1986-03-12March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
March 12, 1986, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT:
ter T. Way.
Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. and Mr. Pe-
ABSENT: Mr. Gerald T. Fisher and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom.
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.
Mrs. Cooke.
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by the Vice-Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Way offered motion to accept the consent agend~
as information. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
Item 4.1. County Executive's Financial Report for January, 1986 was received in accor-
dance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602.
Item 4.2. A listing of License and Tax Refunds made during the period November 1, 1986
and ending February 28, 1986, from Ms. Judy Gough, Administrative Assistant, was received as
information.
Item 4.3. Memorandum dated February 28, 1986 from Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of
Finance, re: Business License on Royalties, which follows, was received as information.
"Based on the Albemarle County Business License Ordinance, Virginia Depart-
ment of Taxation guidelines, and an opinion issued by the Virginia Attorney
General's Office, royalties earned may be subject to the local business
license.
These royalties would be subject to a license if the person is determined to
be engaged in business. If the person represents themselves to be an author
and the royalties received represent a significant portion of their income,
they would be considered to be engaged in business. Also, if the royalties
are from revisable books such as textbooks or technical manuals, they are
considered as payment for services and subject to a license. Royalties from
a one time or occasional fictional book are not subject to the license tax
since the person is normally not considered to be engaged in business.
As you can well imagine, home occupations of this nature are the most diffi-
cult areas for this office to obtain compliance with the license ordinance.
Basically, the only way we have knowledge of these types of businesses is
contact from the individual or information provided by the Virginia Depart-
ment of Taxation. In the case in question, we received a copy of the
individual's business income schedules from the Virginia Department of
Taxation.
These schedules are normally sent to the localities each year by the
Virginia Department of Taxation, however, based on our files, the 1984
schedules were the first ones ever received for this individual.
Based on the information on this schedule, the individual's gross royalties
exceeded the $5,000 exemption provided in the license ordinance. This
office requested by mail that the individual file a license application fgr
the current license year (1985) and the three preceding years (1984, 1983,
1982). This request was made based on Section 11-15 of the Albemarle County
Code which also requires the assessment of penalties as provided by Section
11-12."
Item 4.4. Letter dated February 28, 1986, from Senator Paul Trible, re:
Reform Bill; received as information.
House Tax
"Thank you for sending me a copy of the resolution adopted by Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors. I was pleased to receive your comments on the
House tax reform bill.
I have noted your concern that the House tax reform plan would require state
and local governments to provide the IRS and itemizing taxpayers with a
report on the amount of state and local taxes paid by individual taxpayers.
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
The House Ways and Means Committee included this requirement because studies
show that a number of taxpayers significantly and falsely overstate their
payments of state/local taxes to the IRS in order to claim a larger federal
deduction.
I certainly understand your concern about the burden this proposed change
would place on state and local governments. I will study this proposal
carefully and will convey your concerns to my colleagues on the Finance
Committee, who are now considering the House bill and other tax reform
plans.
I appreciate having the benefit of your thinking, and please continue to
keep me informed of your thoughts and concerns."
Item 4.5. Letter dated March 6, 1986 from Senator Thomas J. Michie, Jr., re:
mandate concerning teachers' salaries, was received as information:
"I am in receipt of a letter of February 7, 1986, forwarding a Resolution
from the Albemarle County School Board, concurred in by the Board of Super-
visors, regarding state funding for education.
It looks as though the language mandating the 10 percent increase in teach-
ers' salaries will remain in the version of the budget that will be reported
out of the Committee of Conference. As you know there is also an amendment
to the budget that exempts those localities with teacher salaries in line
with the national average. This amendment also makes provisions for the
Governor to grant an exemption to a locality when unavoidable circumstances
can be demonstrated by the locality. I expect this amendment will also be
in the version to come out of conference.
I sympathize with localities such as Albemarle that have expanded rapidly in
recent years and because of hiring so many new teachers will not meet the
national average for teachers' salaries. However, now that the state is
finally making the effort to fund the mandated programs, it is necessary for
all of the localities to make a financial commitment to public education.
If Mitch's resolution to study the methods of funding the Standards of
Quality is reported out of the Senate Committee on Rules, I intend to vote
for it as I believe the whole matter of the school funding formula and
allocation of costs is unnecessarily complex and confusing.
I appreciate the Board of Supervisors letting me know their views on this
important matter."
State
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes. October 10, 1984, and September 18, 1985.
