevelt's suggestion and then offered motion to accept Mr. Roosevelt's recommendation to
transfer these Revenue Sharing Funds for improvements from the Route 678 project to either
Route 727 or a plant mix schedule for use in the Spring. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Seorgetown Road Improvements.
Mr. Lindstrom presented the following memorandum from himself, dated March 6, 1987, to
the Board:
"I have requested that the Highway Department request for 'safety improve-
ments' by the way of additional turn lanes on Georgetown Road be scheduled
for Wednesday, March llth's agenda, rather than waiting until the spring
review of the six-year secondary road plan. My reason for this is that Dan
Roosevelt has just recently received authorization to proceed with the
survey work on this road and I thought that the Board should indicate to him
how it felt about the improvements before he expended any substantial funds
in preparation for construction of the new turn lanes.
Dan and I traveled this road several weeks ago and Dan explained to me the
reasoning behind the proposal for the additional turn lanes. I understand
that he will have some sketches of the proposal for presentation at Wednes-
day's meeting and so I will not try to describe in detail the location or
nature of the proposed turn lanes, other than to say that they would be
center, left-hand turn lanes at three different locations along Georgetown
Road.
I object to the project for the following reasons:
I believe that the improvements will encourage speeding between Hydrau-
lic Road and Barracks Road along Georgetown Road. This speeding will
be a threat to the entirely residential development on both sides of
273
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 4
the road. I do not believe that the danger created for residents along
the road is offset by any real safety benefit to the public traveling
the road between Hydraulic Road and Barracks Road.
Because the stop lights at either end of Georgetown Road, at Hydraulic
Road and Barracks Road, will continue to create bottlenecks, I do not
believe that the additional turn lanes will make any significant
improvement in the travel time through the entire area. It will only
mean it will be possible to get from one bottleneck to the other
faster.
Because the construction of the left-hand turn lanes will utilize all
of the existing right-of-way, and will require additional right-of-way
acquisition at at least one point, substantial lengths of the existing
pedestrian path will be eliminated. Not only will the County have to
pay the construction cost to relocate the pedestrian path, we will also
have to acquire new right-of-way, possibly through condemnation.
Unless we are willing to replace this pedestrian path, the construction
of the new left-hand turn lanes will substantially increase the danger
to the many pedestrians who are now able to use the pedestrian path.
Again, I do not think there are any benefits to the public traveling
Georgetown Road by automobile which would offset the increased danger
to pedestrians along this route if we lose the pedestrian path.
Dan estimates the cost of this project to be around $220,000.00. There
must be other places in the County where money of this magnitude could
be spent without increasing safety hazards to pedestrians and residents
along the road for the marginal safety improvements to vehicular
traffic along the road.
Although I will leave the justification of this project to Dan, his explana-
tion to me was that by eliminating the need to slow or stop for left-hand
turning traffic along this road, the users of motor vehicles along this
route would feel more 'comfortable'. As Dan explained it, 'comfort' equates
to a feeling of 'safety'. Such a benefit seems to me to be very vague."
Mr. Lindstrom said at his request Georgetown Road was tentatively deleted from the
Six-Year Secondary Improvement Budget. He is not presenting a formal proposal to the Board,
but would like to hear Board members' reactions.
Mr. Roosevelt presented drawings of the three sections of Georgetown Road. Basically,
it is a two-lane road widened by development at various intersections to allow a left turn
lane at Terrell Subdivision and right turn lanes at Biltmore Drive and Georgetown Road, and
an existing commercial entrance at the day care school, the point at which The Commons on
Georgetown is proposed. Improvements to be done by the developer will be the loss of right
turn lanes at Georgetown Court, with left turn lanes at The Commons, Georgetown Court and
Biltmore Drive. The Highway Department's improvements will include widening the north side
of Georgetown Road, thus restoring the right turn lanes at The Commons and Georgetown Court.
Mr. Roosevelt said with regard to the jogging pathway, there are approximately 500 feet of
roadway that would be in conflict with the improvements and so the pathway would have to be
relocated. Mr. Lindstrom asked if additional right-of-way would have to be acquired. Mr.
Roosevelt replied yes. He then described the improvements the Highway Department proposes
between Old Forge Road and Idlewood Drive. There is also a curb and gutter proposed on this
section, to take care of drainage problems, estimated to cost $200,000. With regard to all
of the proposals, he feels that he could support eliminating only some of this work. He does
not think that the additional costs to the right-of-way, the County's loss of pathway, and
the cost involved simply to retain a right turn lane at these two locations are cost effec-
tive. He does recommend that the curb and gutter section be included in the project.
Mr. Lindstrom said increasing speed between the two stop lights and loss of the pedes-
trian path has caused him considerable concern. He then asked what the improvements will do
in terms of efficiency in the area. Mr. Roosevelt said the project will make it a more
comfortable drive.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the problem on the road is the speed and maybe these
improvemen%s will make people more aware of the residential neighborhood. Although the Board
cannot do it today, an amendment to the Six Year Plan is needed because this project is not
on the list. If Board members do not object, he would suggest that Mr. Roosevelt continue
the survey work and then the Board look at the project when it reviews the SecOndary Road
Improvements Budget. Mrs. Cooke said she has supported Mr. Roosevelt's recommendations for
that road from the beginning and her viewpoint of the area differs from that of Mr.
Lindstrom. However, if Mr. Roosevelt thinks it is in the best interest of safety on the road
to eliminate the one area indicated, she will go along with that recommendation. She is
concerned that with the tremendous amount of development proposed in the area, everyone
should be mindful of safety on both sides of the road.
Agenda Item No. 6c.
18, 1987).
Resolution to Abandon Portion of Elk Drive (Deferred from February
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum, from his office to the Board, dated
May 5, 1987 concerning the School Division's response on the abandonment of Elk's Drive:
"On file is the response requested by the Board regarding school bus access
to Elk Drive. It indicates that entering and exiting Elk Drive via the
intersection with Route 250 near the bridge will be difficult, if not
hazardous, for buses needing to transport children to Stony Point or Stone
Robinson, which would require a left turn onto Route 250 in a congested
intersection. They recommend a cul-de-sac at Route 250, with access to Elk
2'74
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
pa__Ra~_5
Drive via Route 20, an option the residents and Virginia Department of
Transportation did not support.
An alternative is to allow the school bus drivers access through the emer-
gency gate, either manually or by radio operated automatic gate. A second
alternative is to have the children picked up and discharged at that gate,
with the bus accessing the pickup and discharge point via Route 20 and Elk
Drive. The School Division's preference is the automatic gate.
There are currently four buses using the road. State law requires that
school children be picked up within a mile of their homes. School Division
policy provides transportation as close to the homes as possible. The
cul-de-sac and gate area are within State law parameters.
Staff recommends automatic access through the gate."
Mr. Fisher commented that the gates are made of soft wood and will be constantly in need
of replacement. He thinks that a gate would be very difficult to make work. Mr. Agnor
commented that later this morning the Board will hear that funds available from the state to
build the entrance for the Rivanna Park will not be available if Elk's Drive was made into a
cul-de-sac at Route 250. Mr. Bowie said the residents on Elk Drive have expressed on two
occasions that they would prefer the cul-de-sac. The residents are not in agreement with
blocking the cul-de-sac at Route 250. He thinks the problem could properly be resolved with
the pass-through, whether automatic or electronic. He does not see any reason to defer
action on this further. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to adopt the following Resolution of
Intent:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby state its intent to abandon approximately 200 feet of
State Route 1421 (Elk's Drive) under Section 33.1-155 of the Code of
Virginia. The abandonment is to be effective after construction of the
existing roadway to act as the entrance road to the new Rivanna Park.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion.
the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley (Mr. Henley prefaced his vote by saying
he feels the same as Mr. Fisher does about automatic gates, but he will support the abandon-
ment.), Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Horne said, for clarification, the abandonment is to be effective at a later date.
At such time as the Rivanna Park entrance system is designed, the abandonment will then take
place and will be effective after reconstruction of the existing roadway to act as the
entrance road to the new Rivanna Park.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bowie asked if the survey work, etc., is still on schedule for the Free Bridge on
Route 250 East. Mr. Roosevelt replied yes.
Mr. Lindstrom thanked Mr. Roosevelt for installing "No Littering" signs at Ivy Road and
Route 676.
Mr. Way said he recently expressed concern about a road located in his district.
Children must walk along this road for approximately two miles to the bus stop. He was
informed by Mr. Roosevelt that since 1949 someone had sold a couple of acres of land. There-
fore, that is considered a subdivision, so the Highway Department cannot build a road. He
would like to know if there is anyway that these people can get assistance in building a
road. Mr. Horne said there is no way to get assistance as long as current State laws are in
effect. The road can be reconstructed to State standards and then requested to be taken into
the State system. Mr. Way asked if the cost could be shared with the County. Mr. Fisher
said if the property owners come up with some of the necessary funds, the County might
pate in the costs. Mr. Horne said the staff would be glad to look at this road and
compare it to other roads chosen for shared funding.
Mr. Fisher said last week he went to Culpeper for a meeting with representatives from
the Department of Transportation and the counties in the Culpeper District, and the City of
Charlottesville. Secretary Watts, Commissioner Pethtel and Mr. Jack Hodge, Director of
Engineering for the Department of Transportation, the Culpeper District Engineer, and all the
Resident Engineers were present and talked about transportation issues from 10:00 A.M. until
2:00 P.M. It was a symbolic ac~ on the part of the Department of Transportation to build
better communications with the localities. The County's problem of trying to get roads
that are shown in the Comprehensive Plan into the system without full development was dis-
cussed. Secretary Watts indicated that the General Assembly had made considerable changes
for some of the Northern counties, but none of the changes are available to be used anywhere
else in the state. Transportation districts will be allowed so property owners can be
assessed special fees for improving roads. He thinks that the Board should look at some
options, decide which might be best for this County and push for something in next year's
General Assembly session. Two counties (Fairfax and Prince William) have the authority to
take cash proffers in zoning cases for road construction and construction of other public
facilities.
On the progress of the Route 29 North projects, the committee has not met for several
weeks. His impression is that the Department of Transportation is trying to make the ex-
pressway concept work. He is not sure the Department is doing it the way he thinks it should
275
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
hopefully there will be more information available in a couple of weeks.
progress is being made.
He feels that
Agenda Item No. 8. Request for Cat Rabies Vaccination Ordinance.
