1987-06-10June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page__~
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
June 10, 1987, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office BUilding,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. F. R. Bowie, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom
(arrived at 9:10 a.m.), and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Upon motion by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, the
items on the consent agenda were accepted as information. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, .Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Item No. 4.1. Letter from Gordon Walker, JABA, dated May 28, 1987, requesting funds to
handle another JAUNT Fare increase, along with reply from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy
County Executive, dated June 2, 1987, were received as follows:
"You are probably aware of another JAUNT fare increase. The new rate of
$14.00 per hour will adversely affect JABA's transportation services to our
elderly constituency.
During the most recent budget review and allocation process, your jurisdic-
tion was very supportive when it came time to help JABA cope with the last
JAUNT increase of 27 percent. I wish it were not necessary to come back to
you again so soon with a request that you once again help us handle another
JAUNT fare increase.
At our present level of JAUNT services, the consequence of this increase is
an additional $1,032 per year. I am, therefore, asking Albemarle County for
a special allocation of this amount as soon as possible so we will not have
to cut services to the transportation disadvantaged.
For your information, an additional reduction of $25,300 in federal funds is
scheduled to hit JABA October 1, 1987. Close to one-third of the amount
will be replenished with General Assembly funds, thus leaving JABA with a
reduction of approximately $15,000. Ergo, we are in no position to finan-
cially manage another JAUNT fare increase without your generous assistance.
Once again, thank you for your continued support."
"I have reviewed your request for additional transportation funding ($1,032)
due to a JAUNT fare increase and offer the following comments. It is
general policy of the Board of Supervisors not to fund potential budget
shortfalls early in the budget cycle. The basis for this is that during the
year, proper management and underexpenditures in other areas of your budget
could provide this projected funding need. Also, your current fund raising
campaign can hopefully be a source of funding to maintain your current level
of transportation service."
Mr. Way said although he agrees with Mr. Tucker's response to the request, he would like
to know the needs Mr. Walker refers to that might not be met. Mr. Agnor said he does not
know, but is expecting a response.
re:
Item No. 4.2. Memorandum from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated June 2, 1987,
dogs running at large/vicious dogs, was received as follows:
"In response to Mr. Bowie's request for information on County ordinances
regarding the above subjects, there is no County law preventing a licensed
dog from running at large in a non leash area. There is a section of the
County Code which makes it unlawful to keep a vicious dog, which is defined
as having evidenced a disposition to attack humans. There is no law con-
cerning dogs attacking or injuring domestic animals, other than livestock or
poultry.
The State Code has a provision that allows a governing body to adopt an
ordinance to confine dogs which habitually kill other dogs or domestic
animals, other than livestock or poultry, until a general district court
hears evidence and orders the dog killed. This provision does not cover a
dog attacking or injuring other dogs or domestic animals.
510
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
~ PaGe 2)
The Animal Control Officers receive calls involving disputes between neigh-
bors and their dogs attacking one another, or a neighborhood dog attacking a
cat. If damages occur, most homeowner's insurance policies cover payments,
but the calls usually involve requests to the County to control the aggres-
sive dog. The County cannot impose such control. If the dog's owner is
known, the Animal Control Officer will advise the owner of the complaint,
and suggest, or recommend, they exercise more control over their dog in
response to their neighbor's concern, or to reduce their personal liability
as an owner."
Mr. Bowie said he has a problem with the comment that the County cannot impose any
regulations. Recently, in the City, a dog attacked a person and the dog was shot. Although
he cannot agree with a County-wide leash law, there must be something that can be done about
vicious dogs going onto private property. Mr. Agnor said the City has the authority to enact
laws and ordinances that counties cannot enact. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at the meeting at
9:10 a.m.)
Item No. 4.3.
information.
Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for May 26, 1987, was received as
Item No. 4.4. Letter from Gordon Walker, JABA, dated April 24, 1987, requesting per-
mission to join Albemarle County for health insurance, and reply from Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
Deputy County Executive, dated June 3, 1987. Mr. Walker explained that House Bill 1316
allowed the local government to include officers and employees of its boards, authorities,
etc., in insurance programs established for its officers and employees. Because JABA has not
been able to receive favorable rates in its present rating pool, partly due to its small
size, he requested that they be allowed to join Albemarle County for the purpose of health
insurance. Mr. Tucker replied that staff cannot recommend the addition of any regional
agency for which it is not presently providing personnel or payroll services because it would
set a precedent for regional agencies, and due to the potential liability that might be
created with other agencies.
Item No. 4.5. Memorandum from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated June 5, 1987,
re: 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act, along with a summary of what the Act means, was presented
as follows:
"Attached for your information is a memorandum from the Rivanna Authority
advising the community of the anticipated effects of the 1986 Federal Safe
Drinking Water Act. The Act requires monitoring, testing, and treatment for
83 contaminants, which are not currently regulated, with regulations for
groups of the 83 containments being developed over a three year period. The
first regulations are expected this month for nine of the 83.
Conformity with the regulations will require a sophisticated, technical
level of operations not currently needed. The change in operations will
increase costs, which will impact all water purveyors, particularly the
smaller systems. The cost of the impact cannot be determined yet, but in
addition to increased costs, another result may be that small, private water
suppliers will turn to public operators to take over the responsibility of
their operations.
As the program proceeds, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will keep us
advised."
"In 1986 Congress passed major amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The Act will have significant impact on the nations water supply utilities
in the next five years and beyond.
The new law requires that EPA develop regulations for 83 contaminants within
three years. Nine are to be regulated in the first year, forty in the
second year and thirty-four in the third year. Included in these con-
taminants are 14 volatile organic compounds (VOC), 29 synthetic organic
chemicals (SOC), 13 inorganic chemicals (IOC), 4 microbiological contami-
nants, 2 radiological contaminants, and 21 contaminants previously identi-
fied in Federal legislation.
The Act affects all public water supplies in each State. It requires
compliance over a period of years with the first regulations due out in June
of 1987. Monitoring will be required within one year of the regulations.
Standards under this Act are reportedly based on ideal health goals. States
have been given the right to assume enforcement authority over the Act,
under Federal guidelines. For any State that does not choose to assume such
primary responsibility, the Environmental Protection Agency will be the
enforcement authority. The Virginia Department of Health is planning to
assume primacy for the Act and their effort will require a three fold
increase in water supply personnel.
The Act was passed by Congress with the urging of environmental and consumer
advocates. The decision has apparently been made by Congress that the
public is willing to pay the cost of such a program. No Federal funds have
been made available to assist localities in planning or constructing faci-
lities to comply with the Act.
Implementation of this program means that there will be major and costly
changes in the nations water supply systems in the years ahead. It is too
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
early to identify the exact changes that will have to be made in the Rivanna
Water & Sewer Authority system, but changes will be necessary. Monitoring
will be required on each surface water system serving the Charlottes-
ville/Albemarle urban area, as well as Crozet and Scottsville. This cost
alone will be substantial. For instance, the cost for analyzing just one
sample for the 83 contaminants to be regulated is $3,500.
Ail is not bleak for the local system. Filtration and disinfection of the
water supply has been accomplished here for years and both procedures are
now mandated under the Federal Act. Watershed management practices are
encouraged under the Federal Act and there has been considerable local
effort in this regard for the past ten years. Planning for a future water
supply source at Buck Mountain will also assure a sufficient quantity of
water for the years ahead.
It is too early to tell what the effects of the Act will mean in terms of
cost. Clearly, there will be increased cost to the community that will have
to be borne by the water users. Advance planning and early monitoring will
allow cost effective decisions to be made and will allow the community to
move forward in compliance with the new Federal law. Indeed, there will be
little choice but to march to the beat of the drummer as new Federal regu-
lations roll off the Washington presses."
Item No. 4.6. Copy of letter dated May 14, 1987 from Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway
Engineer, addressed to Michael Armm, County Engineer, in reference to Willow Lake Subdivi-
sion, Brookhill Drive (Rural Addition); copy of letter from Fred H. Hermanson, President,
Willow Lake, dated May 28, 1987, addressed to D. S. Roosevelt, in reply to above letter, were
received as information.
Mr. Way asked the status of this project. Mr. Agnor said the developer has met with the
County Engineering staff and the Highway Department, and has proposed repairs to the defi-
ciencies and has provided bonding on the work. In addition, the staff is holding group
sessions om the problems encountered during the construction of the subdivision, streets and
site plan in an attempt to resolve inspection deficiencies. Mr. Way asked that the Board be
keptJinformed of any progress.
Item No. 4.7. Letter dated June 3, 1987, from Madeline Hastings, Director, Existing
Housing Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, stating that no decision has
yet been made on the County's request for an extension of the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilita-
tion Program. The letter read as follows:
"Thank you for your letter of May 19, 1987, regarding Albemarle County
Housing Authority's (PHA) request for an extension of its Section 8 Moderate
Rehabilitation Program rehabilitation and leasing schedule.
As you know, the Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) for Project
VA36-K036-001 was executed June 28, 1985. The Section 8 Moderate Rehabili-
tation Program regulations require that all units be under Agreement within
24 months after execution of the ACC with HUD. We are in the process of
reviewing the information which the PHA provided in support of its request
for an extension of its rehabilitation and leasing schedule. Please be
assured that a decision on this matter will be made as expeditiously as
possible."
Item No. 4.8. Notice from Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc. dated May 29, 1987, re:
application to the State Corporation Commission to revise its tariffs and stating that a
public hearing on this request will be held on September 28, 1987, at 10:00 a.m. in the
Commission's Courtroom, Richmond, Virginia, was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: June 12, 1985; March 5 (Night), December 3
(Afternoon), December 10, 1986; March 4, March 9, 1987.
None of the minutes had been read, therefore, all were transferred to the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Discussion-Tentative Allocations of Funds, Fiscal
Year 1987-88, Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems, etc. (deferred from June 3, 1987).
Mr. Fisher said this item was on the June 3 consent agenda and he asked that it be
transferred to this meeting for further discussion. He is particularly interested in the
schedule of the project on Route 29 North. Mr. Roosevelt said this schedule is an attempt by
the Highway Department to meet the request by the Board. His understanding is that the Board
wanted the Department to study alternatives, specifically the expressway proposal, but'did
not want to lose access to money already allocated to the Route 29 North project. Mr.
Roosevelt explained that the reason no funding shows in the 1987-88 year for this project is
because the money was transferred to the Environmental Impact Study of Eastern, Central and
Western Alternate Routes for Route 29 in Albemarle County. Funding for future years for the
Route 29 project was left intact. If the money is allocated to another project in another
county, the Board will have a difficult time getting the money back. A meeting is scheduled
at 11:00 a.m. on June 17 with the group that met with the Director of Engineering, Mr. Jack
Hodge, to ~espond to the Board's proposal for an expressway. On June 23, 7:30 p.m., at
Charlottesville High School, there will be a meeting where the Highway Department will
present its analysis of the expressway idea and discuss the Department's response to the
public hearing that was held in September on the Route 29 project. Although this will not be
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
a public hearing, the Department representatives will attempt to answer questions from the
audience.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board will receive any information on the Department's
response to the meeting. Mr. Roosevelt responded that he does not know. Mr. Lindstrom asked
Mr. Roosevelt if he knows what the proposal will be. Mr. Roosevelt said although he has been
briefed on the proposal, the information should come from the people who did the study.