Mr. Bowie had read page 1 through item 11 on page 12 of October 10, 1984, and asked for
the following corrections: On page 463, second paragraph from bottom of page, sentence
should read: "That cannot be ea~-Be tolerated in this community, .... " Also, on page
467, second paragraph, sentence should read: "Mr. Jones said it is done from information
~eed fed into a computer by the various .... "
Mr. Way offered motion to approve those' minutes which had been read. Mr. Bowie seconde
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 6. Highway Matters: Route 652. The following letter from Mr. Dan
Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, dated February 18, 1986, was received:
"The above captioned project covers an improvement to Old Brook Road intend-
ed to connect improvements made by Fieldbrook and Raintree. This improve-
ment was originally estimated to cost $50,000 but through transfers of funds
is currently funded at $104,000. Recent discussions with property owners in
this area indicate that the project, as originally planned, may be
unfeasible. The purpose of this letter is to advise the Board of the
options available and the cost of each option.
The original plan called for the construction of a rural cross section and a
length of approximately 700 feet. I estimate this improvement to cost
approximately $104,000. This plan, however, leaves the Michael property to
the east of the improvement without feasible access. Without feasible
access the Michaels are unwilling to donate the right of way necessary for
this improvement. To obtain feasible access will require extension of the
project to the south for approximately 500 feet. This added length, con-
structed to a rural cross section, will increase the overall cost of the
project to $140,000. I recommend the project be extended since I feel the
additional cost will be more than offset by the reduction in damage and the
additional service to the public. This additional length of the improvement
overlaps a section within the Raintree Subdivision but my discussion with
the developer indicates he has no plans to improve this section for at least
five years. Construction of this section at this time to a rural cross
section will give the public a paved road five years sooner. The construc-
tion being undertaken by both Fieldbrook and Raintree is an urban cross
374
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
section with storm sewer. I believe that ultimately the public, the County
and this area will be better served by an urban cross section than by the
rural cross section which has been proposed. The cost estimate to do the
entire 1,100 foot section as an urban cross section is $250,000.
I request that this letter be distributed to the Board of Supervisors and
that this item be placed on the Board's agenda under road matters at their
March meeting. I am requesting the Board's guidance concerning this
project. I do not believe that the original project (estimated to cost
$104,000) can be constructed without considerable right of way negotiation
or condemnation. I recommend that the Board consider extending the project,
giving me guidance as to their desire for an urban or rural cross section,
or combination of each."
Mr. Dan Roosevelt said the reason he asked that this matter be brought up is that when
this project was originally put into the Six Year Highway Plan, he estimated that the work
could be done for $50,000. Now that details are being worked out, the Department recognizes
that the County would be best served by putting curb, gutter and storm sewer on this short
section of road. Even to do the length of road that was originally considered, it will cost
more than $167,000 to build it as an urban cross section. When he got into trying to get the
right-of-way for this, he found out that the cuts that would have to be made on this section
of roadway, would leave_~.b~j~hael property which is on the east side of this section,
considerably higher in--than it is now. It makes it virtually impossible to work an
entrance into this property within the limits of the original project. He talked with Judge
Harry Michael, who is representing the Michael property, and they determined that the solu-
tion would be to bring the entrance to the property slightly south of the project limits. In
order to do this, he had to deal with the developer, Mr. Hurt, of that section. Mr. Hurt was
willing to negotiate with Mr. Roosevelt, but in turn for giving up some of the land to allow
the entrance to be built, he wanted the Department to build a short section of road that had
been made the developer's responsibility under County site plan approval. After considering
it and talking with the developer, Mr. Roosevelt found that the developer's plans are not to
do anything to this section of road for perhaps five to six years or longer. If the Depart-
ment went on with its work this year or the first part of next year, there would still be a
graveled section between two hardsurfaced sections. The graveled section would carry 700 to
800 cars a day. He believes that it would be in the best interest of all concerned if this
project was extended another 400 or 500 feet with the certainty that when the Department does
its work, it will close the gap between the two hardsurfaced sections of Route 652. Mr.
Roosevelt said he had sent the Board a number of cost estimates for doing this work as a
rural section, urban section, and he has even worked out an estimate for a combination of the
two. Because of the tremendous cost increase for any of these new recommendations, he
thought it was best to discuss this matter with the Board before he continues. He does think
this project cannot wait much longer if any progress is going to be made this year. Other-
wise, he would have brought this matter to the attention of the Board when the Six Year
Highway Plan is reviewed.
Mrs. Cooke asked what needs to be done first on this road project. Mr. Roosevelt stated
that the purpose of this project is to fill in a gap between two sections that were being
improved by subdividers. Fieldbrook is on the north end, and Raintree is on the south end.