Dr. Richard Prindle, Director of the Thomas Jefferson Health District and representing
the Commissioner of the Department of Health, summarized the following letter dated February
26, 1987, from Dr. C. M. G. Buttery, State Health Commissioner:
"The rabies problem is increasing in Virginia. During the first seven weeks
of 1987, 44 rabid animals were reported compared to 12 for the same time
last year. The rapid geographic expansion of the raccoon epizootic (an
epidemic occurring in animals) is significant. Last year Alleghany, Caro-
line, Essex, Goochland, Henrico, and King and Queen Counties reported rabid
raccoons for the first time. Rabid skunks, believed to be associated with
the raccoon outbreak, were reported from south of the James River in
Buckingham and Cumberland Counties. This year King William and Cumberland
Counties have already reported their first rabid raccoons; the latter
confirms the spread of the raccoon outbreak south of the James River.
In Northern Virginia the number of animal rabies cases increased between
1985 and 1986 in Clarke, Fairfax, Loudoun, Shenandoah and Warren Counties.
Several counties in southwest Virginia continue to report rabid skunks as
part of a larger outbreak affecting the midwest United States.
Since there are presently no effective direct methods to control wildlife
rabies, we depend on indirect methods to protect the public from this
universally fatal disease. The most important protection is vaccination of
dogs and cats against rabies. Because pets are so much a part of family
life, they are much more likely than wild animals to expose large numbers of
people when they become rabid. Since 1980, 33 cats and three dogs have been
diagnosed as rabid in Virginia. This coincides with the nationwide trend
where more cats are consistently reported rabid. The number of rabid dogs
decreased dramatically in the mid 1950's when effective dog rabies vaccines
became available and stray dOg control became a priority. Virginia pre-
sently has a law requiring all dogs over six months of age to be vaccinated
against rabies.
Cat rabies has become headline news in Virginia since two rabid cats were
reported from Hanover County early in 1987. Six people underwent expensive
(approximately $500 per person) rabies post-exposure treatment as a result
of exposure to these unvaccinated, pet cats. Fauquier and Rockbridge
Counties have also reported rabid cats this year resulting in another six to
nine people receiving post exposure treatment.
It would be a grave mistake not to take every reasonable action to prevent
human rabies cases in Virginia. Accordingly, I request that your locality
adopt an ordinance as soon as possible, requiring cats to be immunized
against rabies. Section 15.1-28.5 of the Code of Virginia allows the
governing body of any county, city or town to require by ordinance 'that all
domestic cats be inoculated against rabies by a currently licensed veteri-
narian or by an animal technician certified pursuant to Section 54-786.3'.
To date at least 35 localities in Virginia have adopted a cat rabies vacci-
nation ordinance. The risk of rabies transmission to people is sufficiently
great to warrant this action in all remaining jurisdictions.
The enactment of an ordinance in your locality has been discussed with your
District Health Director, Dr. Richard A. Prindle. He agrees with me that
such an ordinance is indicated. Adopting it is a desirable step towards
ensuring that the people living in your locality are protected against
transmission of this disease by their pets."
Dr. Prindle said during January and February, 1987, there were four rabid cats found.
The result was 12 to 15 people being immunized, costing between $500 and $750 each. Some 35
localities in the state have passed this law and, in the immediate area, the City of
Charlottesville and the County of Louisa. The purpose of this action would be to protect
cats and to protect people. Mr. Bowie asked how the regulation can be enforced. Dr. Prindle
said enforcement is not easy, but the owner of the cat is held liable should any problem
arise. Mr. Bowie asked if any of the localities have attempted a collar requirement. Dr.
Prindle said not to his knowledge. Mr. St. John asked if special clinics will be held for
inoculation. Dr. Prindle said there are no immediate plans to set up special clinics,
although there are regular clinics in various places in the county. Dr. Prindle said last
year in February, 1986, there were 15 rabid animals of which 11 were raccoons. This year
there have already been 58 rabid animals, 51 of which are raccoons and four cats.
Mr. Bowie said he has a problem with this ordinance if the requirement leads to collars,
licensing and more tags for sale in the County Office Building. Mr. Agnor said there is no
licensing required. Mr. St. John said adoption of this ordinance requires a tag from the
veterinarian's office, but no contact with the County Building. Mr. Fisher asked the urgency
of action by the Board. Dr. Prindle said action is needed quickly simply because of the fact
that there have been four times more rabies cases this year than in previous years. It is
worthy of consideration. Mrs. Cooke said she is prepared to support this request. Mr.
Fisher suggested that the Board get a copy of an ordinance today and take up this request
later in the afternoon.
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Paqe 7
Agenda Item No. 7. Adopt Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance in the
Rural Areas District, re: Kernel Lot.
Mr. Agnor said the County Attorney's office prepared a draft at the Board's request
rewording Section 10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for compliance with regulations
in the Ordinance on a parcel as it existed at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance in
December, 1980. It is the staff's recommendation that a resolution of intent be adopted to
amend the Ordinance and transmitted to the Planning Commission for its review and recommenda-
tion.
Mr. Way asked that Mr. Horne explain the implications of the amendment. Mr. Horne said
this amendment would tend to reduce the ability of a significant number of rural property
owners to take advantage of certain developments rights. It will be nearly impossible in
many cases to add property to a tract as it existed in 1980 in order to provide some of the
components that are necessary to redivide that property. The most widely-used components are
the ability to get additional land fronting on a state-maintained road so that an internal
private road can be built and run to a series of parcels to allow redivision of those par-
cels. This section is also used to enhance the existing parcel as to its drainfield capabil-
ity. This amendment would reduce a fairly significant percentage of development rights that
could be realized in parcels in the rural areas. Mr. Fisher asked what effect this amendment
would have on applications such as the Red Acres subdivision. Mr. Horne said Red Acres would
not have been able to do the division in the format presented, but could have moved the roads
around some and accomplished the same thing.
Mr. Fisher said he feels the staff's current method of interpreting the ordinance is
encouraging people to redivide and add, etc., in order to gain development rights. Mr. Horne
said in his opinion that is not correct. Even with this amendment there will be people
attempting to rearrange boundary lines. The biggest concern of staff is that small scale
developments will be affected by this change and an explanation of the change will be diffi-
cult to explain.
Mr. Fisher said he thought the Red Acres application was an abomination. He also thinks
it actually did grant more development in an area where the Board is trying not to encourage
development. He thought the staff~had misinterpreted the ordinance and the whole process was
bungled. He was upset and is trying to find some reasonable way to address that kind of
blatant abuse of what he thought an owner's rights were under the ordinance. Mr. Horne said,
concerning the Red Acres proposal, a parcel that had no development rights was combined into
the overall division to be used for road frontage. The road that was to serve the internal
parcels was on a parcel that did not have the right to be divided at all. It was not used to
create development rights; it was used specifically to provide road frontage to parcels that
did not have road frontage. Mr. Fisher said that lot indirectly provided at least one more
lot on the ten acre parcel than could have been done if the road had to be physically placed
on that parcel. Mr. Horne said some of the internal collection of parcels did not have
physical road frontage as of December 1980. If the ordinance were applied as currently
~drafted, they could not have done any of those internal divisions.
Mr. Lindstrom said one of his major concerns is that the ordinance is ambiguous and
where there is ambiguity in the ordinance, the Board must give the benefit of the doubt to
the property owner. There is a list of items in the Zoning Ordinance that must be met, such
as the two acre minimum, setbacks, road frontage, etc. The problem is that the staff has
been requiring that only some of the items on the list be met on the parcels that generate
the development. If some of the items are required to be met, all should be met or the staff
is being arbitrary. This amendment attempts to make it clear that all of the items on the
list must be met on the parcel that is generating the development rights without using any
property from an adjoining parcel. He thinks the Planning Commission should review this
proposed amendment. It does make a fairly significant difference in the number of rural area
parcels that can be developed.
Mr. Way said he understands that this is an attempt to get at the specific problem that
happened at Red Acres. In his opinion, to solve that one problem will put unreasonable
restrictions on a large number of people in the County. Mr. Lindstrom said the Zoning
Ordinance was specifically designed to allow a certain amount of development over and above
the family division in the rural areas. When it was adopted there were certain requirements
that had to be met in order for the development rights to be realized. In his opinion, there
has been a slip in the way the ordinance has been administered. Some of the things called
for in the ordinance are required to be met in order to realize the development rights and
others are not. He thinks that this amendment would cut down on a number of development
rights but he does not think it is contrary to the original intent of the ordinance. He
thinks the original intent of the ordinance has been liberalized to the extent that the staff
is allowing a substantial number of lots to be developed over and above the original intent
of the ordinance.
Mr. Way said he does not object to holding a public hearing on this, but is not sure he
agrees with this amendment. As he reads it, someone with a two acre lot who could not get a
septic drainfield on the lot would not be allowed to buy a half-acre from a neighbor in order
to have enough room for a drainfield. Mr. Lindstrom said it would not preclude that person
from building on the existing lot. If he wanted to create new lots that needed additional
land in order to meet drainfield requirements, it would then preclude the person from
dividing the property.
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said there are some differences between the Zoning
Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance which cause confusion. There has been mention of
family divisions which are not exempt under the Zoning Ordinance. He thinks that if this
amendment is sent to the Planning Commission it may be a while before it can get back to the
Board because it is a complicated issue. The Commission needs time to analyze the proposal.
Mr. St. John said the Board is only seeing the tip of the iceberg here. There is no way
the Board can understand the implications of what is being proposed nor can it understand the
basis for the way the present language has been administered without an indepth work session.
277
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Pa~a 8
Mrs. Cooke asked if it would be appropriate to request the Planning Commission to go through
the process and then report back to the Board, and then the Board go through the same pro-
cess. Mr. Fisher said there is no guarantee that the Planning Commission will send a similar
amendment back to the Board. His understanding from the staff is that it has serious reser-
vations about the implications. He would like for the staff and Planning Commission to look'
at ways of dealing with the problem and recommend something to the Board. Mr. Henley said he
is not in favor of sending this to the Planning Commission until he understands it better
himself.
Mr. St. John said he has done over fifty hours of research on the issues that are raised
by this situation. He has talked to seven other county attorneys and planning directors
about how they are attempting to preserve their agricultural land. He has serious reserva-
tions about this amendment, but he does not want to voice those reservations now. Mr.
Lindstrom said he is anxious to have this explained to him because he does not understand why
there is such a problem. He does feel that there is a legal problem with the way the ordi-
nance is being administered. Mr. Fisher said he feels the same way; the ordinance is not
being enforced correctly. Mr. St. John said he thinks that a plain reading of the ordinance
mandates that it be interpreted and administered exactly as it is now. The only reason there
is an ambiguity is that the Board is saying that the way it reads now is not the way the
Board intended it to read. Mrs. Cooke said she would appreciate a work session. Mr.