After the furor raised at the public hearing in September, it became clear to him that to
have more than one source of information concerning this project causes problems. The source
of information should be Mr. Hodge and the central office.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters:
North to the Voc-Tech Center.
Discussion-widening of Rio Road from Route 29
Mr. Fisher said at the June 3 Board meeting, the Board adopted the Albemarle County
Secondary Road Improvements Budget for 1987-88. Included in the budget is the widening of
Rio Road from Route 29 North to the railroad tracks at the Vocational Technical Center.
There has been some negative feedback in the news media from the City Planning Commission
about this particular project. The Board felt that before the project proceeds further, that
it should give the City an opportunity to express its concerns. He then introduced the
following representatives present from the City: Mayor Frank Buck; Mr. Michael Bednar,
Chairman of the City Planning Commission; and Mr. Lloyd Snook, Vice-Chairman of the City
Planning Commission.
Mayor Buck said he would like to thank the Board for inviting them to be present to
share some of their concerns and try to improve communications between the two bodies. One
major concern expressed by the City Council and City staff is the impact that widening Rio
Road will have on residential neighborhoods in the City. The Council is also concerned with
the timing and scope of the proposed improvements.
Mr. Bednar said on May 12, the City Planning Commission adopted a resolution and for-
warded same to City Council. The resolution stated that the Commission is for the widening
of Rio Road, but is concerned with the timing of the project. If the project begins before
construction on the Meadow Creek Parkway, traffic would have no reasonable outlet other than
along the treacherous part of Rio Road or through the Greenbrier neighborhood on Greenbrier
Drive. This is the primary concern of the Commission. The Commission is also concerned with
how the project would be terminated, where the widening would end, and how the road would
merge with the existing road. The resolution stated the Commission felt that the timing
should be such that it is not significantly ahead of the Meadow Creek Parkway project. Mr.
Bednar handed to the Board (all on file) a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. Bower of the
Highway Department, from the City Manager, Cole Hendrix, which relates these general con-
cerns, and a copy of the Commission minutes of May 12.
Mayor Buck said the Meadow Creek Parkway is still one of the projects in the City's
Six-Year Plan, however, the Council does not want to proceed with this project until the
impact of the Route 29 North bypass expressway concepts is studied. Also in its Environmen-
tal Impact Study, the State Highway Department is reviewing the impact of the various ex-
pressway concepts on the the road networks in the area, including Meadow Creek Parkway.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Snook said the Commission is concerned that if the
four-laning of Rio Road ends where the two lanes intersect with Greenbrier Drive, people will
decide to avoid the bottleneck. If this proposal to widen the road stops at Greenbrier
Drive, it will significantly increase the temptation for people to use Greenbrier across to
Brandywine as a through street to get to either Hydraulic Road or the Route 250 Bypass. He
feels that this project would almost mandate a traffic light which is opposed.
Mr. Bednar suggested that the widening of Rio Road could be stopped at the entrance to
Northfields subdivision, which is just north of the Greenbrier intersection.
Mr. Fisher said the action taken by the Board at its meeting was totally in ignorance of
any action taken by the City. The Board basically was continuing with work that had been set
in motion several years ago. He feels that since the money is available to do some of these
projects, the Highway Department is under pressure to produce them and these projects have
been on the County's priority list for a long time. This project is the largest cost of all
the County's secondary road projects and if it is not done in this coming fiscal year, then
the County must come up with replacement projects.
Mr. Bednar commented that originally the widening of Rio Road was anticipated for
completion after the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Fisher said this project was proposed as part
of the Meadow Creek Parkway with these same plans. The County has developers wanting to
develop land north of the river and the Highway Department ruled that any new development
will require that the road be built to its full ultimate standard.
Mr. Fisher then introduced Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman of the County Planning Commis-
sion, and asked that he present the views of the Commission.
Mr. Cogan said this project has been in all the County's plans for quite some time. The
acceleration of the project is caused by the sudden influx of funds into the Highway Depart-
ment's budget. Consideration was given to the impact of the project on the City, but the
Commission did not feel that it would cause an increase in traffic. The traffic problem is
already there. Traffic will continue to increase as population increases and as businesses
increase in the area, regardless of whether Rio Road is widened. In reviewing new site
plans, the Commission must take into consideration the widening of the road which is diffi-
cult because there will be a median strip. There is no way to know where entrances and exits
should go, so it has been a very difficult situation to deal with. It makes sense to do this
project as soon as possible while the funds are available. These improvements are necessary
for good traffic flow movement, although there is a traffic flow problem at the commercial
strip near Greenbrier Drive. Cars are stopping to make left turns and cars behind them
513
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
either have to stop or pull onto the shoulder and pass. A suggestion to remedy the problem
is to install a left turn lane to handle that commercial traffic. The Planning Commission is
not as much concerned with the eastern end of Rio Road as it is with the western end.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think anything can be done without Mrs. Cooke being
present as this area is in her district. He is interested in seeing if it would be feasible
to stop the project at one of the roads prior to Greenbrier Drive. Mr. Horne commented that
independent of the actual Rio Road project, one of the safety projects in the Six-Year Plan
is construction of turn lanes at Greenbrier Drive.
Mr. Fisher then asked for comments from Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Roosevelt said he will not
attempt to justify the reasons why he supports the five laning. If the Board has another
proposal, it should send it to him and the Department will see if it will work. He is not
prepared to respond to whether the Department can cut back from the five lanes. There are
federal funding and standards that are involved with this project. He thinks that a simple
schematic drawing of the new proposal would be sufficient for his staff to review.
Mr. Fisher said he concurs with Mr. Lindstrom that Mrs. Cooke should be present if a
decision to change the project is made. Mr. Horne said the staff can prepare a sketch for
review. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that when the sketch is prepared, someone on the City's
staff also be involved.
Mr. Roosevelt said the Department is presently updating survey information on the
project. If this new information can be presented to him within the next three weeks he does
not feel that any time will be lost from the project.
Mr. Bowie asked what happens to any unused money. Mr. Roosevelt said the money for this
project belongs to the County and the Board decides where it will be used. He does not think
there is a need to worry about whether any of the $1.2 million designated for this project
will be left over.
Mayor Buck said his staff appreciates the interest and effort the Board is putting forth
in an attempt the resolve the City's concerns. He asks that the County staff work closely
with the City staff in developing the sketch. It may be that the present plans are better
and the City's concerns can be worked out through signalization.
Not Docketed: Mr. Way said at the Board's last meeting, during discussion of the
Secondary Highway budget, he indicated that there was a gentleman who wanted to make a
comment concerning Route 631 South and two bridges. He asked that Mr. Baber be given an
opportunity to speak at this time.
Mr. Jim Baber said he lives on Old Lynchburg Road, Route 631, approximately two and
one-half miles from Interstate 64. He has spoken with Mr. Roosevelt concerning this matter.
The part of the road that he is concerned with starts at County Green Apartments (Route 781)
and runs 2.4 miles south to Route 706. In that short stretch of road there are two danger-
ous, narrow bridges. The following figures he got from the Highway Department. In 1986
there were 36 reportable accidents on that stretch of road. In 1987, through the first four
months, there have been 23 reportable accidents which averages out to 69 accidents per year.
Figures gathered from a reputable insurance company shows the average cost from these acci-
dents to be $10,054. The two bridges are on blind curves, one bridge is 16 and one-half feet
wide and the other is 18 feet wide. One of the bridges is passable with two cars and on the
other, one car must stop. He does not think the road has ever been improved. Although he
does not believe there has ever been a fatality within the bridge areas, this road does need
some attention. He suggested that the all the brush and trees be cleaned from the curve with
some major bulldozing to open the area so people can see one another. He thanked the Board
for giving him an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Horne said the Comprehensive Plan shows a complete relocation of that roadway north
of County Green and then ultimately relocation and straightening of the road to the edge of
the urban area which is north of one of the bridges. There is no major reconstruction
planned south of that point, however it was identified as one of the roads that needed
shoulder improvements and some minor spot improvements when the Southern Regional Park is
opened. Mr. Way commented that the major problem of these small, narrow bridges is the
growth that surrounds it and actually hides the bridge from view.
Mr. Roosevelt said the two bridges are scheduled for widening in the Fall of 1988. The
plans are to widen the bridges and do a minimum amount of approach work. The Department is
trying to end up with a roadway where two cars travelling at a safe speed can pass. A lot of
the actions that happen on this section are because people overdrive the conditions. It
would take a lot of money to improve Route 631 to Route 706. This is the third bridge that
has been brought to his attention in the past two weeks where if the Department could only go
off of its right-of-way a little bit and open the sight distance, the situation could be
improved. The clearing on these two bridges would have to go considerably onto private
property in order to obtain sight distance. Although there is money available for improve-
ments, the number of improvements that are needed in the secondary system are tremendous and
there will never be enough money to take care of all of the problems, therefore priorities
must continue to be set.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Highway Department is willing to undertake condemnation
proceedings where there are safety problems that can be cured by clearing on private prop-
erty. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department's philosophy has changed in recent years. It is now
looking to the local governing bodies, feeling strongly that the money belongs to them and if
they want to spend it on legitimate improvement needs, for condemnation proceedings, or sight
distance proceedings, the Department has no problem. The end result is how the County wants
to spend the funds.
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Paqe 6)
Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Fisher said he has received a complaint that after the Highway Department grades the
first mile of Route 682 off of Route 250 South, it turns to a corduroy surface in about three
to four days, and the second mile is muddy and narrow and does not have any rock on it at
all. The residents would like to get enough rock on the road to make it usable this summer.
Mr. Horne said the staff has received a request from the Charlottesville-Transit Service
(CTS) to establish three bus stops on Georgetown Road. One near the intersection of Hydrau-
lic Road would entail the bus pulling off the edge of the pavement onto the shoulder to pick
up riders. The staff talked with Mr. Roosevelt and there was concern expressed that this may
deteriorate the edge of the road unless the shoulder is improved. The Highway Department
feels that improvements would need to be made at the County's expense, since the County is
the permit holder for all bus stops, not CTS. CTS would like to establish this for a series
of stops for approximately three months to test whether there is significant ridership.
During that period of time, the staff has received indication from Mr. Roosevelt that he does
not think there will be a problem, but if there is to be a permanent bus stop, there may be
the need to guarantee maintenance of the shoulder area. There is no question of maintenance
for the other two stops. Given that this may entail some County funding beyond the test
period, the staff wanted to make the Board aware and see if it had any objections to author-
izing the establishment of a permit for a temporary period for this one bus stop. Mr. Fisher
asked that staff provide more information on these proposed bus stops and present to the
Board at a later time.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Littering Along the Highways.
(Mr. Way left the meeting at 10:10 A.M.) Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum
dated June 5, 1987, from himself to the Board:
"As a result of Mr. John Propst's letter and your request for a staff
report, the staff has the following to report.
Littering - In 1986, there was one citation written for littering. The
subject was found guilty and fined $200 plus $20 court costs. In 1987,
there have been no citations; however, one complaint was received which was
investigated by an officer. The suspect offered to clean up the trash,
therefore, no citation was issued. Littering is most difficult to enforce,
because the officer has to see the trash deposited in order to get a convic-
tion. Most people do not throw trash on the highway in view of a police
officer.