Fieldbrook has completed its work on Route 652, and Raintree is preparing to start the next
to the last section of Route 652 that it is going to build. The last section on Route 652,
in accordance with the developer's construction schedule, will be delayed five to six years
before it is done. The Department's project was to pick up at the end of Raintree on the
south, and extend approximately a 700 foot section to the Fieldbrook work on the north. This
is the section that Mr. Roosevelt had originally estimated at $50,000. Now, it is estimated
at $104,000, if it is built as a rural section. He suggested extending the project now which
he thinks will reduce the damage and cost of the Department's section of the project. If the
project is not extended, the Department will have to pay for the Michael right-of-way and the
damages of cutting that property off without an entrance.
Mr. Roosevelt said his recommendation to the Board is that the project be extended an
additional 400 feet and that the section that has always been the Highway Department's
responsibility at least be built to an urban cross section. He does not have a recommen-
dation as to the kind of cross section to be built for the last 400 feet. He believes it can
be built as a rural cross section that will take care of the traffic, but it might not take
care of the drainage problems. However, the drainage problems are basically going to be on
property that belongs to the developer, and the developer could extend the curb and gutter
when he finally does develop those properties.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the developer would be prohibited in any way from meeting his
obligations for an urban road later on if the Highway Department constructs this section of
the road. Mr. Roosevelt answered that he believes that anything that the Highway Department
does could be combined into the developer's project.
Mr. Henley wondered if the developer would have been required to put in an urban road-
way. Mr. Roosevelt answered, "yes." He said that the requirement on his subdivision is that
he improve Route 652 to an urban cross section. He only has 400 feet left before his obliga-
tion will be met. Mr. Henley asked if the developer could bring the rural cross section that
the Department will put in up to urban standards. Mr. Roosevelt replied, "yes," that, in his
opinion, whatever the Highway Department builds on a rural cross section, could be worked
into the developer's urban cross section. Mr. Henley asked if Mr. Roosevelt has discussed
this with the developer and will the developer accept this position. Mr. Roosevelt said he
did not know if the developer will accept it, but he thinks it is reasonable. He went on to
say if the Department has the Board's support, its position is much stronger. He added that
he can build the urban cross section through the area that is definitely the Highway Depart-
ment's responsibility, plus the rural section through the area that is the developer's
responsibility for approximately $191,000.
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)"
__£Paqe 4 )
375
Mrs. Cooke stated that the developer is getting improvements to the property that he is
going to be developing in the long run. Mr. Roosevelt agreed that the developer is getting
approximately $27,000 at today's prices that would have been his responsibility if the
Department had taken the position that no work would be done within his area. The developer
is getting this in return for helping the Department with its access problems.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Roosevelt again to explain why this would be an expense to the
County and the Department. Mr. Roosevelt explained that all the property owners seem willing
to donate the rights-of-way and let the Department take care of whatever damages are
the way graveled secondary improvements are normally handled. However, if proper access
cannot be obtained to the Michael property, or if it leaves their property in worse condition
than it was before the project started, then the Michaels will not donate the right-of-way.
The Department will then be faced with the decision, if the project is to be continued, to
draw rather detailed plans, and go through the proper right-of-way purchase process. This
type of situation is always costly. He also thinks that if one property owner is paid, the
other property owners will not be willing to donate their rights-of-way. He is not saying
that the cost of extending this roadway 400 feet is going to be less than what it would cost
to take care of the damage problems. But the fact that the road can be paved five years
sooner assures him that he is making the proper recommendation.
Mr. Henley then offered motion to support Mr. Roosevelt~s recommendations as contained
in his letter dated February 18, 1986, to extend Route 652 by adding approximately 400 feet
between Fieldbrook and Raintree as a rural cross-section. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll
was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Agnor asked if it is possible for the developer to participate in the costs now, so
the whole section could be built as an urban cross section. Mr. Roosevelt replied that he
would look into Mr. Agnor's suggestion and see if it can be done. He is not opposed, but the
developer would have to put the money up now, and agreements would have to be worked out. If
it will delay the construction of this project, he would say that the County would be better
served to have it built as a rural section. Mr. Agnor said he understood what kinds of
problems the Highway Department would get into, but he brought up this possibility because he
often gets comments about the efficiency of projects when later on something else has to be
done to complete them.
Agenda Item No. 6b.
discussed.
Other Highway Matters.