Lindstrom said he hopes that when this work session is held, that the issue is dealt with
pragmatically because he has sensed from the legal staff and Planning staff such a vested
position in this that he is concerned about how it is presented. He has no objection to
having this further discussed. He hopes that the staff's report will be objective. Mr.
Bowie said he also has no objection to a work session. He does not know what the intent was
when the ordinance was adopted in 1980. Right now he does not want to send this to anyone
because he does not perceive the problems that others perceive. Mr. Fisher suggested that a
work session be set for April 15 at 2:00 P.M.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to set a work session for April 15, 1987 at 2:00 P.M., to
discuss a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance - Development of "Kernel" lots. Mr. Way
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Police Reserve Study.
Mr. Bowie summarized the following report he prepared dated March 6, 1987:
"One area of increasing local costs during the past few years has been the
Police Department, the first full year of operation being FY 1985. While
the total cost of the Police Department was about $600,000 higher than the
Sheriff's Department, the reduction in the State funds increased the local
cost by almost $1 million.
Last full year of Sheriff's Department:
$901,717); local cost $291,665
$1,193,382 (less State funds of
Police Department $1,770,728; (less State funds $541,594); local cost
$1,129,134
For the current year (86/87) the local cost has risen to $1,233,517.
While one of the primary responsibilities of government is to provide for
the public safety, we do, however, have the responsibility of looking for
alternatives to provide needed services. The 1987-88 budget requests nine
additional police officers (seven for patrol). The need for increases in
departmental strength was discussed in the Daily Progress. While the
request for the nine officers will be discussed during our budget sessions,
it appears obvious that as the County grows, further police strength will be
needed. For both the safety of the officer and the public, two officers per
patrol unit, especially in the rural part of the county is the optimum.
With the costs involved, it could be years before this is possible, if ever.
One alternative which could provide needed additional personnel would be the
Volunteer Reserve Law Officer.
Volunteers: Albemarle County already relies heavily on volunteers for many
of its programs. The fire departments, rescue squads, virtually all commis-
sions and boards, and within the Police Department the Victim Assistance
Program, are all staffed largely with volunteers. The concept of trained,
qualified volunteers could well be utilized by the Police Department.
Reserve Law Officers: Throughout the United States reserve law officer
units are used in 2,500 cities and counties in 49 states. Within Virginia,
I was able to locate six departments that utilize these officers: Bristol,
Staunton, and the counties of Augusta, Chesterfield, Roanoke and Arlington.
In January a questionnaire was forwarded to each department to try to deter
mine their opinions about these units. All responded within two weeks.
Copies of the full responses are on file in the Clerk's office. All indica-
ted complete satisfaction with the reserve units. A summary of information
follows:
Units seem to be from 16 to 20 officers.
Morale is high, turnover is very low. Some have waiting lists.
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 9
Although some units in other states utilize public advertising to
recruit members, those in Virginia use word of mouth primarily.
Applicants are screened through a complete background investigation,
interviewed by a board of officers, and in one case the Reid Psycho-
logical Test.
Ail require formal and on the job training.
Ail require minimum service (16 to 20 hours per month) plus a unit
meeting devoted to training.
None of the departments pay any stipend or expense reimbursement to
reserves. (Roanoke reports a small allotment for service on Hallo-
ween.)
Ail are uniformed in the same or similar uniforms as the Police
Department.
Ail but Arlington are apparently armed. Much of the initial training
and continuing training is devoted to firearms and self-defense
training.
Type of Member: Membership seems to be from all walks of life; one article
stating that membership includes truck drivers, dentists and other profes-
sionals, former police officers and military MPs. Priority in some units is
given to correctional officers.
Other information includes:
Assignments: The primary assignment for reserve officers is to provide a
second officer in patrol cars. In addition to increased morale and effi-
ciency of our patrol unit, there is an indirect savings in this procedure.
Often, even in traffic accidents, a second officer is needed. With one
officer per car (as in Albemarle County) it is necessary to dispatch a
second unit. With two officers in the car, the second unit is not needed,
thus increasing the patrol availability without increasing the number of
units. The effectiveness of the patrol force could be doubled without the
addition of a single unit or supervisor.
Also, it is reported that with two officers in the car, incidents of resis-
ting arrest and assaults on police officers are greatly reduced.
Other assignments include:
* Crowd control at parades, county fairs, football games, etc;
Full unit call-up in emergencies such as flood assistance, snow emer-
gency, lost child search, etc. (All members of the unit are available
whenever needed and are expected to be as 'street ready' as the paid
officers.);
Man information desk and phones at the Police Department, especially
after hours;
After sufficient training, reserve officers are permitted to operate
alone in some departments for duties such as traffic control and
serving warrants. (Note: Chief Johnstone has testified that the
equivalent of two full-time officers is needed to deliver warrants.)
Costs: Those responding stated that the costs are:
Background investigation
Initial outfitting (uniforms)
Annual maintenance (uniforms)
$50 to $100
$500
$1oo
The responses were fairly consistent on costs. There could be some addi-
tional costs such as overtime pay for paid officers to conduct training,
etc., but these were not mentioned by any departments.
Cost Savings: In their responses, those who indicated, stated that if they
did not have the reserve units they would have to add from four to six paid
officers to the force. Arlington County did not have a figure for this, but
stated that the department saved from 600 to 700 hours paid overtime because
of the reserves. In a recent article in the Daily Progress, the Charlottes-
ville Police Department announced that the Explorer Scouts contributed 2,544
hours directing traffic, and other services including backup patrol officers
and patrolling the downtown mall at Christmas. One department reported that
its reserve officers logged 17,800 hours during 1985-86 and that ten full
time police officers would be required to replace the unit.
Converting the above savings, based on the 86/87 Police Department budget
gives:
Cost of four to six new officers - $173,580 to $260,370 (based on new
officer costs from 87/88 budget);
Cost of 600 to 700 hours overtime - $10,800 to $12,600;
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Paqe 10
Cost savings for two officers if reserves are used to deliver warrants
- $86,790;
Cost savings for 20 officers to allow two per vehicle - $847,900.
Conclusions:
Where used, police reserves do increase police services while reducing
costs.
Albemarle County could increase the total availability of law enforce-
ment officers through creation of a Reserve Law Officers Unit. This
would improve efficiency and safety for both the patrol officers and
the public.
3. Such a unit could save the county as much as $250,000 annually, ini-
tially, and unlimited amounts in the future.
Such a unit would increase civil awareness of the department through
citizen participation.
e
Even if there were no decrease in paid officers made possible by this
unit, there could be considerable increase in protection and services
to Albemarle County citizens, through the availability of 20 - 50
trained, volunteer reserve officers.
Recommendations:
That the Board of Supervisors consider the use of reserve officers for
the Police Department;
That a committee be formed to investigate the matter in detail and
report to the Board before June 1, 1987;
That the committee be composed of the Deputy County Executive for
Administration, and representatives from the Police Department, the
Sheriff's Department and the Joint Security Complex. Additional input
will probably be required from the County Attorney and the Personnel
Department as would administrative support;
4. I would also request assignment to this committee."
Mr. Way said the report is very impressive and has implications that could be advanta-
geous to the County. His understanding is that a committee would be formed to look into this
matter and report back to the Board. Mr. Bowie said that is correct and that input on the
legal ramifications be solicit.ed from the County Attorney. Mr. St. John said he does not
have any objections and he does not see any legal problems. Mr Bowie pointed out that the
General Assembly passed a law specifically allowing police reserves where they have them to
be included in the county's workman's compensation.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks that a patrolman, somebody who is now Out there and would
be the beneficiary of this program, should be on the committee. This program sounds like it
has great potential, but he is~concerned about how the screening for these people will be
done, particularly if they are going to be armed. The pressures are tremendous and the
reaction of the people is important. Mr. Bowie commented that the screening process is an
important part of the study.
Mr. Fisher said he is prepared to support the appointment of a committee. He has a
number of reservations about people not qualified taking on such responsibilities if they are
not trained carefully. Provided that can be done and there are volunteers willing to take on
this task, he thinks this idea should be pursued.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to accept the recommendations of the report that a committee be
formed to investigate the use of reserve officers for the Police Department and a report
brought back to the Board before June 1, 1987. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion and said she
also has some of the same concerns expressed by the Chairman. Mr. Way suggested that it be
included in the motion that one of the committee members be a patrolman. Mr. Bowie and Mrs.
Cooke agreed to incorporate that into the motion and second. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10.
Providers.
Approve Grant Application for Public/Private Section Transportation
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of
Community Development, dated February 18, 1987, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County
Executive:
"Please find enclosed (on file) information regarding a grant proposal
prepared by TJPDC and sponsored by the City of Charlottesville seeking
funding for a marketing and advertising program to promote the services of
all private and public sector transportation providers in the City and
Albemarle County. The proposal has been discussed at length by the Public
Private Sector Transportation Alternatives Committee (PPSTA) of the MPO'S
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Technical Committee, of which I am a member. The PPSTA, which has identi-
fied marketing of transit alternatives as a high priority in the
Charlottesville/Albemarle area, supports the proposal.
A preliminary grant proposal was submitted on February 13, 1987 to the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). If approved, assistance would
be provided through its 'State Aid for Experimental Mass Transportation and
Ridesharing Programs, FY 88.' This grant program requires a five percent
local match of total grant eligible costs. As you will see, the total
budget for this proposal is $53,500. Under a formula developed to allocate
the local share support, Albemarle County is requested to contribute
$400.00. This participation would be necessary only if the proposal were to
be funded. Several local participants, including the University Transit
Service (UTS), the Chamber of Commerce, the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport and several private providers, have agreed to contribute their
shares.
Planning staff has reviewed the proposal and supports the concept presented.
The marketing of the wide range of local transportation services available
in the area seems consistent with the County's desire to involve all public
and private providers in the delivery of transportation services, increase
interest in public transportation and promote cooperation and coordination
among transportation providers. This proposal directly fulfills objectives
of the MPO to fairly involve private providers in transportation services.
The request for County contribution is a small part of the total funding
requirements and the return for the County's participation could potentially
be quite beneficial for public and private providers, as well as transporta-
tion users. Staff is not able to comment on the potential effectiveness of
the proposed elements of the program as these are primarily marketing items.