Hauling Trash - In 1986, there were ten (10) citations on hauling trash in
an uncovered vehicle. All of the subjects were found guilty and paid fines
ranging from $15 to $20. No citations have been issued in 1987. Most of
the violations are citizens in small vehicles or pickup trucks. There is
also a procedure whereby anyone bringing trash to the Ivy Landfill in an
uncovered vehicle is given a warning letter which refers to the law and sets
out the penalties. However, the landfill has no record of repeat offenders.
According to the landfill operator, during early spring there is more abuse
of the law.
The enforcement is left up to the Police Department, and patrolmen are
reminded frequently to keep their eyes open for offenders.
Civic and service clubs could assist in this problem by having programs on
the problems to keep citizens aware of the problem. The Highway Department
spends approximately $45,000 each spring in Albemarle County to clean up our
highways. Any help from clubs such as the Ruritans would help cut down on
their cost."
Mr. Propst was not present.
was noted as received.
There was no discussion of the staff report and the item
(Mr. Way returned to the meeting at 10:13 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal: Covesville Post Office Site Plan. Proposal to locate a
1,168 square foot post office building on a two-acre lot which shall be serviced by eight
parking spaces and one loading space. The site plan indicates the proposed division of a
two-acre lot from a 5.14 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property described as Tax Map
109, Parcel 34Cl, is located on Route 633 approximately one-fourth mile east of its intersec-
tion with Route 29 in Covesville. Samuel Miller District.
This matter was brought before the Board by the following letter from C. V. Drumheller,
the Covesville Postmaster, dated June 2, 1987:
"On May 26, 1987, the Albemarle County Planning Commission found that the
Covesville Post Office Site Plan was not in accordance with the comprehen-
sive plan in respect to location. I am appealing that decision for the
following reasons:
The Planning Commission was misinformed in regard to noise, well
contamination, speeding cars, and lighting of the post office building
in that area. In this particular area, the complainees are bounded by
Route 29 on one side and a railroad track on the other side, both of
which are closer than the post office site. The location of the post
office is not visible from any of the complainees except the gentlemen
who complained of water contamination.
515
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
The Planning Commission is not familiar with the problems the Post
Office Department has had in locating a site in the Covesville area
which must be at least two acres. The Post Office Department has spent
at least two years trying to obtain a site in the Covesville area that
will comply with Albemarle County requirements. It is a strong possi-
bility that if this site is rejected, a post office will no longer be
located in the Covesville area.
I would appreciate your study and consideration of voting in favor of the
proposed Covesville Post Office site plan."
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
Character of the Area: This site is currently undeveloped. The site
slopes gently down toward Route 633 where an old apple orchard exists.
Properties located in the surrounding area are residential in nature.
Summary and Recommendations: Staff opinion is that a post.office of this
nature would not be objectionable to the area and is consistent with the
current zoning. The Planning staff has determined that the existing apple
orchard will provide adequate screening for the post office from the
properties located to the northeast, southeast and the public right-of-way.
The screening trees that the applicant has proposed on the northwest
portion of the site will be adequate. The applicant has not indicated any
parking lot landscaping on the site plan. Parking lot landscaping (screen-
ing shrubs) shall be required to screen the parking lot from the public
right-of-way.
Health Department approval has been received for both lots in the proposed
subdivision.
The Virginia Department of Transportation commented at Site Review:
'There is adequate sight distance at this location. The thirty (30)
foot wide commercial entrance with a twenty-five (25) foot radii as
shown on the site plan is adequate. The Department recommends that
twenty-five (25) feet from the centerline of Route 633 across the
entire frontage of the property be dedicated.'
The site plan meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and Planning
staff recommends approval subject to the following:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
Planning staff approval of revised site plan addressing technical
items;
Dedication of twenty-five (25) feet from the centerline of Route
633 across the entire frontage of the parcel;
Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of a commercial
entrance permit;
County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations;
Issuance of an erosion control permit;
Fire Official approval;
Planning staff approval of landscaping.
A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
Planning staff approval of loading space, including additional
parking apron;
Fire Official final approval;
Construction of all improvements directly related to health and
safety such as, but not limited to, fire hydrants and safe and
convenient access to public streets, as per Section 31.2.3 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Horne said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 26, 1987, by a 5 to 0
vote, with one abstention, decided that the above noted site plan was not in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan in respect to location. Before a discussion on the site plan, various
members of the Commission felt that they should make the determination, Since this is a
public use, as to its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. There are no specific state-
ments as to locations of rural post offices in the Plan.
Mr. Horne said the site for the post office is leased from a private landowner. The
existing post office is in an old mobile home, adjacent to the store at Covesville. There
are a number of deficiencies with the existing structure, which the postal service thinks is
inadequate to provide good service to the area, and they are looking for a permanent struc-
ture. The postal service does not intend to continue operating out of the present facility
and will look at alternatives if it cannot be resolved. Mr. Bowie asked the problem with the
existing site. Mr. Horne responded that the problems are the size of the site and obtaining
sufficient land for a sewer system. There has been offer from an adjacent prop-
erty owner to provide a septic easement. The area in question is on the other site of a
creek and the staff does not agree with extending lines in conjunction with a septic system
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
crossing a creek. It would be very difficult to find a drainfield site on the current parcel
and difficult to move the structure without removing some of the existing structure.
Mr. Fisher reiterated that the issue before the Board is the Planning Commission's
decision on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and not approval of a site plan.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Bruce Tyler, attorney for Mr. Small, addressed the
Board. The post office has been replacing mobile homes and dilapidated buildings serving as
post offices throughout Central Virginia. This may be a violation to the strict letter of
the Comprehensive Plan, but he does not think the spirit of the Plan is being violated. The
location of the site is between Route 29 and the railroad. The Board should take into
consideration that if an appropriate site is not found, the Covesville Post Office could be
closed completely, with mail going to either Faber or North Garden. It is difficult to
believe that the post office will cause any congestion or noise problems. In response to a
complaint from a citizen concerning contamination of water, the Health Department has ap-
proved a septic facility, so the objection has no merit. Lighting of the site is subdued and
the site plan provides for shrubbery to preserve the aesthetic view from the adjoining
property. For those reasons, he asked that the appeal be granted.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is a standard length of time the postal service would sign a
lease with Mr. Small for use of the facility. Mr. Tyler replied that the lease is 30 years
with an automatic rental adjustment after 15 years. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that if
the postal service decides to abandon this location, it will leave a building at the site
that looks like a commercial structure in this rural area. Mr. Tyler reiterated that the
lease is binding for 30 years.
Mr. David Allen, a resident of Route 633, addressed the Board. His house is located
across the road from this proposed site. He summarized his letter (on file) to the Planning
Department, dated May 14, 1987. He is not in favor of the proposed site for the following
reasons: traffic congestion, noise and lights, nor does he feel the proposed landscaping is
sufficient. In addition, the facility will no longer be situated in the main community of
Covesville which means residents will have to drive to get to the building.
Mr. John Shifflett, whose property is directly in front of the proposed site, addressed
the Board. He reiterated Mr. Allen's comments and asked that the Board deny the appeal.
Next to address the Board was Mr. Virgil Powell, an adjacent property owner. He reiter-
ated previous concerns. He is mainly concerned with pollution of his well which is downhill
from the proposed facility's drainfield.
Mr. Donald Mawyer, next to address the Board, is the owner of the property the post
office is currently on. He is willing to work with the post office and county to keep the
post office at its present location. In response to Mr. Bowie, he said the total size of the
property is 1.1 acres. An old barn located on the property is the largest structure, which
he is willing to remove. It was his understanding that with proper care, the drainfield
could be carried across the small creek.
Mr. Emory McClanahan, a resident of Covesville, addressed the Board. There is suffi-
cient parking and space at the present post office site. This is the ideal site for the
facility. There is a definite need for a post office in Covesville.
Next to address~the Board, Mr. Walter Mehring, a resident of Covesville, said the com
munity resolves around the store and the post office. If the post office is removed, that
leaves a town in name and nothing much else. The residents would like to keep the post
office at its location to maintain the vital center of Covesville.
Mr. Agnor presented a petition (on file) on behalf of 217 residents of Covesville
requesting the Board to deny the appeal by Mr. Small, to support the Planning Commission's
decision that the post office should be within the community and at the convenience of the
patrons.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Way said he has received a tremendous amount of communication from the residents of
Covesville concerning this matter. While many of the people have signed the petition in
opposition to the appeal, it does not mean they are in total opposition to the proposed site.
He feels that the present site has a number of difficulties that have not been totally
addressed. He thinks that the present site is the best for the community and the one that
the residents want. Before the Board takes any action, he would like to be absolutely sure
that there is no way the post office can remain at its present location. He knows that Mr.
Small has done everything he could to find an appropriate site.
Mr. Bowie said, although he has received no calls, he agrees that if the post office can
remain in its present location, then it should.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is inclined to agree with the Planning Commission, but this is a
village recognized in the Comprehensive Plan. It would be contrary to the Plan to lose an
element as critical to the existence of a village as a post office. He also agrees with the
statements that have been made and does not want to lose the post office by agreeing with the
Planning Commission.
Mr. St. John said he would be glad to work with Mr. Horne in examining the legal prob-
lems about the present site of the post office. It appears to him that some of the problems
can be resolved, provided the postal service is in agreement. He will be glad to look into
this and get back to the Board with an analysis of the present site so the Board can make a
decision. Mr. Fisher requested that this item be deferred until July 15 for the purpose of
trying to determine what can be done.
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
517
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to defer action on the appeal until July 15, 1987 to
allow time to work with the applicant to see if problems on the current site can be resolved.
Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Not Docketed: At 10:55 A.M., the Chairman called a recess.
11:05 A.M., with Mr. Bowie absent.
The Board reconvened at
Agenda Item No. 8. JAUNT Fares in the Urban Area of Albemarle.
Mr. Agnor said that late last year the Board of Supervisors requested that the Metropo-
litan Planning Organization (MPO) review fare rate structures being considered by JAUNT in
the County's urban area (Zone A). A subcommittee of the MPO's Technical Committee reviewed
the fares as they relate to public and private rate fare structures. Their recommendation
envisions a rate for the general public which is comparable to that charged by private
providers (taxicabs). A discounted rate would be charged, however, for the physically
handicapped and elderly. Mr. Agnor said the JAUNT Board and MPO Board have reviewed and
adopted these recommendations. Staff therefore recommends the Board's concurrence of this
urban area fare structure for JAUNT as provided in the following resolution. (Mr. Bowie
returned to the meeting at 11:08 A.M.)