There were no other highway matters
Agenda Item No. 7. Request Waiver of Erosion Control Ordinance - Keswick Development.
The following memorandum from Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, dated March 7, 1986,
brought this matter before the Board:
"The Keswick developers have requested that the Board waive the requirements
of the second paragraph of Section 7-5(c) of the Erosion Control Ordinance.
That paragraph specifies that an erosion control permit cannot be issued
until the subdivision has been approved.
We have reviewed preliminary plans and feel that once the final plans are
complete and reviewed by the staff we will probably be able to feel comfort-
able that the road location will not change during VDH&T review. The basic
location of the road has been viewed by both the Planning Commission and the
Board during the special use permit process.
The developer is requesting this waiver in hopes of being able to start work
on the road after County staff review but prior to VDH&T approval. The
Engineering and Planning Departments are agreeable to this request subject
to the following conditions:
a)
County Engineer review and tentative approval of the final road
and drainage plans (The VDH&T Resident Engineer will be consulted
informally during this review);
b)
County Planner review and tentative approval of the final road
location;
c) Approval of an erosion control plan and narrative;
d)
Developers acknowledgement that any construction that he performs
may have to be changed at his expense to meet any State or County
requirements:
e)
Developers acknowledgement that if an erosion control permit is
issued for the road construction that it will have to be modified
to include the subdivision lots prior to approval of the final
plat."
Mr. Elrod told the Board that the plan of the Keswick Development, that is before it
today, is an old plan that had not previously been approved. However, it illustrates what h~
is going to talk about, and it is the best one that he had. He pointed out the areas on a
map for the Board, as he went through his presentation. Mr. Elrod said that the main road,
376
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 5)
including the existing private road out to Route 731 is proposed to become a public road.
There will have to be new construction done, plus some construction done on the existing
road. The developers would like to get started on construction of the road as soon as they
can. The road drainage plan has not been completed, but it is nearly finished. The
developers know that when they go through the subdivision review process and eventually get
their conditions of apprOval from the Planning Commission, one of those conditions will be
the Highway Department's approval. They would like to save whatever time it takes for the
Highway Department's review and get the construction started early. Officially, the County
is not supposed to issue an erosion control permit without having all of those approvals in
hand, unless the second paragraph of Section 7-5(c) of the Erosion Control Ordinance is
waived by the Board. The Keswick developers have requested that this requirement be waived.
The staff has looked at the preliminary plans and think that they need some adjustment. The
staff feels, though, that by the time the plans are finalized and the staff has reviewed
them, and have formally met and discussed the plans with the Highway Department, it will be
fairly well assured that the road will not shift anywhere else. The road alignment has been
reviewed by both the Board and the Planning Commission through the Special Permit process
that the developers have already been through, and basically the road is still proposed to be
in the same place. If it was the intent of the Planning Commission and the Board to review
the location of the road prior to it being constructed with the intent to have it built one
time and not moved, which will cause more erosion, than those two conditions will be met.
For those reasons, Mr. Elrod is recommending that the Board grant the waiver. He said that
Mr. Mike Boggs, of Haley, Chisholm and Morris, is present and is representing the project.
Mr. Boggs would be happy to answer questions from the Board members.
Mr. Bowie asked if what Mr. Elrod is saying is that the developers want to finish the
road before they get VDH&T approval and the only thing blocking them is meeting the soil
erosion requirement which is the office that Mr. Elrod represents. He then asked if Mr.
Elrod does not object to this request for a waiver of those requirements. Mr. Elrod answered
that after his office has had a chance to review the final plans and has talked to the
Highway Department about them, and if the Planning Department and the Engineering Department
are satisfied that the road will not shift because of some construction requirements, they
would be willing to go ahead with issuing the erosion control permit. He told the Board that
what it needs to do is decide if it wants to jump over the Planning Commission's review of
this road alignment. He told the Board, again, that the Planning Commission has seen the
road alignment through the Special Permit process, but it has not reviewed the exact location
of the road.
Mrs. Cooke asked if this project goes ahead as Mr. Elrod recommends and the Planning
Commission reviews it and finds that there are problems, and it recommends and requires
something else, what will happen at that time? Mr. Elrod replied that the matter will have
already gone through the Planning Commission review process of the location of the road,
before his staff even reviews the final road plans. The Planning Commission will have given
its approval subject to final approval by the County Engineering and Planning Departments and
the Highway Department. Mrs. Cooke was uncertain what part of the process that Mr. Elrod was
recommending to be bypassed, and Mr. Elrod explained that the Planning Commission approval
usually does not come until the Highway Department has given its approval.