Staff does feel that VDOT, in considering the proposal, is most qualified to
evaluate the proposal and make appropriate recommendations."
Mr. Agnor said the staff recommends that funding be authorized for the $400 and that it
be allocated from Community Development's budget in this current year. (Mr. St. John left
the meeting at 11:15 A.M.) Mr. Fisher said he cannot see any benefits from the program. It
looks like someone is being hired to update the CTS brochure. Mr. Agnor said the purpose of
the brochures are to indicate the availability of services the Committee believes people are
unaware of.
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development, referenced a chart included in the
information (on file) entitled "Costs of Possible Marketing Tools for Campaign" and said
initially when the entire listing of information was developed by TJPDC staff, it was
intended to identify all the possible outlets for advertising. After identifying the various
ways to advertise, TJPDC identified in brackets those that it did not feel would be appropri-
ate as part of the campaign. Although this is listed as a CTS brochure, it is a CTS spon-
sored and City of Charlottesville sponsored program. The actual brochure is to be a regional
transportation services brochure that will be targeted to all transportation providers in the
area. It is to include all of the participating public and private people identified earlier
and to include JAUNT, taxicab associations and the Scottsville Bus Line. He provided the
following history as to why this proposal was developed. The MPO has in its work program
this year a study that the County requested several years ago to look at alternatives for
public and private transportation services in the urban area. A committee was formed to
oversee the work to be done by TJPDC staff in this fiscal year. One of the items identified
as a potential benefit to public and private transportation services was the idea of a
marketing and advertising program. These monies became available through the Virginia
Department of Transportation at a very attractive state/local proportion, requiring only five
percent local funds. The committee felt this was an opportunity to do something different
and innovative with regard to transportation services. This has not been done before and is
an opportunity for using state money to promote both public and private transportation
services in the area, promote how they complement each other, and how a combination of the
services can be used.
Mrs. Cooke said she finds it interesting that the Yellow Pages have been deleted as a
form of advertising. From personal experience, she finds the Yellow Pages to be the single
most effective form of advertising. Mr. Cilimberg said as a way of promoting a number of
different services, the committee did not feel there was one advertisement that it could use
to promote all of the services, but instead the service providers themselves, who use the
Yellow Pages, would be the most appropriate advertiser. Mrs. Cooke asked why it is necessary
to form an agency to do something that an individual provider can do quite effectively. Mr.
Cilimberg said the idea is to promote and coordinate several providers that do some of the
same things, thereby providing alternatives for people.
Mrs. Nancy O'Brien, Executive Director, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission,
said instead of using the Yellow Pages, the telephone company has agreed to include transpor-
tation as one of the listings in the public services part of the directory at no cost. She
thinks this is a unique and important grant. All of the agencies involved are enthusiastic
about the opportunity to look at transportation in the urban area as a system instead of as a
bunch of competing entities. It is hoped that this will increase the public ridership of
JAUNT. In the urban area, JAUNT's funding is in part based on its having a certain degree of
public ridership. This is to be a regional transportation brochure that gets mailed to
everyone in the urban area. Mr. Fisher said it is easy to see why a number of the providers
would ban together to get federal funds to advertise their services, but he questions whether
it is an appropriate use of such funds. He would like to know how much of these funds are
going to salaries, benefits, i.e., expenses of personnel, and how much directly to brochures,
etc. Mrs. O'Brien said approximately $10,000 is for staff support. Most of the money is for
the brochures, television and advertising campaigns.
281
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 12
Mr. Bowie said normally he does not support this type of request, but for several years
Board members have discussed how to encourage people to use public transportation. Mr.
Lindstrom said if more people were using public transit, there would be fewer problems with
other transportation systems such as the roads. He thinks that spending $400 to endorse the
principle of encouraging people to use public and private mass transit systems is acceptable.
He also thinks that TJPDC is an appropriate place to have this grant administered. Mr. Way
said he concurs with Mr. Lindstrom. There are some benefits that can be derived from this
program for the citizens. As a member of the JAUNT Board, a primary goal is the use of rural
transportation and the rural routes. He thinks it is unfortunate that that type of
information was not included in the material sent to the Board.
Mrs. Cooke asked if this is a one-time request. Mrs. O'Brien responded yes. Mr. Fisher
said he supports public transportation. He will support the request. Mrs. Cooke said she
also can support this as a one-time request. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to authorize the
staff to allocate $400 from the Community Development's budget for the County's share of a
marketing and advertising program to promote the services of all private and public sector
transportation providers in the City and Albemarle County. Mr. Way seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Authorize Application for State Recreational Access Funds for
Rivanna Park. (Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 11:40 A.M.)
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from his staff dated March 4, 1987 to the
Board:
"Attached is a draft resolution regarding a request to the Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation and the Department of Conservation and Historic
Resources, by the County and City for recreational access funds to be used
at Rivanna Park. Preliminary indications from the Virginia Department of
Transportation and the Department of Conservation and Historic Resources are
that if the section of Elk's Drive being considered is abandoned, then both
Departments will recommend the use of access funds for:
Intersection improvements at Route 20 and Elk's Drive;
Widening of Elk's Drive to the park entrance;
Construction of the park road from Elk's Drive to the first
parking lot entrance.
If Elk's Drive remains a through road, however, the Virginia Department of
Transportation will only support a park entrance directly off of Route 20
for access funds.
In requesting these funds, the resolution also addresses the following
matters:
Ail additional right-of-way and utility costs must be borne by
the County and City;
Park entrance road will be designated a 'Virginia Byway'; and
Additional funding required, beyond that amount allowed by the
State, will be provided by the County and City in order to
complete the road construction project.
We have also requested the City's adoption of this resolution, and recom-
mended your adoption authorizing the Chairman to sign the resolution on
behalf of the County."
Mr. Fisher asked if it is known how much money will be involved. Mr. Agnor responded
approximately $300,000, but it can go beyond that amount. Mr. Fisher said it seems this is a
way to utilize available state funds to do something the County and City would otherwise have
to do themselves.
Mr. Way offered motion to adopt the following resolution, for signature by the Chairman
and Mayor, requesting the DePartment of Transportation and the Department of Conservation and
Historic Resources to consider recreational access funds being used at Rivanna Park:
W~EREAS, The Rivanna Park is owned and is to be developed by the County
of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville as a regional recreation
facility serving the residents of Albemarle County, the City of Charlottes-
ville and adjoining counties; and
WHEREAS, the facility is in need of adequate access; and
WHEREAS, adequate access can be provided by the improvement of the
intersection of State Routes 20 and 1421; the widening of Route 1421 from
Route 20 to the park entrance; and the construction of the park road from
Route 1421 to the first entrance to the parking lot located southeast of the
ball diamonds;
WHEREAS, all right-of-way and utility costs necessary for the access
road construction will be provided by the County and the City from the
Rivanna Park project fund at no cost to the State;
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
WHEREAS, the procedure governing the allocation of recreational access
funds set forth in Virginia Code Section 33.1-223, as amended, requires
joint action by the Director of Conservation and Historic Resources and the
Highway and Transportation Commission; and
WHEREAS, a statement of policy agreed upon between the said Director
and Commission approves the use of such funds for the construction of access
roads to publicly-owned recreational areas; and
WHEREAS, it appears to the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
("the Board") and the Council of the City of Charlottesville ("the Council")
that all requirements of the laws have been met to permit the Director of
Conservation and Historic Resources to designate the Rivanna Park as a
recreational facility and further permit the Virginia Highway and Transpor-
tation Commission to provide funds for access to this public recreation area
in accordance with Virginia Code Section 33.1-223, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Board acknowledges that pursuant to the provisions of
Virginia Code Sections 33.1-223 and 33.1-62, as amended, the access road
shall be designated a "Virginia Byway" and recommends the State Highway and
Transportation Commission in cooperation with the Director of Conservation
and Historic Resources take the appropriate action to implement this desig-
nation. Further the Board agrees, in keeping with the intent of Virginia
Code Section 33.1-63, to use its good offices to reasonably protect the
aesthetic and cultural value of this road;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County and the Council of the City of Charlottesville that the
Director of Conservation and Historic Resources is requested to designate
the Rivanna Park as a public recreational area; and to recommend to the
State Highway and Transportation Commission that recreational access funds
be allocated for an access road to serve said park; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board and Council give their respec-
tive assurances that matching funds will be provided dollar for dollar from
the Rivanna Park project fund for all recreation access funds contributed in
excess of $200,000 up to the maximum contribution allowable, and that if
additional funding is needed to complete the road construction, that addi-
tional funding will be provided for in full from the Rivanna Park project
fund; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Virginia Highway and Transportation
Commission is hereby requested to allocate the necessary recreational access
funds to provide a suitable access road as hereinbefore described.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the foregoing motion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 12. Request for Extension - Moderate Rehabilitation Grant.
Mr. Agnor said the staff requested from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
an extension for up to one year to complete the Section 8, 240 Moderate Rehabilitation Grant
program. An answer has not been received on the request. The staff did find out that the
governing body must authorize an official request for the extension. The request does not
ask for additional funding, only to use funds presently available.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to authorize the staff to request up to a one year extension
of the Moderate Rehabilitation Grant. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
Mr. Horne said there may be some budgetary implications to eXtension of the complete
program such as direct County funding of staff that would not be covered by the payments from
HUD. There would likely be the need for more staff to continue the full-blown grant at
marketing and outreach. The County can receive a defined amount of ongoing administrative
money and that is the limit. Mr. Fisher said the request for the extension should include
all the benefits from the federal government that the County might have gotten had it been
able to expend the funds before the end of the year. With no further discussion, roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
(Mrs. Cooke left the meeting at 11:48 A.M.) Mr. Horne said in the staff's discussions
with HUD, it appears that political support is important to the extension request. The staff
may wish to request from the Chairman a letter emphasizing the support of the Board to this
request. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board should request the state representatives to join
support of this request for an extension. Mr. Horne responded yes. Anything that can be
done to show support from a broad range of people would help. Mr. Fisher requested that a
letter be drafted for his signature to the Federal and State legislatures requesting their
endorsement of the extension. (Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting at 11:50 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 12a. Appointment: County Representative to Highway Consultant Selec-
tion Committee for Environmental Impact Statement on Route 29 North Improvement Project.