WHEREAS, a study entitled "Fare Structure Study" was conducted for
Jaunt under the auspices of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan
Planning Organization; and
WHEREAS, the recommendations for fares in the urban area were developed
with participation from the private sector; and
WHEREAS, the fare was studied by a committee of the MPO, the Public
Private Sector Transportation Alternatives (PPSTA) which included private
and public sector representatives; and
WHEREAS, the committee has recommended the following:
1)
that Zone A be the same as Albemarle County urban area as defined
by the Comprehensive Plan;
2)
that the physically handicapped be eligible for a discounted one
way fare of $2.50;
3)
that the general public, in Zone A, pay a fare competitive with
existing private providers of demand responsive transportation, at
$8.00 a trip based on an average 25 minute one way fare at
$20.00/hour (rePresenting the unsubsidized total cost per revenue
hour) and that this general/public fare continue until such time
as Albemarle County specifically targets additional subsidized
public transportation in Zone A;
4)
that the elderly (persons 60 years of age and older) and non-
physically handicapped (as certified by JAUNT) are eligible for
half fare at $4.00 on Mondays, at non-peak hours, to meet state
and federal guidelines.
WHEREAS, the MPO and the JAUNT Board concur with the recommendation of
the PPSTA committee;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, concurs with the recommendation and forwards the
recommendation to the JAUNT Board for a public hearing prior to immediate
implementation.
Mr. Way said he serves on the JAUNT Board and this has been a long and tedious process
of getting everyone to agree. This is a compromise agreement and he hopes that the Board
will favor it. The recommendations are fair to everyone. Mr. Way then offered motion to
adopt the above resolution with the change. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 9. Resolution: Community Development Block Grant Program. Mr. Agnor
said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is coordinating an effort to call
attention of the Congressional delegation to the benefits to this area from the CDBG program,
which is being considered for reduced funding in the Federal budget. Adoption of a resolu-
tion is requested.
Mr. Agnor then presented the following summary of the small cities community development
block grant program as prepared by Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of County Community Development:
518
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
"Congress is currently considering Fiscal Year 1988 budget actions on
Community Development Block Grant funding. Significant cuts in funding have
been considered by the Senate Budget Committee (25 percent cut) and the
House Budget Committee (12 percent cut). The decrease considered by the
Senate has been estimated to reduce the number of projects funded in FY88
through the Virginia Small Cities CDBG Program by seven to ten projects as
compared to FY87.
CDBG funding has had a very positive impact in correcting substandard
housing conditions in Albemarle County. Through the efforts of AHIP and
TJHIC, 75 units have been rehabilitated with the use of CDBG funds. An
additional 58 units will be rehabilitated over the next two years should the
current CDBG proposal be funded. It is very unfortunate that a federal
program which has provided such direct benefits to low and moderate income
persons in Albemarle County may experience such severe cuts.
TJPDC is spearheading efforts in this area to make our elected Federal
representatives aware of the benefits the CDBG program has provided locally
and urging them to oppose efforts to reduce its funding. Staff recommends
the county support this effort. Enclosed is a draft resolution urging
congressional support of the Community Development Block Grant program.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors consider and endorse the resolu-
tion. Should you have any questions or desire further information regarding
this matter, please contact me."
Mr. Bowie said last month he attended the 21st Annual Conference of the National Associ-
ation of Rural Counties and CDBG was one of the items supported by the rural task force. The
President's budget did not have any CDBG funding for small cities and rural areas. The
position supported by NARC, the House and the Senate, is to retain funding. He supports this
resolution. Mr. Fisher commented that the proposed resolution does not list any figures; he
thinks that the argument would be more compelling if some figures were listed.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to adopt the following resolution urging Congressional support
for the CDBG Program.
RESOLUTION
URGING CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT FOR THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, since 1974 the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program has been the most inventive and~adaptable tool that small cities
and rural counties in the United States have had to improve low and moder-
ate income housing, encourage economic development and community facilities
improvement, and create jobs to primarily benefit low and moderate income
citizens; and
WHEREAS, in Albemarle County, CDBG funds have been utilized to lever-
age local resources to rehabilitate seventy-five units of the County's
rural substandard housing stock, with an additional fifty units to be
rehabilitated over the next two years; and
WHEREAS, the funding for the CDBG Program has been substantially
reduced in recent years, and that further reductions could potentially
jeopardize the County's ability to strengthen and improve the quality of
life for its low and moderate income citizens; and
WHEREAS, the County and other non-entitlement small cities and rural
counties have suffered severe reductions in revenues from other targeted
federal programs, including the loss of general revenue sharing funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that:
1. The Supervisors earnestly and respectfully urge their members of
Congress, the Honorable John W. Warner, the Honorable Paul Trible, and the
Honorable D. French Slaughter, to oppose vigorously any further action to
reduce funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program, and to
favorably support legislation that will increase CDBG funding to such
capably managed state-based programs as exist in Virginia.
2. The Supervisors cordially invite Senators Warner and Trible, and
Congressman Slaughter to visit the County at any time, to experience
firsthand the innovative accomplishments CDBG funding has fostered in
County communities and how our low and moderate income citizens have
significantly benefited from CDBG non-entitlement funding.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
Following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 10. Third Quarter Financial Report & Request for Appropriations and
~ransfers. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated June 3, 1987:
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
"The financial report of the Finance Director is attached for your infor-
mation. It indicates certain cost centers are overexpended at the end of
the third quarter. A review of each department budget by the Deputy County
Executives indicates there are no serious problems. Overall, revenues are
estimated to exceed budget by $650,000 and expenditures are estimated to be
under budget in total by approximately $260,000. There are three corrective
actions necessary.
1)
2)
3)
Transfer of prior year's merit money;
Increase the appropriation of the constitutional offices (Sheriff,
Clerk, Commonwealth's Attorney) to allow for the four and one-half
percent pay increase effective in January, 1987, which has not
been added to their original budget for the current year; and
Recognize increased activity in two cost centers (Clerk's Office
and District Home).
Prior Year's Merit Money - There is a line item in the current Personnel
budget, which was budgeted at $54,000. Of this amount, $38,780 is requested
to be transferred to twelve departments to fund their FY 1985/86 merits.
The remaining balance of $15,220 will be requested to be reappropriated in
FY 87/88 if needed, for a Consultant's Study of the Pay Plan.
Constitutional Officer's Budget Increase - The State Board of Compensation
allowed a four and one-half percent merit increase in January to all
employees that had not reached the top of their range. There are off-
setting revenues from the State on these salary and fringe increases.
Excess Activity - In the Clerk's Office, increased activity has caused the
following increased costs:
Indexing Services $
Audit Service
Repair and Maintenance of Equipment
Telephone Service (under budget)
Microfilm Supplies
+ 8000
+ 1500
+ 1300
+ 2500
+ 5000
+18,300
In the Contributions-Human Development category, the appropriation for the
District Home was underbudgeted by $7000.
Summary - The above transfers and appropriations will not effect the reve-
nues and expenditure estimates above. Excess revenues over budget for FY
86/87 of $750,000 were reported to you earlier. This figure was reduced to
$650,000 due to the under expenditures of approximately $112,000 in Social
Services. (Each dollar reduction in Social Services expenses reduces State
revenues approximately 90 cents.) Therefore, the projected carryover
balance is $910,000. Of this increase, approximately $100,000 will be
requested for reappropriation, which will leave a net carryover balance of
approximately $800,000.
There is one area that is too close to call at this time - Staff Services.
Possibly the electrical bills for May and June, which will be received in
July, may overrun the bottom line (total) of this cost center. In addition,
we have experienced some rather large expenses on the mechanical system in
May and June, some of which was due to storms. The results of this will be
reported to you next month.
Recommendation - You are requested to approve the transfers and appropria-
tions. Each of these three problem areas were pointed out to you in the
work sessions on the FY 87/88 budget several months ago."
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the following trans-
fers and appropriations within the General Fund:
Transfer from:
1-1000-12030-201502
Personnel-Prior Year Vested Merit
$ 38,780
Transfer to:
1-1000-12010-100100
1-1000-12040-110100
1-1000-12140-100100
1-1000-12200-100100
1-1000-31010-100100
1-1000-34000-100100
1-1000-43000-100100
1-1000-53010-100100
1-1000-71000-100100
1-1000-81010-100100
1-1000-81040-100100
1-1000-82030-100100
County Executive-Compensation
Legal Services-Compensation
Director of Finance-Compensation
Information Services-Compensation
Police Department-Compensation
Inspections-Compensation
Staff Services-Compensation
Va Public Assist-Administration-Comp.
Parks and Recreation-Compensation
Planning-Compensation
Zoning-Compensation
Soil & Water Conservation-Compensation
$ 6,000
500
5,150
2,600
7,300
1,600
5,130
5,970
1,450
1,750
770
560
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $22,840 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund for
budget amendments for the Constitutional Officers, and that same be coded as
follows:
52O
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
'1-1000-21060-100100
1-1000-22010-100100
1-1000-31020-100100
1-1000-31020-100200
1-1000-31020-100207
Clerk's Office-Compensation
Commonwealth's Attorney-Compensation
Sheriff-Compensation
Sheriff-Compensation-Overtime
Sheriff-Reimbursable Overtime
$ 13,875
2,275
3,190
1,000
2,500
AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that these expenditures are to be offset by the fol
lowing revenues:
2-1000-16000-160304
2'-1000-23000-230101
2-1000-23000-230201
2-1000-16000-160102
Sheriff-Service Fees $
Commonwealth's Attorney State Shared Exp
Sheriff-State Shared Expenses
Clerk's Fees
2,500
2,275
4,190
13,875
AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that these appropriations are effective this date.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $24,950.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund for
certain expenses incurred in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court and the
District Home, and that this amount be coded as follows:
1-1000-21060-300202
1-1000-21060-300205
1-1000-21060-300400
1-1000-21060-520300
1-1000-21060-540106
1-1000-91032-526300
Clerk-Indexing Services
Clerk-Auditing Services
Clerk-Repair/Maintenance
Clerk-Telephone Services
Clerk-Microfilm Supplies
Contribution-District Home
$ 8,000
1,500
1,300
2,150
5,000
7,000
FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is offset by the following
revenues:
2-1000-16000-160102
2-1000-51000-510100
Charge for Services-Clerk's Fees
Appropriated from the Fund Balance
$ 17,950
7,000
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that these appropriations are effective this date.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 11. Appropriation: Health Department Building Maintenance.
presented the following memorandum dated June 2, 1987:
"Since the Health Department Building on Rose Hill Drive was constructed, a
fund has been maintained for the County's and City's ownership costs (main-
tenance repairs and insurance) related to that property. Revenues to the
fund are derived from quarterly rental payments paid by the State Department
of Health, and disbursements from the fund are handled by the County's
Finance Department from invoices and maintenance services provided by the
City's Building and Grounds staff. The fund is audited by the County's
auditors.
Increasing expenses related to the maintenance of a building growing older,
and intensely used, plus the insurance costs increases experienced in all
operations, has resulted in a request to the State for an increase in the
rent, effective April 1, from $5400 per year to $12,500 per year. The rent
has not been increased since 1981. The State has responded that the
increase can only be considered effective with the beginning of th~ fiscal
year.
The fund cUrrently has outstanding invoices totalling $6185 which require
payment before the end of this fiscal year. In discussing the need for
these funds this fiscal year, the Health Department staff noted the only
source available to them would be their carryover funds from last year,
which have already been refunded to the County and City General Funds in
January. The County's refund was $25,370.