Mr. Henley brought out that Mr. Elrod had mentioned "jumping over the Planning Commis-
sion,'' but he said that the Board is really not doing that. Mr. Elrod agreed. Mr. Bowie
asked if the Highway Department will be aware of what is coming, and Mr. Elrod answered,
"yes." Mrs. Cooke asked if it is correct to believe that in the final analysis, before all
of this is done, the developers will have been through all of the stages that are required to
make this a proper road. Mr. Elrod agreed that Mrs. Cooke's belief is correct, except for
the Highway Department's approval. He went on to say that before the developers can record
the plat, dedicate the right-of-way and start working on the lots, they will have Highway
Department approval. The developers are hoping to gain time that would have been spent on a
two or three months' review process.
Mr. Bowie added that the Board, then, is not eliminating anything. It is just changing
the sequence. Mr. Elrod agreed, but he said that the Board should think about the fact that
it might be setting a precedent. He said the County has had approximately four of these
requests over the years, but they were all for site plan work, where agreements were reached
that the developers could get started moving the major amount of earth work. These projects
were under construction and were already approved. He pointed out that this project doesn't
fit that situation, The only reason for doing thiS is that the developer wants to get the
job under construction, and he pointed out that every developer wants that. He does not see
any big advantage to the County. He has noticed that when a project comes through that
involves a road and subdivision of lots and a Special Permit is needed, that once it has gone
through the Special Permit process and comes back for the subdivision process, the Planning
Commission is reluctant to tell the developer that it wants to move some of the roads that
are shown on the original plan. He discussed a situation with the Board where there were two
subdivisions where, when they were considered for Special Permit, the staff really wasn't
looking at the final design of the roads. When it came back for the subdivision process, the
staff wanted the road to be relocated. The developer objected to it, and the Planning
Commission decided with the developer. That is why he thinks the Planning Commission will
stay with what is on the Special Permit.
Mrs. Cooke asked if Mr. Elrod feels that there is no deviation from this approved plan.
Mr. Elrod replied that, from an engineering standpoint, his staff does not think that the
road will need to be shifted. He cannot visualize why the Planning Commission would want it
shifted. He said that it is just a matter of design as to how the lots and drainage would
fit in.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Boggs if he had any comments for the Board. Mr. Boggs said that
this situation is different because this road is not just a subdivision road. The road
itself will not only serve the subdivision, but serves the Club facilities, the golf course
and the existing residents in the area. He said that another advantage of constructing this
377
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
__~aqe 6 )
road now is that construction vehicles would not be crowded on existing narrow secondary
roads. He cannot see why it would cause the County any problems. He said that all of the
risk is on the developer, and he does not think there is a risk there.
Mr. Bowie wanted to clarify a point. He asked if it had been implied that if there was
a problem with the road alignment, was it true that the lots could be changed and the road
left alone even if this waiver is approved? Mr. Boggs answered, "yes."
Since there was no one else who wished to speak, Mrs. Cooke put the matter before the
Board.
Mr. Bowie offered motion that the request for a waiver of the Soil Erosion Ordinance for
Keswick Development be approved as recommended by Maynard L. Elrod, County Engineer, with the
conditions set out in his memorandum of March 7, 1986, as follows:
a)
c)
d)
e)
County Engineer review and tentative approval of the final road and
drainage plans;*
County Planner review and tentative approval of the final road
location;
Approval of an erosion control plan and narrative;
Developers acknowledgement that any construction that he performs may
have to be changed at his expense to meet any State or County
requirements;
Developers acknowledgement that if an erosion control permit is issued
for the road construction that it will have to be modified to include
the subdivision lots prior to approval of the final plat.
The VDH&T Resident Engineer will be consulted informally during this
review.
Mr. Way seconded the foregoing motion. There was no further discussion.
called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
Roll was
Agenda Item No. 8. Request Waiver of Erosion Control Ordinance - Branchlands PUD. The
following memorandum, dated March 7, 1986, received from Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer
brought this matter to the Board:
"The developers of the commercial portion of the Branchlands PUD have
requested a waiver of the second paragraph of Section 7-5(c) of the Erosion
Control Ordinance. That section requires County approval of a site plan
prior to the issuance of an erosion control permit.
The developers of the PUD are in the process of working with the County
staffs to prepare and request changes in the conditions of the existing PUD.