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Paqe 14
Mr. Tucker said there has been a meeting scheduled with the Department of Transporta-
tion's representatives from the Environmental Quality section for March 19 to discuss and
review a preliminary draft for "Request for Proposal" for the ultimate Environmental Impact
Assessment for the various alternatives on Route 29,and also to debrief on the consultant
selection process. The City has appointed Mr. Satyendra Huja and the University has
appointed Mr. Raymond Haas to the committee. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to appoint the
Chairman to serve on the committee. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:52 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 13. BUDGET WORK SESSION ON THE 1987-88 COUNTY BUDGET.
Police Department. Total Requested - $2,348,773. Recommendation - $2,269,775. Chief
Frank Johnstone was present. Mr. Jones said the request includes a request for ten addi-
tional officers: two youth officers, three traffic control officers, one additional night
detective and four new officers for the shift at night between 7:00 P.M. and 3:00 A.M, the
critical time of the day. The request also includes equipping and training the new
personnel. In addition, a request is made under "Professional Services" (line item 300200)
for funds to evaluate the department for accreditation, which would save ten percent on the
liability insurance.
Mr. Jones said the staff did not recommend funding the accreditation evaluation this
year, even though there is an insurance savings .... : ~' ..... The staff felt the need for
manpower was greater.
Mr. Jones said the staff recommends funding of nine new positions - all of the requests
except one youth officer. The following statistics are available from 1985 and 1986: calls
for service increased 50 percent, traffic accidents increased 21 percent, traffic citations
increased 57 percent, criminal warrants served increased 13.6 percent. The County has 0.75
uniformed officers per 1,000 population, whereas all Virginia counties, including sheriff's
and police departments, average 1.42 officers per 1,000 population. (Mrs. Cooke returned to
the meeting at 11:54 A.M.).
Mr. Jones said the staff recommends funding of five officers, effective July 1 and four
effective November 1. This spreads the training requirements so as not to adversely affect
the operation and provides some costs savings (approximately $30,000) as well. Each new
officer adds a cost of $46,000 for a uniformed officer and $43,000 for a non-uniformed
officer the first year. Included in salaries is an equity adjustment for those officers in
salary range 15 that were transferred from the Sheriff's Department to the Police Department.
There were 18 officers with prior law enforcement service who transferred. Of these offi-
cers, three had more than ten years service, eight had five to ten years service and seven
had five or less years service upon creation of the Police Department in July, 1984. Eleven
of these experienced officers are still in the "B" and "C" steps as of January 1, 1987. This
meant that only seven of the original officers have received merit increases since July 1,
1984. When those officer's salaries were compared with those of persons who stayed with the
Sheriff's Department, it was found that the deputies have advanced further than the police
officers. For instance, deputies who had not reached the top of their salary scale received
the State Compensation Board increase of four and one-half percent in July and four and
one-half percent in January compared to three and one-half percent granted to police officers
by the County. Mr. Fisher said he thought the Police Department was to be evaluated as a
separate department and would not be compared to the Sheriff's Department. If the pay scale
is not competitive, then it should be compared to that of other police departments and set
so that it can be competitive in the market. There may be a morale problem in the Police
Department, but he does not think salary is the way to correct it. He feels there will
always be differences between the two departments.
Mr. Bowie said he understands that Sheriff's Department deputies who had ten or eleven
years of service transferred to the Police Department and stayed at the "A" or "B" step on
the pay scale, without receiving any credit for years of service. Other officers with fewer
years of service on a police force were hired in at the "F" step. Mr. Fisher asked why this
is not being treated as a normal market survey. Mr. Agnor said there is no way the market
survey will adjust individuals unless the whole department is adjusted. These 18 officers
are where they are today because the County created a separate department and those officers
had no options other than to transfer because there was not enough space in the Sheriff's
Department. The state has raised law enforcement salaries 24 percent in the last three
years, while the County has raised salaries about 13 percent. This is a request for a
one-time equity adjustment. Mr. Fisher said he does not see how this can be a one-time
adjustment. He would like to know what will happen if the state does this for the next three
years; there will be be the same problem. These officers have been on the County's pay plan,
have been given promotions and opportunities for merit reviews the same as all employees.
Mr. Agnor responded that is true, but these officers came into this system low on the scale.
Mr. Henley said an officer should be compared to other police officers, not deputy sheriffs.
He would be more willing to consider this if these officers were compared to police officers
that were getting more money.
Mr. Bowie suggested that a comparison of the salaries of the officers with ten years
experience be compared with the salaries of officers with similar experience in other police
departments. Mr. Agnor said an officer's advancement through the pay scale is no~ calculated
on years of service, but on meritorious performance. Mr. Fisher commented that if only seven
officers out of the 18 received merit increases, it does not appear that the officers have
been receiving very high reviews. Mr. Lindstrom said he can see the problem if an officer
failed to get credit for the experience he had in the Sheriff's Department, when compared
284
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 15
with people who have been hired since and have received credit for experience received
elsewhere. Mr. Lindstrom said if that is the problem, he can understand the equity adjust-
ment. If it is simply the fact that the officers did not receive raises because of pragmatic
decisions, he thinks that is "the way the chips fall". Mr. Fisher said he still does not
understand what this has to do with the salaries in the Sheriff's Department. Mr. Agnor said
those 18 officers are comparing their salaries with what they would have been making if they
remained state employees. Mr. Lindstrom said the staff should look at the salaries of these
people in terms of what they would have been hired at under the County's Classification Plan,
regardless of the salaries paid in the Sheriff's Department. Mrs. Cooke said if these
officers continuously compare their salaries to those paid in the Sheriff's Department, that
is a personal problem and should not be considered by the Board. Mr. Fisher requested that
comparison information be provided to the Board. (Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 12:19
P.M.)
Chief Frank Johnstone said three years ago when the Department was started, he had hoped
that within four budget cycles, all of the reequipping and buying of equipment would be
completed. If this budget is approved substantially as requested for next year, they have
targeted in the staff between ten and fifteen percent reduction in the operating budget. All
of the remaining equipment will be bought in this budget cycle.
Animal Control. Total Requested - $98,887. Recommendation - $58,749. Mr. Jones said
this request included funds for an additional Animal Control Officer, a vehicle, supplies,
etc. The staff does not recommend funding the additional position and its related costs.
The staff believes that the two Animal Control Officers can be supplemented by police offi-
cers when needed. The staff did recognize that this additional officer may be needed if the
program is expanded to include vaccination of cats. Mr. Bowie said he does not want to see
an Animal Control officer added ~ecause~of cats.
Social Services (Virginia Public Assistance - Administration). Total Requested -
$1,029,451. Recommendation - $1,025,651. Mrs. Karen Morris, Director, was present. Mr.
Tucker said this department is funded 80 percent by federal and state funds, and 20 percent
by local funds. The request includes in "Compensation" (Line Item 100100) one additional
Social Worker in the Adult Services Division due to an increase in caseload. An increase
shows in "Travel-Subsistance" (Line Item 550300) due to mandatory training requirements for
staff. An increase is requested in "Furniture" (Line Item 700200) for a larger conference
room when current renovations of the department are completed. An increase in "Rent" (Line
Item 800200) reflects a rate increase providing additional space for Social Services. The
staff supports the additional position, provided State funding is available, and also sup-
ports the remainder of the budget which reflects maintenance of the existing operation.
Mrs. Morris said revenues continue to be of serious concern, and will be even more so
next year. It does not appear that the General Assembly took any significant action to
replace some of the lost federal funds; the General Assembly is requesting that the locali-
ties figure out how they will continue to provide services. (Mr. Lindstrom returned to the
meeting at 12:24 P.M.) Mr. Way asked if Social Services may have to come back to the Board
later in the year for additional funding. Mrs. Morris replied yes.
Virginia Public Assistance - Payments. Total Requested - $550,270. Recommendation -
$494,400. Mr. Tucker said an increase in "Aid to Dependent Children" (Line Item 570500)
payments reflects an increase due to a heavier caseload. "Emergency Assistance" (Line Item
570700) payments are increased to reflect State emphasis for this item which is funded
totally by State and Federal funds. An increase in "Social Services Block Grant Provider
Recruitment & Training" (Line Item 571700) reflects a contract increase from the current
provider as well as a new program to train day care providers through Central Virginia Child
Development Association. An increase in "Special Needs Adoption" (Line Item 570802) reflects
existing adoptions being provided subsidy. The staff recommends that funding basically to
follow current expenditure levels. Mr. Lindstrom asked the percentage of this category paid
from local funds. Mrs. Morris replied approximately 30 to 35 percent. Mrs. Cooke asked if
there is a list of day care providers available to the general public. Mrs. Morris said
Social Services does not maintain a list for the general public. People are referred to
CVCDA which does maintain such a list.
Virginia Public Assistance - Food Stamp Program. Total Requested - $202,799. Recommen-
dation - $202,374. Mr. Tucker said 80 percent of funding for this item is provided by
Federal and State funds with 20 percent being funded locally. An increase in "Maintenance
Contract-Office Equipment" (Line Item 300500) reflects a new maintenance contract on equip-
ment. The staff recommends maintaining the existing operation.
Virginia Public Assistance - Employment Services Program. Total Requested - $41,698.
Recommendation - $39,798. Mr. Tucker said this program is 100 percent funded by the Federal
government. The request is for maintenance of the existing program. The recommendation
reflects current expenditure levels. The staff recommends that "Postal Service" (Line Item
520100) be increased from $50 to $150. This will also create a net increase of $100 in
revenues.
Virginia Public Assistance - Fuel Assistance Proqram. Total Requested - $37,314.
Recommendation - $36,594. Mr. Tucker said this program is 100 percent funded by the Federal
government. The request is for maintenance of the existing program. The recommendation
reflects current expenditure levels. The staff recommends that "Postal Service" (Line Item
520100) be increased from $100 to $600. This will also create a net increase of $500 in
revenues.
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 16
911 Dispatch Center. Total Requested - $192,161. Recommendation - $148,673. Mr.
Michael Carroll, Director, was present. Mr. Jones said the requested amount includes funds
to expand the current police dispatching staff to provide for staffing a rescue squad dis-
patcher (one position equals four dispatchers and one medic-trained dispatch supervisor) as
well as providing a second level dispatching position. The 911 Center Management Board does
not recommend funding of the request to this Board. The staff does recommend funding one
additional dispatcher and a salary and health insurance adjustment for current employees.
Presently fifty percent of costs of the 911 Center are split between the County and the
University, and the other fifty percent is borne by the City.