It is requested that $3600 be appropriated from the General Fund to the
Health Department Building Fund to provide sufficient resources to pay
one-half of the outstanding invoices and maintain the building until a
revised lease payment commences on July 1. The other one-half of these
expenses will be requested from the City's Health Department refund."
Mr. Agnor
Mr. Fisher asked if it is possible that the rental increase will not occur. Mr. Agnor
responded that the increase has been budgeted and will be effective on July I. In response
to Mr. Fisher, Mr. Agnor said the County receives $0.58 per square foot. Mr. Fisher said he
does not see why the County cannot get these funds back. Mr. Agnor said he has spoken with
Dr. Prindle of the Health Department about assuming, the full responsibility through the
Department's State budget process for the whole agreement and he said the Hill-Burton Act had
30 years to run before that could be done. This is locked into a federally funded project.
Mr. Fisher said the Board should go along with the recommendation, but some effort should be
made to recover the funds.
52.1
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Paqe 13)
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $3,600 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
General Fund Balance to be used for repairs and maintenance of buildings -
Health Department; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is effective this date.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 12. Auxiliary Police Force Study.
June 5, 1987, to the Board as follows:
Mr. Bowie presented the study dated
"As directed by the Board of Supervisors, the subject committee was formed,
and held its first meeting on March 17, 1987. Committee membership is
listed in Enclosure (1). Please note that there are three 'patrol' level
officers on the committee, one each from the Police Department, Sheriff's
office and Joint Security Complex. The committee met six times. After the
second meeting, four subcommittees were formed to study specific areas and
report to the full committee. Subcommittees were:
Selection, Screening and Testing;
Costs Evaluation;
Insurance and Liability; and
Phasing and Training.
Enclosure (2) lists subcommittee memberships. Each subcommittee met at
least twice. In addition, as Committee Chairman, I met twice with officers
of the Police Department to discuss their concerns. The majority of the
officers attended at least one of these meetings. Contact was maintained
with the other jurisdictions which utilize auxiliaries, and copies of
regulations, training schedules, ordinances, State Code, etc., were obtained
and reviewed. One member of the committee, T. C. Howard, of the Joint
Security Complex, is also a member of the Waynesboro Auxiliary Police, and
provided valuable firsthand information on the workings of such a unit.
Another valuable input to the committee was a case study of the Waynesboro
unit prepared by Bernard H. Levin, Ed.D., and Philip A. Broadfoot, M.P.A.,
which discussed some of the problems encountered and how they were cor-
rected.
In the interest of brevity and weight reduction, copies of all documents,
subcommittee reports, etc., are on file with the Clerk's office and major
items are summarized below. All of the items received were considered by
the committee, with particular attention to the concerns of the police
officers.
Recommendation 1. That Albemarle County proceed with the formation of an
Auxiliary Police Unit. Such a unit would expand the service and protection
which could be provided to the citizens of Albemarle County, provide greater
safety for police officers, and be generally very cost effective. Such a
force would not replace paid police officers, but would augment them.
Examples would be:
Additional personnel for emergencies such as floods, snow emergency,
etc.
Personnel to assist in traffic and crowd control for functions which
now cannot be served. Chief Johnstone reports that there are several
times each year when an organization serving Albemarle County requests
police assistance for a function, but he does not have the manpower to
accommodate them.
3. Additional personnel for parades, fairs, football games, etc.
Backup or ride along for patrol units. A second officer in the car
expands the patrol capability of the shift by reducing the requirement
for backup units. Duty assignments for auxiliary officers would depend
on the level of their training.
Subcommittee reports are summarized below.
Selection, Screening and Testing: In a letter to the committee, Otto Vehle,
Director, Reserve Law Officer's Association, stated that the unit should be
very difficult to get into, and very easy to get out. Selection was also a
top concern of our police officers since they would have to serve with the
auxiliaries.
Due to the importance of the work of the proposed reserve police officers,
this person's public exposure, and the sensitive nature of potential assign-
ments, it is recommended that screening, testing and selection of candidates
be done in the same manner as that used for permanent police officers. This
would include the following:
522
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Paqe 14)
so
Applications - all reserve candidates should be responsible for com-
pleting the full County employment application.
be
Testing - all reserve candidates should take the standardized test
given periodically for regular police officer vacancies.
Ce
Criminal Investigation - all reserve candidates should undergo a
complete background check to include DMV and previous criminal record.
de
References - each reserve candidate should have a thorough reference
check to include personal, professional and educational contacts.
ee
Panel Interview - each reserve candidate should have an interview
before a panel comprised primarily of police officers, and later,
members of the auxiliary force.
f e
Physical/Polygraph - all reserve candidates who are recommended for
appointment should have a thorough physical examination and a poly-
graph.
While stringent, we believe these selection criteria will ensure that only
the best candidates are appointed to the police reserve. An additional
benefit of giving such a thorough review of a candidate for reserves is the
facility by which a reserve could be appointed to a regular officer position
in the event of a vacancy.
Phasing and Training: There a~re options for establishing the unit under
Virginia law varying from no training at all to full police training before
any assignment. The ideal solution is to have all members receive full
training (360 hours) before assuming any police duties. Since this level of
training might take two to three years on a part-time basis, it would be
impractical. The recommendation is that reserves be phased into the unit as
they reach various levels of training. For example, auxiliary officers
could be phased into the system as follows:
Level One - works with full-time officer as a non-uniformed and unarmed
backup. Similar to present ride-along program, but only after the comple-
tion of a number of core courses (60 - 80 hrs).
Level Two - with completion of firearms training and additional training in
police matters, may be sworn in, uniformed and possibly armed (additional 60
- 80 hrs).
Level Three - six months to one year after being in level two, and with the
completion of additional training hours (60 - 80 hrs) may be certified by
the Department to perform all police duties.
As the level of training increases, more demanding duties may be assigned.
Most of the departments contacted indicate that their auxiliary forces work
in the following areas:
working traffic, crowd control or security for parades, civic events,
etc.;
emergency situations requiring rapid mobilization of law enforcement
manpower;
3. working at scenes of disasters;
4. working in major civil disturbances; and
·
crime prevention, public relations or other similar type police activi-
ties.
A few departments use their officers very much like a full-time officer:
routine patrol (some as backup officers in a car with a full-time
officer, some working alone); and
2. stake-outs--usually with a full-time detective, investigator, etc.
Some of the departments surveyed had no minimum number of hours of training
at the entry level, and very few for annual in-service (some as few as three
hours per month). Other departments have the following total numbers of
hours training required - 30, 40, 60, 124, 200 and 300. Albemarle County
should require the same general level of training for its auxiliaries as it
does for its paid officers, but as discussed above, the training could be
phased to allow progressive use of auxiliaries as the training level in-
creases.
Insurance and Liability: Auxiliary officers will be governed by the same
regulations as paid police officers, and will require the same insurance.
The committee was able to obtain information on only one quote for auxiliary
police insurance, but the cost is considerably higher than is being reported
by any department using auxiliaries. Cost will require additional research
if the unit is approved, but the quote received is $206 per year without
arrest powers, and $822 with arrest powers.
5,?.°3
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Paqe 15)
Cost and Evaluation: Most of the cost comparisons contained in my memo of
March 6, 1987 are generally verified. As discussed above, the insurance
costs will be considerable higher than anticipated. Additionally, there are
also direct and indirect costs. For example, a polygraph test costs $35 and
is a cost which must be paid by the County. If the background investigation
however is done by an officer on an "as available" basis during normal work
hours, there is no additional dollar cost, but there is an accounting cost.
The committee considered direct costs which could be verified at this time.
They include:
Screening: Polygraph/physical
Uniforms & equipment (less weapon)
Insurance
$121.00 (one time)
$655.00 (one time)
$206-$822 annual
Direct costs of such items as training cannot be determined at this time
since they will be determined by the method of training--whether auxiliaries
are trained in classes along with paid police officers or in separate
classes, whether training officers are on duty or in an overtime capacity,
etc. Costs however can be as low, and efficiency as great, as management
chooses to make it.
From the information available, it was estimated that initial direct costs
would be $800 to $1,000 including uniforms and equipment with these costs
spread over the first two to three years as the auxiliary progresses through
the training phases discussed above. Annual costs would range from $350 to
$1,000 depending on insurance costs and duties assigned to the officer.
Costs for a unit of 20 officers could therefore be as high as $20,000 per
year, mostly for insurance, but is still considered cost effective. The
report on the Waynesboro unit, mentioned earlier, stated that the unit
contributed over 3,000 hours of service annually. At Albemarle County's
overtime rates, this is a contribution of over $60,000. Additionally, the
cost figures contained in my memo of March 6 still obtain.
Cost of four to six new officers - $173,580 to $260,370 (based on new
officer costs from 87./88 budget);
Cost savings for two officers if reserves are used to deliver warrants
- $86,790;
3. Cost savings for 20 officers to allow two per vehicle - $847,900.
Other duties which could be assigned auxiliaries (suggested by police
officers) would be to make follow-up phone calls for paid officer's investi-
gations. This may not result in a cost savings, but would increase the
efficiency of the department since the paid officer would be able to spend
more time in the field.
Timing of Implementation: During the next fiscal year (87/88) the Police
Department is completing several new programs, from Crime Prevention and
DARE, to the K9 program. Additionally, salaries for nine new officers are
included in the budget and these officers must be recruited and trained. To
allow the department time to complete these programs, train the new officers
and prepare for the auxiliary unit, the committee recommends that:
a. 87/88 be a developmental year for the auxiliaries;
the first six months be devoted to staff planning, preparation of
ordinances, regulations, etc., as required, further study of insurance,
development of phasing and training Plans, etc.;
Ce
the latter part of the fiscal year be devoted to actual screening,
testing and selection of applicants; and
target date for commencement of training and service for the auxiliary
unit be July 1, 1988."
Mr. Fisher asked the optimum number of volunteers for the County. Mr. Bowie said, for a
County this size, 35 is the maximum number of volunteers. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned
with arming volunteers and giving them the power of arrest. He has strong reservations about
moving forward and telling people that is likely to happen. There clearly must be an incen-
tive for people to join, but he does not think carrying a gun or having arrest powers is the
right incentive. If the Board does decide to move ahead with this idea, it should specifi-
cally exclude those two items until there is a record of a year or more of operation with
volunteers and then make the determination whether to further expand the powers of the
volunteers. He also feels that the decision to give the volunteers these powers should come
from the Board, not the staff or Police Chief. Mr. Bowie said he would not ask anyone to be
a backup for an unarmed officer.