Mr. Fisher said the original intent of the 911 Center was to have rescue squad, fire and
police services all included, but the rescue squads did not want to participate. He would
like to know why it is so expensive to add that service now. Mr. Carroll said the 911 Center
has just enough staff to handle the police work. It can handle the additional police re-
quested by the County, but cannot also keep track of how many trained rescue squad volunteers
are on call or in a building, or the location of three or four ambulanCes at the same time
while answering calls, talking to people, and dispatching police calls. For any kind of new
service, the 911 Board felt it needed to have one person designated as a rescue squad commu-
nications officer, who would also be trained to give prearrival instructions. This person
would only handle rescue calls. Mr. Lindstrom said dispatching rescue squads and emergency
medical assistance over the telephone seems to be a reasonable function of the 911 Center.
Mr. Carroll said it is a big responsibility to take on and it will be expensive.
Mr. Agnor said he thinks it is a logical function of the 911 Center. The City felt it
could not fund this much of an increase, and. they wanted to look at phasing in the service.
Mr. Agnor said he feels there is no way to phase it in. The University feels that the 911
Center is a public agency, but as an entity the University has no responsibility to provide
rescue squad services. He thinks that ultimately this service will have to be added to the
Center. Mrs. Cooke said she does not understand how the University can say it has no respon-
sibility to rescue facilities. Mr. Agnor said the University has no public responsibility to
provide rescue squad services to the University campus. The University feels its function is
to provide University-related services. The reason the University joined 911 was to combine
the police operations into a single location so that the police departments could all inter-
change information. Mr. Carroll said the University provides staff for the Medcom function
which provides a vital service to all the rescue squads. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to
see other jurisdictions encouraged to get involved. Mr. Agnor said when the rescue squads
made this request, they were informed by staff that it would not be pOssible for the County
to fund the request this year. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 12:44 P.M.)
Agenda Item No 14. Executive Session: Personnel.
Mr. St. John requested an executive session for legal matters, namely litigation regard-
ing Red Acres Final Plat.
At 12:45 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn into
executive session for the discussion of personnel and legal matters. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
The meeting reconvened into open session at 1:45 P.M.
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher said he understands that there have been changes relating to
the use of State Literary Funds for schools. When the Board holds its public hearing on the.
bonding for the Stone Robinson School renovation, he would like for the Board to get an
update on how this will affect the Stone Robinson project and other school projects.
Agenda Item No. 15. BUDGET WORK SESSION ON THE 1987-88 COUNTY BUDGET.
Rescue Squads. Total Requested - $60,525. Recommendation - $60,525. Mr. Jones said
the request for each ambulance/rescue squad reflects the same percentage increase allocated
to the volunteer fire companies. The staff recommendation is for $9,105 each, which repre-
sents a two percent increase. An additional $5,000 is allocated to each rescue squad from
the State's "One for Life" funding program; revenues which are based on 25 percent of one
dollar of the state vehicle registration fee are projected to be $15,000.
Regional Library. Total Requested - $729,364. Recommendation - $663,348. Mr. William
Swinson, Director, was present. Mr. Tucker said the request is for an increase of 21.9
percent, or $131,214 over the current year~s budget. The amount requested included funds to
house the Albemarle Historical Society's collection of local/Virginia history at the Central
Library with local costs ($13,000 from both the County and City) to fund a full-time
librarian. The amount requested also includes funds for a part-time librarian at the Crozet
and Scottsville branches and increased hours of operation at those branch libraries to a
standardized level of 38 hours per week. The staff is recommending an increase of 10.9
percent, or $65,198 over the current budget. This increase provides only a status quo budget
for the library; it does not fund any of the new program requests.
Mr. Tucker said the staff had originally supported the additional librarian for the
local history collection, however, the City staff is not recommending to Council that the
request be funded. Mr. Swinson has provided a breakdown of costs for the additional staffing
hours at the Crozet and Scottsville branches. If the Board chooses to provide the
standardized 38 hours per week, that amounts to an additional $21,570.
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page_l_~
Mr. Swinson said that last year, County residents accounted for 52.4 percent of the
overall regional circulation. Of the total registered users in the regional system, 47.5
percent are County residents; 32 percent of the County population is registered to use the
system. The people of Albemarle County are proportionally taking more advantage of-library
services and resources than the citizens of any other locality. The Library Board does not
feel it can fund the increased staffing needed to get 38 hours at Crozet and Scottsville with
only the 10.9 percent increase recommended by the County staff. The Library Board considers
the local history collection to be a separate item which cannot be contained within the
increase. Proposed within the 10.9 percent increase are: upgrading the fire detection
system at the Gordon Avenue Library; installing a security service at the Central Library for
evenings and weekends; replacing the heating system at the Central Library; and including a
new children's librarian at the Central Library. (These costs are shared between
Charlottesville and Albemarle.) The Library Board would like to have funds to increase the
hours of operation to 38 hours at Scottsville and Crozet. The hours are needed based in
circulation alone. In 1981-82 the respective circulation figures at Scottsville and Crozet
were 26,146 and 37,720. They have risen to the current level of 44,955 and 49,335 respec-
tively. The level of programming has also increased tremendously which is taken care of
basically through Friends of the Library funding. The increase in programming has stretched
the staff especially in smaller branches. Through the implementation of an automated system
a serious effort was made to cope with increased usage which will help better manage the
regional collection, to improve and simplify the circulation of books and materials and to
increase the productivity potential of existing staff, however, the automation is no
substitute for the hours of operation. With the dollars left and the 10.9 percent increase,
the library cannot adequately address having those hours increased.
Mrs. Cooke said she is concerned about the remarks concerning the heating system at the
Central Library since it is a relatively new renovation. Mr. Swinson said the heating system
is not new, and they have been advised by City maintenance staff that one of the heaters will
require complete renovation. Mrs, Cooke asked for an explanation of his comments concerning
the children's librarian. Mr. Swinson said the children's librarian is needed at the Central
Library. This is a location in which the programming has skyrocketed. At this time, that
department has a staff of three full-time people and one professional. It is analogous to
the adult reference department which is completely professional. The staff in that depart-
ment is to take care of the increasing children's usage.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the cost of the heating renovation. Mr. Swinson replied that
Albemarle costs are between $2,500 and $3,000. Mr. Bowie asked for an explanation of the
comments on security. Mr. Swinson replied that the Library Board had planned to have
security guards at both the Central and Gordon Avenue Libraries. These security guards would
work evenings and weekends. This has been tried and will be retained at the Central Library
because of problems with vagrants, sexual harassment, public drunkenness, etc. In the
evening when there is a higher number of part-time staff persons on duty, it becomes more of
a problem. It is too expensive to have security coverage at all hours. Mr. Fisher asked the
evening hours at the Central Library. Mr. Swinson replied until 9:00 P.M., Monday, Tuesday
and Wednesday; Saturday, 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. and Sunday, 1:00 P.M to 5:00 P.M. Mr. Fisher
said it may be more cost-effective to shorten the hours of operation. Mr. Swinson said
evening hours are heavily used. The weekend hours have periods of heavy use where much of
the service is with students and working people. Mr. Fisher said he does not know if hiring
guards in order to keep the library open is worth the cost. Mrs. Cooke asked if there are
ways to secure areas of the building from the public area. Mr. Swinson said the third level
is locked off when there are no programs running. Again, over 50 percent of the usage at the
Library is by Albemarle County residents. Mr. Fisher asked the cost of the security guards.
Mr. Swinson replied the security service at the Library is $7,200 per year. Mrs. Cooke said
if security guards are necessary and if the County citizens make up 50 percent of the users,
she would like to see some Statistics. She would like to see a comparison of the costs of a
hiring and training a person to be a security guard as opposed to contracting for the ser-
vice.
Mr. Fisher commended Mr. Swinson on his work as Library Director. He thinks that the
libraries are well-run and he has enjoyed visiting them. Mr. Way said he is greatly disap-
pointed that the Board is not going to be able to increase the hours of operation at
Scottsville and Crozet. At Scottsville alone, there has been an increase in the last four
years of 72 percent in the use of the library. There is a tremendous need to keep it open
for the 38 hours requested. He thinks the usage at both branch libraries justifies the
increased cost. The total cost would be $9,100 for Scottsville and $12,000 for Crozet. He
thinks it is important to consider including those funds in this year's budget and will be
making such a motion at some time during these work sessions.
Mrs. Cooke asked if there is a security problem at the Crozet and Scottsville libraries.
Mr. Swinson responded no. Mr. Way said the personnel at Scottsville are already working 38
hours but are not getting paid for the work. The personnel are volunteering their time to
the many programs. This increase would take care of what is already going on and personnel
there have gone far beyond the call of duty.
Mr. Peter McIntosh, Chairman of the Library Board of Trustees, addressed the Board. He
said the Library Board wrestled with the security issue for a number of years. The $7,200
figure is just for the Central Library and its hours of operation only. The staff is
primarily female and the major problems are with male people coming in off the streets. The
City staff has thus far recommended the same as the County with regard to the Historical
Society's proposal. He reminded the Board that this is a unique opportunity to make a
historical collection available to the area.
Mr. Way said he would like to reiterate Mr. Fisher's comments.
are in excellent condition and he would like to commend the system.
He thinks the libraries
Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR). Total Requested - $21,886. Recommendation -
$21,886. Ms. Patricia Smith, Director, was present. Mr. Tucker said OAR provides services
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Paste 18
to offenders in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area which are aimed at rehabilitation and
integrating offenders and ex-offenders into the community. The County Program Review Commit-
tee recommends full funding of the request. The Committee recommends that OAR assess the
housing services component of the Transitional Services Program to determine the number of
homeless persons recently released from incarceration. Executive staff concurs and recom-
mends full funding of the request. Mrs. Smith commented that the figure of $13,916 collected
in restitution and court costs is incorrect and should be $6,814. This year OAR is develop-
ing a comprehensive handbook from a grant it received for offenders and families. No addi-
tional personnel are needed. The Transitional Services Program position was changed from
full-time to part-time.
Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE). Total Requested - $24,646. Recommendation -
$24,646. Ms. Deborah Cobb, Director, was present. Mr. Tucker said SHE provides temporary
emergency shelter for domestic violence victims, a 24-hour hotline, weekly self-help groups
for victims, and a self-help program for abusers, etc. The County Program Review Committee
recommends full-funding of the request. The programs were well documented, it has a strong
volunteer program and services are targeted to low-income residents. Albemarle County
residents received 48 percent of all of the services provided by SHE in 1985-86. The Commit-
tee commends the Shelter for securing funds from the Virginia Family Violence Prevention
Program to'establish a follow-up system for families leaving the Shelter. The Committee
supports the Shelter's continuing effort to increase the level of funding from other rural
counties for their share of services. Revenues from outlying counties increased by 15
percent in 1986-87. Executive staff concurs with the Committee's recommendation.
Ms. Cobb said the school system in Albemarle County has been very responsive to the
programs SHE has developed for children. SHE has identified two facilities in the City in
which the group is interested and has raised approximately 30 percent of the money it needs
to purchase, renovate and furnish the facilities. SHE anticipates moving into a new facility
in the summer. All of the funds raised for the new facility have come from the private
sector. Mr. Fisher asked if SHE is planning to increase its staff. Ms. Cobb said the staff
has been increased by one additional person over the past six months. She would like to see
one more person added to the staff, but there is not a need for more paid staff at this time
because the volunteer force helps SHE considerably and she does not want to lose the com-
munity involvement. Mrs. Cooke asked what the paid staff does. Ms. Cobb said one person
oversees general maintenance, one person is the community educator, one works on weekends and
provides clerical support during the week, one is a case manager, and one runs a children's
program. Mrs. Cobb'said she supervises the staff and does community education and writes
grants.
Emergency Medical Services Council (EMS). Total Requested - $5,597. Recommendation -
$5,597. Ms. Brenda Barbour, Director, was present. Mr. Tucker said the EMS Councils were
established to coordinate and promote the training of life-saving techniques. The Council
serves personnel from the rescue squads, firefighters, police and lifeguards, and trains
members of the general public. The County Program Review Committee recommends full funding
of the request which is a two percent increase over last year's request. The Committee
commended the Council for developing its local share formula and improving its documentation
this year.
Ms. Barbour said over 90 percent of her time is spent for the EMS providers: hospitals,
fire departments, rescue squads, etc. EMS's funding formula has changed to recognize the
number of EMS personnel that the Council actually works with rather than its being based on
population. The three county squads have appointed her their representative on the 911
Center Management Board. She is very involved with the Joint Dispatch Center, the Advisory
Committee at the 911 Center, and work on a report on hazardous materials for the general
area. She has started charging for services rendered to organizations other than fire,
police, rescue and hospitals. The fee is based on the total budget. About 50 percent of her
time is spent with Albemarle County. Mr. Bowie asked what types of services are provided to
the police. Ms. Barbour replied requests on stress debriefing, technical information, and
training information. She is trying to get more of the policemen involved with the Critical
Incidence Stress Debriefing Team by making them aware of it and getting them into the
training sessions.
At this time, the Board returned to discussion of Agenda Item No. 8 on the morning
agenda, the request for a Cat Rabies Vaccination Ordinance. Mr. Fisher suggested the County
Attorney prepare an ordinance for review and consideration by the Board on March 18, 1987.
Mr. Bowie asked that the ordinance embody the simplest way to accomplish this request.
Thomas Jefferson Health District. Total Requested - $436,232. Recommendation -
$406,120. Dr. Richard Prindle, Director, was present. Mr. Tucker said the Health Depart-
ment's request is for an increase of 13.7 percent over the current year's budget, which
maintains current staff and programs for Albemarle County. The request reflects an antici-
pated seven percent state salary increase, with a decrease in total state funding by approxi-
mately $45,000. The Executive staff recommends a total increase 5.86 percent. This reflects
the same percentage increase recommended for other social and health care programs.
Mr. Fisher asked what caused the reduction. Dr. Prindle said it is a general state-wide
reduction. He is not sure of the reason, but apparently some carry-over funds which were to
be used for increasing the nation's budget were not used. Health Department personnel have
not been informed that there will be another reduction before the end of this fiscal year.
He introduced Mr. Clifton Albert, the new administrative officer, to provide some details on
the reduction and the effects it will have. Dr. Prindle said funding has been on a matching
basis and this year, with the state cutting back, the County is putting into some programs
100 percent funds that are not matched by the state.
288
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Ra~e 19
Mr. Albert sa~d since the budget request was submitted on December, the State has
decided there will not be a seven percent salary increase, but there will be a 4.5 percent
increase. Based upon that change, he has prepared a new budget for Charlottesville and
Albemarle. He handed those changes to the Board members. The Health Department staff did
not learn until December, 1986, that the state was not going to match $65,000 in funds spread
across the City and the County. At that time it was necessary to devise new budget figures
for the total district, keeping in mind that estimated budget figures for 1987-88 had already
been submitted to Charlottesville and Albemarle, and word from the state that the Health
Department would be level-funded for the next two fiscal years in line with the state
biennium budget. It was necessary to reduce the budget by $65,000. The only significant
increase made is in the area of staff salaries and benefits which are mandated by state law.
Dr. Prindle said if the Board approves the $406,120 as recommended by the staff, the
Health Department will be short by $26,599 from Albemarle and $10,000 from Charlottesville.
It means that there will have to be greater cuts in Albemarle, which will be very difficult.
They will have to find some program that is peculiar to Albemarle, which appears to be the
school health nurses, and cut that program. Mr. Bowie said he thinks there must be a better
way to absorb budget cuts than to cut out the school nurse program. Dr. Prindle said the
program will not be cut out all together, just reduced in the scope.
Mr. Fisher said he is inclined to support an increase in the Health Department's budget
by $26,599 and see what happens with State funding next year. Mr. Agnor asked if there is
any way to increase the earned revenues. Dr. Prindle replied no, and said this is primarily
the result of the Federal government cutbacks and tightening the regulations on Medicare and
Medicaid. Rules are also changing for home health care which is hurting revenues, along with
competition from home health agencies. Many of the patients are using Medicare which has to
be billed and it pays in most cases only 80 percent of the bill. Many of the patients are on
long-term care and do not recover quickly. In some cases, the Health Department is left with
the unpaid bill, or the patient is neglected.
Not Docketed:
3:00 P.M.
At 2:52 P.M., the Chairman called a recess.
The meeting reconvened at
Education. Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, Division Superintendent, was present. Mr.
Overstreet said the budget process is a very complicated one. It involves a budget cutting
process on the basis of the School Board's priorities, both at the staff level and the
Board's level. This year at the staff level, approximately $1.9 million was reduced from
cost center requests. Knowing the priorities, it is not good management to consider issues
that are not directly linked to the priorities. The general format is a summary of the
budget and reflects the School Board's goals. The Board's three major priorities for im-
provement are: (1) Teacher Career Incentive, (2) Instructional programs and materials, and
(3) Facilities improvement.
The significant budget increases are in several categories:
(1)
Teacher Career Incentive which covers 52 percent of the increased cost proposed in
the budget proposal,
(2)
Other employee costs, including administrative and classified employees represent a
two and one-half percent increase for satisfactory evaluation performance and
access to a two percent bonus pool,
(3) Substitute teachers rates increased to $40.00 per day,
(4)
Health insurance program increased by five percent with the addition of dental
coverage,
(5)
Wellness Program and Employee Assistance with other employee costs representing
approximately 15 percent of the overall increases in the budget,
(6)
Instructional improvements represent approximately ten and three-quarters percent
of the budget increases. One such improvement is a "staff development voucher", a
$100 voucher to be used by each teacher to continue his/her education, thereby
enhancing his/her professional skills. Other instructional improvements involve
elementary and secondary staff development, school-based improvements in the books
and instruction materials. That part of the budget represents approximately
$480,000, and
(7)
Albemarle High School is included as a separate cost center because the school has
had some significant problems in terms of scheduling and programming and there has
been a lot of media attention about the conditions at the school. Equipment and
personnel proposals total approximately three percent or $127,000 and reflect and
respond to the task force that he charged with the responsibility of looking into
the problems at Albemarle.
Mr. Fisher asked if this amount reflects any changes to the building. Mr. Overstreet
replied no. That needs to be a long term process to change the Capital Improvements Program.
There has been a great pressure and tendency to want to jump in and do that kind of thing,
but the staff has been reluctant to respond to it that way because of the fear of not having
a long range view and having a hodgepodge that doesn't reflect what is needed at Albemarle
for the students and programs. Mr. Fisher said there have been four major renovation and
construction projects at Albemarle in recent years, and all of them were high i~i~?priority
items, and now it seems as if the School Board does not think any of that was ~one very well.
Mr. Overstreet said he does not have access to the information that initiated those
limprovements. Mr. Fisher asked when the Schools might redistrict, so that money would not
need to be spent at Albemarle.
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Paqe 20
Mr. Overstreet said when a committee of teachers and administrators looked into the
problems at Albemarle they found that the crowding was a symptom,not the cause, of the
problems. Causes included the scheduling format, wear and tear on the facility by
after-school programs, scheduling of the after-school programs, the initial design of the
facility and the way additions were made to the building. They found that spaces designed
for a certain kind of program actually had a different program in that space. Many of these
problems would not be corrected by moving students to another school. The only major problem
that would be corrected would be to make the halls less crowded, and the mobile classrooms
could be done away with immediately. The rest of the problems identified by the task force
would have to be addressed in other ways.
Transportation - The 3.61 percent bus replacement cycle continues in the 1987-88
year. For the handicapped there will be three wheel chair lifts, four drivers and
three aides added.
(9)
Maintenance and Plant Operations - 6.53 percent mostly due to increased usage or
rate increases. One of the biggest costs is insurance. This is the second year
that the Schools have been faced with a large increase (budgeted at 3.97 percent
increase).
(!0) Other Operational Costs - 8.71 percent increase.
Mr. Overstreet said the largest part of the increase is in the proposed career ladder
plan for teacher salaries. The School Board had identified improving the teacher salary
schedule one of its major goals. At present, the teachers are on a seniority system which
neither recognizes nor uses the leadership potential of teachers. Many teachers are able to
train other teachers. There has been a lot of media attention, both national and local, in
the last five years concerning the fact that fewer people are graduating from schools of
education. Albemarle County has also had a hard time getting minority teachers into the
system. The trend in the last two or three years has been toward a renewed interest in the
teaching profession.
Mr. Bowie said he read that in the near future a BA or BS degree would be required for
teachers; in other words, a degree in some field other than education. The absolute number
enrolled in schools of education does not reflect the number of people who intend to teach.
Mr. Overstreet said he had commissioned a task force this past year to work on the
problem of salaries. They addressed problems concerning work conditions. Therefore, aides
are being added to each kindergarten class this year so that each elementary teacher can have
a duty-free lunch period. The staff develOpment voucher is another small motivation for
working on staff development through either a formal course or a seminar workshop.