Mr. Lindstrom said this is a very attractive idea economically. There are areas in the
police field where he feels volunteers could be effectively and safely used. He is particu-
larly concerned with the Level Three described in the report. For example, if he were a paid
full-time professional and working with unpaid volunteers with the same authority and dig-
nity, he would feel uneasy. The morale of a police department is important to the effective-
ness of its operation. Mr. Bowie said the intent is that under no condition should a reserve
or auxiliary force have police powers except when under the direct supervision of a police
officer. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:57 A.M.) Mr. Lindstrom said he has no problem
with a reserve force adding personnel for emergencies such as floods, and assisting in
524
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page.16)
traffic and crowd control and at parades and fairs. He also feels that arming volunteer
could become complicated and cause problems. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 12:01
P.M.) Mr. Lindstrom said he would also feel better if the phasing of the levels were direct-
ly related to the intensity of the volunteers involvement.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve the report and during the developmental stage the
staff define the recommendations and report back to the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not
sure he can endorse the report allowing the arming of volunteers. Mr. Fisher said he is
opposed to staff developing ordinances, regulations, etc., with the assumption that the
volunteers will carry weapons and have arrest powers. Mr. Bowie said he thinks this is
important enough to get started. He has no problem with deferring the arming and arrest
powers until the Board sees how the unit progresses. Mr. Henley suggested that those powers
be deleted from the report. Mr. Lindstrom said he is interested in seeing what would be
developed under "B". The Board could request staff to put together some of those items
without prejudicing what it would be leading up to. He would like to know how authority,
protection and duties could be phased. Although he is not in favor of arming the volunteers,
he does not feel comfortable with putting someone unarmed in a backup position. He also
would like to hear some input from someone on the police force. Mr. Bowie suggested that the
developmental part of the project could begin and be presented to the Board with more spe-
cific information. Mr. Lindstrom said he is willing to support that recommendation, but is
not ready to commit to arming volunteers.
Mr. Bowie then modified his motion to accept the report, to proceed with the developmen-
tal stage, with a decision on arming and arrest powers deferred until completion of the staff
report. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher said he would like to support the
motion, but cannot because he thinks it means that the Board is going to make a decision
whether to arm and give arrest powers during the coming fiscal year. The force needs to
start off as a noncontroversial, low liability operation, and then that determination be
made. Mr. Lindstrom said there is no commitment on his part and he thinks the motion is to
get more information.
Mr. St. John said enabling legislation for establishing auxiliary police forces divides
these forces into two categories. The highest category has all of the powers of regular
police officers and the Code sets out training requirements, etc., for giving them those
powers. He thinks it would be valuable to the Board if the staff analyzed more just what the
officers can do and what the assignments are at each level. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that it
might be necessary to have the staff bring back an outline as to how this might be imple-
mented, taking into account Mr. St. John's comments. Mr. Lindstrom said he would suggest as
a substitute motion to schedule a work session at which the staff might present the legal
categories and some general proposals, including job descriptions, preliminary phases, etc.,
so that the Board can give the staff better directions before spending a lot of time in
developing rules and regulations. Mr. Bowie said the work session would explain the options
under the law and what they mean, and how to implement training and duties and length of time
it would take. Mr. Henley said he does not see the purpose of the Board having a work
session and sitting there doing what it is doing now.
Mr. Bowie then offered motion to schedule a work session on August 12 on the auxiliary
police force study and to defer action until that time. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel.
At 12:30 P.M., Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn into
Executive Session for discussion of personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion was
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:46 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 15. Appointment: School Board.
Mr. Fisher said this has been a difficult decision because of the many excellent candi-
dates. Mr. Bowie agreed that the candidates were excellent and then offered motion to
nominate Mr. Charles S. Martin to be the at-large member on the Albemarle County School Board
with a term to expire on June 30, 1988. 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.
Agenda Item No. 13a. Capital Improvements Program: Funding Alternatives.
(Mr. Henley left the meeting at 1:48 P.M.) Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum
dated June 3, 1987:
"The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with the alternate
funding options, the characteristics of each alternative, and parameters of
525
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
each. The discussion will be divided into two categories:
Funds' and 'Other Sources'.
'Borrowed
BORROWED FUNDS
There are several sources of borrowed funds. They are Literary Fund loans,
Virginia Public School Authority Bonds, General Obligation Bonds, Bond
Anticipation Notes, and Revenue Anticipation Notes.
Literary Fund Loans - The Literary Fund has historically been a major
source of funds to localities for school projects. The State Literary Fund
is controlled by the State Board of Education. Some of the current charac-
teristics of Literary Loans are:
Literary loans are made for not less than five years nor more
than twenty years.
The maximum amount for any single project is $2 million, the
minimum amount is $100,000.
The interest rate varies from two percent to six percent based on
the locality's composite index. Currently, the County has a
0.5890 composite index, which would designate a five percent
interest if we could borrow additional money from the Literary
Fund. However, the State Board of Education reserves the right
to vary this rate one percentage point above or below the appli-
cable rate on the actual date of loan approval.
Loans require School Board and Board of Supervisors approval.
They do not require voter referendum.
It is the policy of the State Board of Education to assist localities in
borrowing from the Literary Fund to the greatest extent feasible, taking
into consideration, the size of the Literary Fund, the availability to
school divisions of alternative financing, the number and repayment ability
of school divisions desiring to borrow from the Literary Fund.
There were emergency regulations imposed by the State Board of Education at
their March, 1987 meeting, which made school divisions with a composite
index of less than a .6000 and having less than $10 million outstanding
indebtedness to the Literary Fund their number one priority of funding.
The County currently has $8.2 million outstanding to the Literary Fund.
The Meriwether Lewis loan will move the County out of priority number one
by reaching the $10 million limitation.
Staff is of the opinion that the Meriwether Lewis School loan may be the
last borrowed funds received from the Literary Fund for several years,
unless the current regulations are changed at the State level.
Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) - The VPSA was created by the
General Assembly in 1962 for the purpose of supplementing the existing
methods at that time; namely, the Literary Fund, local community (general
obligation) bonds, and appropriations from current revenues.
The objective of VPSA is to make permanent financing available to all
localities in the Commonwealth in a manner that:
provides market access to those communities which do not have ready
access,
2. provides low cost financing to communities needing assistance, and
maintains the high credit quality of the VPSA financing program, thus
ensuring that the lowest possible interest rates are obtained.
Since 1963, VPSA has issued 29 series of bonds which total $415 million, an
average of $14.3 million per issue. The balance outstanding today is $204
million. Historically for the past 24 years, VPSA sold bonds at least once
per year. Due to the structural changes in the Literary Loan Fund, VPSA
now expects to sell bonds twice a year.
VPSA is governed by an eight member board (Board of Commissioners) con-
sisting of the State Treasurer, State Comptroller, Superintendent of Public
Instruction, and five persons appointed by the Governor, with confirmation
by the General Assembly.
Other characteristics of the VPSA loans are:
The credit rating of VPSA is AA by Moody's and AA by Standard and
Poor's, which also is the last rating of Albemarle County.
VPSA issues bonds on the open market and actually purchases the
locality's bonds with the proceeds of the VPSA bond.
Bonds are issued by localities to VPSA which are backed by the full
faith and credit of the locality and the taxing power of the locality.
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
~Paqe 1R)
The issuance costs to the locality are low, currently running slightly
above $1 per thousand dollars of loan. Most of this goes to the
locality's bond counsel.
No investment counselor is required.
Historically, the interest rates have been about one percent higher
than general obligation bonds for localities with good credit rating,
ranging from slightly under one percent when the market is low to
slightly over one percent when the market is high.
VPSA adds to the interest costs of the bonds one-tenth of one percent
for administrating and marketing the bond issue. For example, if the
sale by VPSA has a 7.10 percent net interest cost the interest cost,
to the localities would be 7.20 percent.
In order to participate in the VPSA program, localities must submit in
writing a letter expressing interest with the name, phone number and
address of the chief administrative office and school superintendent. This
places the locality on a list to receive the necessary information for the
next anticipated sale. Once an estimated sale date is established by VPSA,
the School Board and Board of Supervisors would be requested to adopt
resolutions authorizing application for participation in the sale. VPSA
Board approves the applications, and Bond Sale Agreements are issued, by
VPSA. The Agreements are accepted and closing documents are provided by
the locality to VPSA, a bond sale resolution adopted by the Board of
Supervisors. VPSA then sell bonds, and purchases the local bonds.
Up until the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the localities received the proceeds
of bond sales immediately after sale of the VPSA bonds. Due to 'arbitrage'
restrictions, which prevents a borrower from investing borrowed money for
profit, VPSA now disburses the proceeds to the localities as they submit
requisitions or invoices to assure that there will be no violations of
Federal tax laws which could make the tax-exempt bonds taxable.
VPSA does not have an accumulative limit on the amount a locality issues
through them. However, they do not encourage a single locality to control
any single issue by making up a large majority of any single bond sale.
They like to spread their borrowing service as well as their risk.
It is possible that VPSA may place some limitations on their financing
activity if, due to the recent regulations on Literary Fund loans, the
volume of activity at VPSA increases beyond their capacity.
General Obligation Bonds - General Obligation Bonds are a means of financ-
ing all types of projects whereas the types of borrowing discussed previ-
ously (Literary Loans and VPSA) are limited to school projects. This type
of borrowing is the most widely used and, historically, has been the least
costly of all forms of borrowing, except the Literary Fund Loans.
Normally, General Obligation Bonds are issued in a package to cover all of
the planned capital improvements for a period of several years. The
issuance of General Obligation Bonds requires a voter referendum. Once the
borrowing is approved by the voters, the locality decides when to sell and
how much of the authorized amount is offered for sale on a specified date.
Selling bonds incrementally over a period of time does several things: it
defers the debt service; it allows the County to choose the most favorable
markets over a several year period; it makes the arbitrage regulations
easier to manage because the bond issuances could take place after con-
struction of the projects; and it allows the County to pay off some of the
existing debt before it incurs the total authorized debt package.
While the 'spread' method of issuing bonds is being used, if there is a
problem with cash flow to pay construction invoices, the problem is usually
solved by the use of Bond Anticipation Notes (BAN), which are short term
notes at local banks. Usually the interest rate on such notes is less than
bonds because of the shorter risk period. BAN's are normally issued for a
one year period and 'rolled over' or renewed, if necessary for short time
periods, whereas General Obligation Bonds are issued for long terms of 20
years.
An alternative to a voter referendum on a package of planned capital
projects for a specified amount is provided in the State Constitution which
allows a voter referendum on the question of a county being treated as a
city for the purposes of issuing its bonds. A city can issue bonds by vote
of it governing body within a limitation of ten percent of the assessed
valuation of real estate. If such a question were approved in a referen-
dum, thereafter General Obligation Bonds would be authorized by the board
of supervisors.
OTHER SOURCES
Other sources, or non-borrowing funding sources, are limited to current
revenues, split-tax billing sale of assets (property) and use of carry-over
funds from operating budgets.
Current Revenue - Each year since the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
began, General Fund revenues have been appropriated for the program. As
527
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Paqe 19)
you are aware, the present C.I.P. shows $1.0 million per year for each of
the five years of the program as a source of capital funds. This repre-
sents 4.11 cents on the real estate tax rate in FY 87-88. As you are also
aware, this appropriation can be changed in any year of the five years by
Board action, dependent upon resources available and projects approved.
Split-Tax Billin~ - This method has been suggested as a standby funding
source to fund the CIP when needed. By ordinance, with appropriate public
hearings, the County could establish two collection dates for its property
taxes, which result in the collection of one and one-half years of taxes
the first fiscal year that the split-tax billing applies. Such collections
create additional revenues known as 'one-time' or 'windfall' revenue.
These 'one-time' revenues can appropriately be used for 'one-time' expenses
such as capital projects, but should not be used for repetitive expenses,
such as operating costs.