The proposal for a career ladder has budget implications. There are three elements
proposed as part of the career ladder plan. There must be a strong entry level salary. He
had talked to people in other school systems across the nation about this concept, and most
said the entry level salary was not sufficient. There should also be several career path
options depending on the competency levels of the teachers. The three criteria which will be
used to recognize individuals in the career incentive program are experience, credentials and
performance. The Schools have always acknowledged experience and credentials to some degree,
but performance is a new element. Seniority should not govern the plan; the plan needs
flexibility, so it needs options.
Dr. Carole Hastings, Director of Personnel, was present. She showed several slides
outlining the functioning of the career ladder plan. Mr. Fisher asked about a step increase
at the sixth year. Dr. Hastings said she has found that teachers have been leaving County
employment at the eight year point. Mr. Bowie asked how many teachers left last year at that
point. Dr. Hastings said forty percent of the teachers who left had eight years experience.
Mr. Bowie asked if there were any way to determine why those people left. Dr. Hastings said
no, she has no da%a from which to obtain that information. However, last year, one-half of
the teachers who left, left for reasons other than employment, and one-half left for
employment in other school divisions. Mrs. Cooke asked if that does not reflect the
transient nature of this community which has the University of Virginia population changing
often. Dr. hastings said that has not been why most teachers have .left during the last two
years. Mr. Bowie said of the teachers who left with eight years of experience, how many of
them started at higher than the first step on the salary scale. Dr. Hastings said she did
not know.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how many teachers are likely to choose the career path if this plan
is adopted. Also, what percent of the total teaching staff will be left on the basic plan.
Mr. Overstreet said he would discuss this later in the presentation.
Mr. Overman said the across-the-board salary increase process that has been used for the
past years has been unsatisfactory. In 1980, Albemarle County ranked 132nd in entry level
salary in the State. With the across-the-board process, Albemarle moved up to 107th, an
improvement of 19 percent. On the maximum side, the County moved from 103rd to 50th. The
career ladder proposal is a way to improve the high quality of education and help keep the
best teachers. The County will be able to compete for the best and brightest teachers.
Mr. Overstreet went through a rather lengthy discussion of the concept of the career
ladder path using slides to demonstrate certain points. He also mentioned that the Board had
asked for projected costs of this plan, which he has furnished to them today. However, he
does want to make it clear that the projections are based on assumptions which are not
necessarily 100 percent accurate.
Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Overstreet for the figures and said he found them very interest-
ing, but he has asked for the five years of the pay scale on this plan. Mr. Lindstrom said
he was glad to see the assumptions written down. Mr. Overstreet said they tried to make an
assessment of what it would cost to keep giving a ten percent across-the-board increase, as
opposed to this format which averages out at about 9.5 percent. There is the possibility
29O
March tl, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Paqe 21
that the State will continue to mandate certain percentage salary increases. The Governor's
Commission on Excellence has recommended that the State look at career ladder type.programs
for teachers. Mr. Overstreet then introduced Mr. Richard Brandt, Dean of the Curry Schoool
of Education at the University of Virginia, who has done extensive study on the issue of the
career ladder concept. Mr. Overstreet asked Dean Brandt to explain how the County's plan
compares to the ten other divisions who are studying the same .idea.
Dean Brandt said it looks good, and is a unique solution to the' problem of retaining
teachers, particularly when across-the-board salary increases are compared to other school
divisions. The big, early 'ump in overall salary structure is critical. The history of
these programs around the has not been good because the basic salary structure is
inadequate at the beginning. The history of Albemarle County as compared to other localities
in the State is not good at the present time. He thinks the figures projected are realistic
and will encourage the kind of support that is needed from the teachers. He said that those
people who worked on this plan should be given a lot of credit for the throughness of the
plan.
Mr. Overstreet said the salary schedule for new teachers is low when compared with
others across the state, but when the fringe benefit package is applied, it looks better and
the School Board hopes to maintain that benefit package. The problem is how to attract and
acquire new teachers. Teachers who have been working for a while know the benefit of good
fringe benefits; newer teachers do not.
Mr. Fisher asked if the system would be more competitive if benefits were equalized with
other systems, and the difference in money put into salaries. Mr. Overstreet said that would
be one way to do it. Mrl Fisher said the state would give credit for that type of action.
Mr. Overstreet said the County has been the leader in benefits. Other school divisions have
started to use the model and 78 out of the 130 systems now pay retirement benefits through
Virginia Supplemental Retirement System. There have been estimates that the County will move
from the bottom quartile to the top quartile using the career ladder plan. He feels that is
a reasonable expectation.
Mr. Way said he is pleased that the School Board has taken the initiative to come up
with this kind of approach. He thinks this is a step in the right direction in terms of
improving education. Eight years ago when he first started thinking about performances,
teachers in this County said there is no way to pay a teacher based on performance. Now the
school administration and the teachers have developed this plan with a positive attitude. He
commended all who worked on this plan for the procedure used to come up with a plan. Mr.
Overstreet said the bulk of the people on the committee were teachers.
Mrs. Cooke said this is the first time she has been aware of any attempt to run the
school system in a business-like manner. She thinks that is a credit to those who have
worked on this proposal.
Mr. Lindstrom said although the General Assembly has been criticized for its mandates
concerning teacher salaries, if there had not been thOse mandates in the past several years,
the County would not be in striking distance of a program such as this. He hopes the State
will now recognize what the County is doing.
Mr. Fisher said he has a different question. He has looked at the School's budget
proposal and although the revenue projections seem to have been updated for 1986-87, there is
no similar update on expenditures. To him, it appears that the budget is based on last
year's budget and has no relation to what has actually happened during the present year. The
general government does not budget this way. He said t'he Board has asked year after year for
actual expenditures as of June 30th. He feels the Board would be able to do a better job of
looking at projected expenses for next year-if that information were included as part of the
budget information.
Mr. David Papenfuse, Superintendent for Finance, said therbudget is calculated on
current need, not on the prior year's budget. Mr. Overstreet said the requested information
can be provided. Mr. Bowie said he will second that as a request.
Mr. Fisher said he is tired of approving these budgets when he does not think they are
right. Mr. Bowie said he will second that remark. He doesn't care about the "guesses" for
last year, but would prefer to see an adjusted budget based on what actually happened. Mr.
Bowie said he has two questions not related to the teachers' salary plan. He said that
Albemarle has 73.5 teachers per 1,000 students which puts Albemarle seventh of eighth in the
State. Where the County is high on a list, it is never mentioned. Only low averages are
mentioned. He did a study based on SAT scores, and found that if you take what are called
core subjects, with 22 to 28 in a class, 40 to 45 of the 73.5 teachers are teaching what
leads to the SAT scores. He wants to know what the rest of the teachers are doing. He knows
that there are mandated classes for handicapped, Chapter I, driver education, etc. He would
like to know what the rest of those teachers are doing, and if any can be shifted to techni-
cal training, remedial classes, the type of thing that is needed. The second question
concerns the budget for administrators' salaries, including all of those people on the third
floor of the County Office Building. Salaries for administrators total $4.2 million; he
would like to know what the County is getting for that money. If these teachers are going
into administrative work, what does the County cut out? As a teacher moves up to help with
the curriculum, what is cut out? All of the time today has been spent discussing the career
path option, and the Board has not even gotten to the basic cost of the budget.
Mr. Overstreet said a lot of teachers are involved in special education, vocational
education, electives, and the humanities -- art, music, band. This is the first year in
Albemarle County that there has been a Secondary Teaching Guideline for the number of posi-
tions applied throughout the division. The other side of the question about what should be
taught is much deeper and important that the ratio and staffing guidelines. On the adminis-
trative side, the school system has complied with the request from the governing body to
enter into an administrative performance system similar to that of general government. They
hope that as the teachers become more involved in leadership roles, there will be less of a
need for middle management.
March 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 22
Mr. Lindstrom said he is curious about the cost of administering the career path. He
said that he and Mr. Bowie looked at electives a couple of years ago and there were some
pretty esoteric things offered. In the middle schools, he feels that teaching to a test
would be a mistake. A rounded education is good, as long as it does not get too round. Mr.
Lindstrom said he would like to make a request. In the history component, he feels that
there should be a short offering as a regular part of the curriculum on Albemarle County and
Virginia history. Albemarle County is an unusual place, and he thinks that people growing up
in this community should have some appreciation for the history of this place. Mr.
Overstreet said he does not know, but assumes it is part of the curriculum.
Mr. Lindstrom inquired about a request last year for a category entitled "Community
"Services. He would like to know what the staff person assigned to this project is doing.
Mrs. Cooke said she would also like to address a concern of hers about curriculum. For
the past several years, she has been involved in the Taft Institute Summer Program at the
University. It has come to her attention that there is a big emphasis put on State and
Federal Government in the classroom, and she thinks that local government deserves equal
time. Local government affects the lives of citizens on a day-to-day basis, and in a more
personal way than either the State or Federal government. She has been amazed at the teach-
ers who devote only a small amount of time to local government. This is why the average
citizen misunderstands what local government does. Mr. Overstreet mentioned the
youth-in-government work shop. Mrs. Cooke said that is a one-day thing, and not all students
participate.
Mr. Henley said he does not plan to support the career ladder proposal. He might have
supported it if it had been close to the ten percent mandate. He does not believe the costs
will be near the assumptions, and believes the school people are just deceiving the Board to
get this plan funded.
Mr. Overstreet said he would have responses to all of the questions posed today by next
week's meeting, and he will also rework the salary schedule as requested by Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Fisher said he agrees with some of the comments made about the process by which this
plan came about. He supported a similar pay plan about ten years ago, and was brutally
vilified by the teachers, so before he votes to approve the plan, he needs to be sure it is
what the teachers really want.
Mr. Henley said he did not believe enough people will benefit from the plan for the
money being put into it.
Student Exchange Program.
another meeting.
Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board wait and discuss this at
Agenda Item No, 16. Other Matters. There were no other matters from the Board members.
Mr. Ed Bauer, a citizen, said when the Board holds its work session on April 15 on what is
being referred to as "a kernel" lot, he thinks the Board should have an analysis of what
would happen if division rights are eliminated. He, personally, feels it would be the
simplest way to solve the problems with subdivisions such as Red Acres or Harmony. It would
have the advantage of adding simplicity to the Zoning Ordinance and its administration. He
also feels it would knock down and prevent other such types of subdivision.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would have no objection to asking the staff to prepare such
information. However, the purpose of the work session is to address a specific subdivision.
The ordinance as written is apparently ambiguous, but must be dealt with as is.
Agenda Item No. 17. At 5:16 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr.
Bowie, to adjourn until 1:00 P.M. on March 17, 1987. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
282