If split-tax billing was adopted, a minimum of a year lead time would be
needed to prepare citizens for the payment cycle, prepare staff for the
billing operation, and for inclusion of costs in the operating budget.
Additional costs for data processing time, forms, postage, and associated
manpower for handling billing and collection activities would obviously be
incurred. These added costs can be recovered from the interest earned on
investments of the earlier receipts, and on improved cash management from
the reduction of operating capital reserves required for six-month cycles
between major revenue receipts compared to reserves required for twelve-
month cycles. Localities which have adopted split-billing program indicate
that earnings will exceed costs by a factor of two or three.
Sale of Assets - This source is a nonrepetitive type of revenue that can
appropriately be used for nonrepetitive expenses of capital projects. As
you realize, it takes funds invested in property and converts these funds
from an idle or surplus status to an active use. The sale of McIntire
School and White Hall School properties are recent examples. Other such
assets for possible consideration in the future could be the Greenwood,
Rose Hill, Crozet, Murray, and Whitewood Road School properties, and the
Preddy Creek land.
Carry-Over Balances - You are familiar with realized revenues exceeding
actual expenditures in a fiscal operating year, and the use of the result-
ing funds being allocated to capital projects. Such a source is not a
calculable amount, and is not a planned result of a budgeting cycle, but
with appropriate budgetary controls, these funds have occurred regularly
and have been an important source of funding for the C.I.P.
Conclusion: It is hazardous to estimate costs of borrowed funds with the
money markets and bond market being unpredictable in recent times. For a
general comparison between the sources listed in this report, the following
is offered:
Virginia Public General
Literary Fund School Authority 0bli~ation
Interest Rate
Interest Cost Per Million - 20 years
Approximate Costs to County per Issue:
Preparing Official Statement -0-
Rating of Bonds -0-
Printing of Bonds -0-
Fees Financial Advisor -0-
Fees Bond Counsel -0-
Registration of Bonds -0-
Closing Costs -0-
Administrative Fee -0-
Total -0-
5.0% 6.29% (April 87 Issue) 5.35%
$525,000 $760,000 $630,000
-0-
15,000
-0-
-0-
1/10 of 1% of Issue
5,000-$6,000
12 000-15,000
4 000- 5,000
18 000-20,000
10 000-15,000
2 000- 3,000
2 000- 2,000
-0-
$ 15,000 +
1/10 of 1% of Issue
$53,000-66,000
If incremental issuances of bonds were made, the above costs would repeat
with each issue.
Staff will review available alternatives to meet the costs of projects recom-
mended by the Planning Commission in the 1987-92 CIP, and provide more de-
tailed financial information if desired by the Board."
Mr. Fisher commented that in order to carry out the Capital Improvements Program, it
appears that money will have to be borrowed from some source. He and Mr. Jones have talked
several times about financing. If the Board authorizes a referendum for general obligation
bonds to finance a project, approval will be for a specific dollar amount. As time goes on,
the costs of the project could vary significantly from the amount approved. That is a
problem when dealing with a multi-year bond issue. Mr. St. John commented that the approved
amount only limits the total amount that can be borrowed for the project, the borrowed amount
could be supplemented with other funds. Mr. Fisher said this is going to become an important
issue. The Board may need to think about a referendum on one of the projects, maybe as early
as this Fall. Mr. Lindstrom asked the total amount of funds short over the five-year period.
Mr. Agnor responded the amount is $4 million depending on the projects approved and other
sources of revenue.
Mr. Bowie said, concerning another issue, he is worried about the inaccuracy of the
estimate for the urley Middle School project
B . . If the figures for that project are incorrect
then all the other figures are suspect. Last week this Board received a memorandum from the
Superintendent of Schools stating the School Board had received a bid on Burley Middle School
528
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
which required the full $2.2 million and the Board released the $300,000 which had been held
back. On Monday the project was back down to $1.9 million. He does not think the school is
getting the improvements that the Board thought it had financed. He would like to know what
happened with the school and what can be done about it. Mr. Agnor said bids were taken on
the project with notice to proceed within ten days of award of the bid. It was an attempt to
break into a construction market already committed and scheduled. There was a time limit set
for completion of the work between the closing of the school in June and its reopening in the
Fall. The bidders informed the School Board that 40 percent extra cost had to be added
because of the time frame. At its meeting on Monday, the School Board deleted portions of
the project in order to stay within the allocated monies. Mr. Fisher said he feels that
funds were appropriated for the entire job. Mr. Agnor said he received a memorandum from Mr.
Overstreet that the School Board directed him to request an appropriation to be placed in the
CIP to create a new position of Facilities Planning Director or Project Manager. Some
management of projects is necessary. Mr. Agnor said the schedule set by the school for the
Burley project was unrealistic, but he does not know if the new position will cure such a
problem. He is sure that the balance of the project will not be completed within the budget.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 2:15 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 13b.
CIP.
Capital Improvements Program:
Work Session on 1987-88/1991-92
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, after a series of work sessions where it met
with all of the agencies and departments making requests, has come up with a set of priori-
ties for the projects requested. The Commission concentrated on the urgent project list,
which are those projects recommended for funding during the 1987/88 year. Mr. Horne intro-
duced Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development, to review the projects.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board has before it the 1987-88/1991-92 CIP as recommended by the
Planning Commission. After detailed consideration of all of the projects, the total for the
five years as recommended by the Planning Commission is $17,997,919. The total amount of
recommended project funding for FY 1987-88 is $2,894,860. The report is laid out to give
project priorities that the Commission established in its work sessions. There are a total
of 24 urgent priorities. In some cases the priority established by the Commission is differ-
ent from that requested which is due to a change made by the Commission or by a
misidentification by the agency requesting funding. There are a total of 55 projects listed
for the five year period.
Mr. Fisher asked about the request for expansion of the Regional Jail. Mr. Cilimberg
said it was in last years' CIP. The Commission did not get into the specifics of what the
construction would entail, but $75,000 is needed for planning and engineering. Mr. Horne
said the Jail Board does not know precisely what it needs to build or the exact cost. Mr.
Bowie said if the cost of the project exceeds $1.2 million, then including other jurisdic-
tions should be considered.
Mr. Fisher asked why certain school projects were accelerated ahead of the schedule
requested by the School Board. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission felt Yancey and Stony Point
were renovations needed to establish parity with other schools in the County. The Commission
felt the two projects deserved immediate attention. Mr. Horne said when Mr. Overstreet
presented these to the Commission, he expressed the fear that as the County grows in the
urban areas, some of the rural schools would be pushed back in parity. Mr. Fisher said that
may not be a realistic response to the School Board since he feels it will have trouble
handling all of these projects at once even with a project manager. Mr. Horne said both the
planning money and the construction money were moved forward in time.
Mr. Fisher asked why the Southern Regional Park was recommended to be deferred a year.
Mr. Cilimberg said there was concern as to whether it was reasonable to expect the project to
get underway during the upcoming fiscal year, considering that the Rivanna Park is being
developed with the City. Mr. Fisher said when the Board made a decision to construct the
Rivanna Park, a statement was made by the staff that both projects could be done together and
that the Southern Regional Park would not be delayed because of the Rivanna Park. He gets
exasperated when other people start setting priorities and moving things around. Mr. Way
said that was also his understanding. The Southern Regional Park had been in the planning
stages longer. Mr. Agnor said the completion of the acquisition of land for the Southern
Regional Park is still in bankruptcy court which is delaying the whole process in terms of
planning for the Park. Mr. Fisher said he is still not satisfied. Mr. Bowie said he sup-
ported both parks, but stated that his first priority is the schools.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the City's plans for the McIntire Park softball fields. He has
heard that the softball fields will be dismantled permanently. Mr. Tucker said the City is
looking at changes for McIntire. One of the alternatives is to eliminate the softball
fields. He spoke with Mr. Gary O'Connor of the City and told him that the County is under
the impression that the Rivanna Park would not reduce or eliminate fields in other locations.
Mr. Lindstrom said he will fight "tooth and nail" any notion of putting ligh~s_.at~e Rivanna
· .tT~ N. I ~
Park and there is no way the City will get the kind of service from Rlvanna~that it g~t~ from
McIntire with lights. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 2:38 P.M.) Mr. Bowie said
he fully concurs with Mr. Lindstrom and would not support installation of lights or any
expansion of the softball program at the Rivanna Park. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to
hear something formal from the City on its plans. If the pretext is different from what the
City has in mind, he thinks that should be straightened out first. Mr. Fisher suggested that
written communication be transmitted to the City asking its intentions. Mr. Agnor said the
City is preparing preliminary studies on McIntire Park and preparing to hire a consultant to
study a variety of uses. He does not think the dismantling of McIntire Park is likely, but
he will ask for official information on what the City's plans are.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board wanted to set a work session and public hearing on the
CIP. Board members nodded yes. Mr. Lindstrom commented that he will be out of town from
June 23 through July 6. Mr. Fisher then suggested that a work session be held on June 17 at
4:00 P.M.
529
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Cilimberg brought to the Board's attention that completion of the Bennington Storm
Water Channel will require relocation of the sanitary sewer. The Albemarle County Service
Authority has not been willing to incur the cost. The Commission feels it is an urgent
project, but recommended that funding come from the Service Authority. Mr. Fisher asked that
further details be provided at the work session.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Lickingholi~ Creek detention basin is included in the CIP.
Mr. Horne said it is not included. The Commission has not received any estimates or planned
how or when the project should be funded. Mr. Fisher asked that an estimate be presented
with a realistic timetable as to when the basin can be constructed.
Mr. Lindstrom said it his his understanding that certain improvements planned for
Georgetown Road may result in removing some of the portions of the pedestrian pathway.
asked that further information be provided.
He
Mr. Fisher then suggested that the public hearing on the CIP be scheduled for July 15.
Agenda Item No. 16. ZTA-87-01. To amend the Zoning Ordinance in Section 3.0, Defini-
tions, by the addition of a new definition of "inoperative motor vehicle", etc. (Deferred
from June 3, 1987.)
Mr. Horne summarized the staff report as laid out in the minutes of june 3, 1987.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to amend the Zoning Ordinance in
Section 3.0, Definitions, by the addition of a new definition of "inoperative motor vehicle",
by adopting the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
CONCERNING INOPERATIVE MOTOR VEHICLES
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS that the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, and it is hereby, amended, as follows:
(1)
In Section 3.0, DEFINITIONS, by the addition of a new definition of
"inoperative motor vehicle," as follows:
Inoperative Motor Vehicle: Any motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer,
as such are defined in Virginia Code Section 46.1-1, which is not in
operating condition; or which for a period of sixty (60) days or longer
has been partially or totally disassembled by the removal of tires and
wheels, the engine, or other essential parts required for the operation
of the vehicle or on which there are displayed neither valid license
plates nor a valid inspection decal.
(2) By the repealer of the present definition of "inoperable vehicle":
(3) By the amendment and reenactment of Section 4.13.2, as follows:
4.13.2 LIMITATION ON PARKING/STORAGE OF INOPERATIVE MOTOR VEHICLES
No inoperative motor vehicle shall be located in any agricultural
or residential district, including the RA Rural Areas district,
except within a fully enclosed building or structure or otherwise
shielded or screened from view from a public road or adjoining
property. Not more than two (2) such vehicles shall be located on
any such lot regardless of location.
4.13.2.1
The owner of any parcel in any such district shall remove from
such property any such inoperative motor vehicle promptly upon the
order of the zoning administrator to do so, within such reasonable
time as may be prescribed in such order.
4.13.2.2
Any person who shall fail to comply with such order shall be
deemed to be in violation of this section.
4.13.2.3
Whenever such owner has failed to remove any such inoperative
motor vehicle, after reasonable notice, the zoning administrator
shall have the authority to do so. In the event that the zoning
administrator removes any such motor vehicle, after having given
such reasonable notice, he shall dispose of the same after giving
additional reasonable notice to the owner of the vehicle. Such
additional notice shall be given to the last owner listed upon the
records of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles. The cost of
any such removal and disposal shall be charged to the owner of the
premises and may be collected as taxes and levies are collected.
Every such cost with which the owner of the premises has been
assessed shall constitute a lien against the property from which
the vehicle was removed, the lien to continue until actual payment
of such costs has been made to the county.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley.
53O
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Paqe 22)
Agenda Item No. 17.
Hazard Overlay District.
ZTA-87-02. To amend the Zoning Ordinance in Section 30.3, Flood
(Deferred from June 3, 1987.)
Mr. Horne summarized the staff report as laid out in the minutes of June 3, 1987.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way; to amend the Zoning Ordinance in
Section 30.3, Flood Hazard Overlay District by adopting the following ordinance was adopted:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE ALBEMARLE
COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE IN SECTION 30.3
FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Sections 30.3.2.1 and 30.3.3.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance be amended and reenacted as follows:
30.3.2.1 DEFINITIONS--GENERALLY
Add subparagraph (f) reading as follows:
Start of construction for the purpose of this section only
includes substantial improvement, and means the date the building
permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction,
repair, reconstruction, placement, or other improvement was within
one hundred eighty (180) days of the permit date. The actual
start means either the first placement of permanent construction
of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings,
the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any
work beyond the stage of excavation. Permanent construction does
not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and
filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or
walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings,
piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does
it include the installation on the property of accessory build-
ings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or
not part of the main structure.
30.3.3.2 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT; BUILDING PERMIT; GRADING PERMIT - Amend to
read as follows:
In order to comply with the requirements of the regular program of
the National Flood Insurance Program, no construction or other
development shall be undertaken without prior issuance by the
zoning administrator of a development permit. The purpose of such
permit shall be to determine the effects of the proposed construc-
tion or development on the flood carrying capacity of the water-
course. No development permit shall be issued for any use,
structure, activity, fill, new construction, substantial improve-
ments or other development which in the opinion of the county
engineer would result in any increase in flood levels during the
occurrence of a one hundred year flood discharge. In making such
determination, the county engineer shall obtain, review, and
reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data
available from a federal, state, or other source and may request
assistance from the Federal Insurance Administration, the United
States Army Corps of Engineers and such other qualified agencies
and persons as he deems appropriate.
Where buildings and structures and substantial improvements
thereto are permitted under the terms of this section within any
subdistrict of the flood hazard overlay district, the same shall
be designed and/or modified to prevent flotation, collapse
lateral movement as a result of flooding and shall be constructed
only in accordance with the requirements of the Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code for potential hazards. In addition,
materials and utility equipment employed in such construction
shall be resistant to flood damage. For all new construction and
substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas below the lowest
floor that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automati-
cally equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by
allowing for the entry and exit of flood waters. Designs for
meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered
professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the
following minimum criteria: A minimum of two (2) openings having
a total net area of not less than one (1) square inch for every
square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be
provided. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one
(1) foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens,
louvers, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit
the automatic entry and exit of flood waters.
For purposes of the regular program, the zoning administrator, at
time of issuance of a building permit for new construction, shall
make and maintain record of: the one hundred year flood elevation
on the lot or parcel on which the building or structure is to be
located; the elevation of the lowest floor of such building or
structure, including basement or cellar; and where flood proofing
of the building or structure is proposed, the elevation of the
finished flood proofing.
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23) ~
No building permit, including special footings and foundation
permits, or grading permit, shall be issued within any subdistrict
of the flood hazard overlay district until the applicant for such
permit has demonstrated to the reasonable satisfaction of the
zoning administrator that all.necessary permits and/or other
approvals have been received from those governmental agencies from
which approval is required by Federal Water Pollution Control Acts
Amendments of 1972, 33 U. S. C. 1334.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs, Bowie, Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 18. 1987-88 Blue Cross/Blue Shield Renewal.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated June 8, 1987, on this subject:
"BACKGROUND
The KeyCare Plan of Blue Cross/Blue Shield was implemented by the County in
January, 1986. Prior to that time, County employees had been covered by the
full service 7510 medical plan. During budget preparation for the 1987-88
budget our medical insurance account was exhibiting a positive balance as
follows:
(201,797.24)
222~984.28
21,187.04
expenses due from 7510
balance in KeyCare
net balance
Thus, income from the KeyCare Plan was offsetting expenses that were still
being paid from the 7510 plan. At that time, coupled with the state of the
national economy, budgeting for a five percent inflationary trend appeared
reasonable. The following rates were budgeted for the employee coverage:
$60.20/MONTH
5.00/MONTH
65.20/MONTH
(Employee Medical)
(Employee Dental)
Total Amount Budgeted
Recently, meetings have been held with Blue Cross representatives to discuss
the contract which is to be renewed as of July 1, 1987. The following
became evident in these discussions:
KeyCare is working as it was planned. The overall admission rate for
hospitals decreased three percent from the previous year. Group
members use of the least expensive setting, the doctor's office,
increased. As you may recall, one of the goals of a plan like KeyCare
is to encourage the use of outpatient vs. inpatient services.
The KeyCare Plan is projected to finish the 1986-87 fiscal year with a
balance of $115,200.
The expenses still due to usage under the 7510 Plan are $219,570.
After a plan ends, expenses which are incurred under that plan may
continue being posted for up to a year. The final expense due under
7510 is now known.
Blue Cross is projecting that a 10 percent inflationary trend is needed
to maintain a healthy fiscal picture with KeyCare. The medical costs
per employee would be $64.13 per month vs. the $60.20 budgeted.
Blue Cross will require the County to eliminate the deficit incurred
under 7510 within a two year period.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is obvious from the above-stated facts that expenses will exceed the
budgeted amounts for medical insurance. After considering many alter-
natives, the following recommendations are made:
To maintain a healthy KeyCare fiscal picture, the 10 percent infla-
tionary trend should be used to set rates for 1987-1988. This will
mean a cost of $3.93 per month to the employee for single medical
insurance. This recommendation is in keeping with the budgeted cap on
the Board's contribution and follows the philosophy of employee owner-
ship in the cost of the plan.
Due to the lateness in the school year, it would be difficult to
explain and conduct enrollment on the dental plan at this time. It is
recommended that we postpone implementing the dental plan until Septem-
ber which will also provide time to complete negotiations on the best
plan for the County.
The Board of Supervisors recently approved the implementation of a
section 125K plan which should generate savings in VSRS and FICA
532.
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Paqe 24)
accounts. It is recommended that the Board allow us to reduce 50
percent of the 7510 deficit in the current fiscal year by applying
125K plan savings and any other benefit account recoveries. For the
following year, 1988-89, rates can be set if necessary to incorporate'
the payment of the remainder of the deficit. This recommendation is
made in lieu of passing along the deficit costs to employees at this
time. Expenses incurred under 7510 were done so because a full service
plan was the only one available at the time. The administration
recommended the change to KeyCare when the spiraling costs of the 7510
Plan were recognized. At that time, the Board chose to postpone
KeyCare implementation for three months, a time in which much of the
expense now reported in the deficit was incurred.
Through these recommendations it is believed that we can continue a sound
KeyCare Plan, implement the dental program and reduce the 7510 Plan deficit
with funds generated from other employee benefit accounts. It is recom-
mended that the Board adopt the proposals as outlined. Please call on me
for additional information you may need."
Mr. Agnor said the deficit occurred in the three months between October 1, 1985 and
January 1, 1986 when the Plan was being debated. The County was operating the 7510 Plan on
KeyCare income. The School Board at its meeting on Monday night endOrsed these recommenda-
tions.
Mr. Fisher asked what commitments were~concerning the dental plan~ when this was
presented to the employees. Mr. Agnor replied the School Board said it would cap the health
care plan and not add anything more to it beyond the dental plan, so if there were any change
in rates when the contract was renewed, it would have to be borne by the employees. The
staff indicated to General Government employees that if the budget allocation was not suffi-
cient for the basic plan, the plan would be dropped or the additional cost of retaining the
current plan plus adding dental would be a cost to the employee. Mr. Fisher said it appears
to him that employees who elect the dental plan should have coverage and the ones who do not
want the coverage just retain the health plan. Mr. Agnor said in order to purchase the
dental plan, the County must guarantee a minimum number of participants. There is no way to
open up the dental as an optional plan and expect to get the desired coverage. Mr. Fisher
said he feels that the rates should have been made available earlier.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to accept the recommendations as outlined in the County
Executive's memorandum of June 8 for continuation of the KeyCare Plan, implementation of the
dental program, and reduction of the 7510 Plan deficit. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr.
Bowie said he also has a problem with this, but there does not appear to be an alternative to
offer. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters Not on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
Mr. Agnor said on the County's suit against the Flea Market on Route 250 East has been
heard and a ruling from Judge Trembley is expected this week.
Mr. Agnor commented on the use of property near the intersection of Hydraulic and Rio
Roads for used tires or a tire sales business. According to County records there have been
15 different nonconforming uses on that parcel. The tire shop is there as a nonconforming
use. The property cannot be changed unless it remains vacant for two years. Mr. Tucker said
the use has been at the location since prior to the Zoning Ordinance. There has been no
change in use to require screening or a site plan. In addition if the intensity decreases,
the owners cannot go back to a more intense use.
Mr. Agnor said his staff is working on a policy to restrict smoking in the County Office
Building on McIntire Road.
Mr. Agnor said each summer the County has allowed flexible working schedules for
employees. This year some general government employees have asked that they be allowed to
work four, ten-hour days as their work week. He responded that this will be allowed at the
discretion of the department head as long as all offices are occupied from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00
P.M.
Mr. Agnor commented that a Committee meeting scheduled for June 17 With Highway Depart-
ment staff concerning the expressway has been moved to the Auditorium.
Mr. Agnor said the final copies of the 1987-88 operating budget are available for
distribution.
9~ Mr. Way requested once again that traffic be stopped for the 4th of July parade in
Scottsville, and he asked that this request be transmitted~o Mr. Roosevelt. Last year a few
units of the parade went through, ~.L....;h~'~. the parad~o ~e~ traffic through and then started
~ again. He cannot understand why the traffic cannot be stOpped. Mr. Agnor
533
June 10, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
fPage 25)
commented that Route 20 is a primary highway which goes through the main street of
Scottsville, but he will discuss it with Mr. Roosevelt.
Agenda Item No. 20. At 3:30 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board,
Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn until 4:00 P.M., June 17.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley.
~~'-~Ch~irman
/