Generally those requests will involve:
1)
Making the phasing and design of the roads more specific in the
conditions;
2) Deleting one of the roads;
3) Making the stormwater detention arrangements more specific;
4) Making land use, walkway, and traffic volumes more specific.
The developers have also just submitted a site plan for the Marriott Motel
project. The motel project will involve a major amount of earthwork for the
site itself and also for the roads required to serve the motel. It would be
advantageous to the developer and the County to have all of the major earth-
work completed at one time and as quickly as possible. The advantages to
the County are as follows:
1)
The Branchlands collector road from Squire Hills to Greenbrier
Drive will be at least graded and partially constructed. This
road will provide an important link when it is complete.
2)
A wetlands area will be completed. This is proposed as a sub-
stitute for stormwater detention to provide water quality bene-
fits. The wetlands is a part of the Chesapeake Bay Clean-Up
Program in which the County, UVA, and the State are actively
engaged.
Because of the existing topography it is apparent to the staff that major
earthwork will eventually be required to develop this site. We feel that we
can determine where existing vegetation can be saved and that certain areas
can be replanted as a part of this plan. If the Board approves, we recom-
mend approval of the waiver request under the following conditions:
1)
County Engineer approval of a rough grading plan and road profiles
and cross-sections;
2)
County Planner approval of a rough grading plan and location of
roadways;
378
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 7)
3)
4)
5)
6)
County Engineer approval of the location and design of the
wetlands;
Construction of the wetlands by June 1, 1986;
This waiver will not affect the existing PUD conditions of
approval nor will it obligate the County to amend the PUD
conditions;
Developer's acknowledgement that any construction that he performs
may have to be changed at his expense to meet any State or County
requirements."
Mr. Elrod told the Board that the developer is not present. Mr. Elrod pointed out the
area he will be discussing for the Board on the map. He said there was a Branchlands collec-
tor road that originally was supposed to go through to Route 250. That cannot be done now
because of construction in that area. There is a road that is already constructed that would
go through the Branchlands PUD, and there is a part of Greenbrier Drive which is already con-
structed. There is also a part of Greenbrier Drive, that is shown in the Comprehensive Plan,
still to be constructed. These sections of road would give a nice loop from Rio Road across
Route 29 out to the intersection of Hydraulic Road (Route 743). A portion of Greenbrier
Drive is the extension that goes through the Townwood development that is already con-
structed. He pointed out the two lengths of road that are not yet in place, and one of these
goes through the Branchlands PUD. There are two developers involved with the PUD, and they
have been working with the staff for approximately six months to try to alter some of the
conditions of approval that were in the original PUD, because some of their goals and some of
the County's goals are different. The staff thinks it is getting close to going to the
Planning Commission and Board with a set of recommendations. He also pointed out that the
Marriott Corp. has just this past week submitted its site plan for construction of the Hotel
adjacent to the Fashion Square property. Because of so many things that are happening this
summer, the developers are working on this road plan design. The County staff is trying to
assist them with this design, because it seems to be an important link. It is the only way
to get from Route 29 to Rio Road without actually going through Fashion Square.
Mrs. Cooke asked if this plan would still be essential if the Highway Department comes
through with its "diamond interchange" design at the Rio Rd./Rt. 29 North intersection. Mr.
Elrod answered that he did not think the "diamond interchange" would help in this matter. He
said that the plan that the staff is considering will not answer all of the problems, but he
thinks it is a good alternative. He stated that the staff considers this project important
and has done everything it can to get it underway. The developer has got a major amount of
earthwork to do at the Marriott site and for these roads. As soon as the developer has
gotten preliminary profiles approved and preliminary drainage designs worked out, he would
like to come in and grade the whole area between Route 29 and where the collector road will
go. It is more economical to get all of this work done at one time. There are also two
advantages for the County. One is that the County has entered into an agreement with the
State of Virginia and the University of Virginia to construct an experimental "wetlands," in
lieu of a detention basin that would normally be required by the developer. The developer is
agreeable to constructing the "wetlands" area, and plant it with cattails. The University
has graduate students who want to do their theses on the project, monitor it and measure the
amount of flooding reduction that this type of project will accomplish and the improvements
that it will make to the quality of the water that runs off of the urban watershed. The
University and the State are enthusiastic and the developer, Dr. Hurt, is also enthusiastic.
If this could be done by June 1, it would fit into everybody's schedule. The second advan-
tage, which could be controversial, is that the PUD that is approved calls for this road to
be constructed by the Branchlands developer all the way to Greenbrier Drive. Dr. Hurt tells
the staff that he does not own the land all the way through to Greenbrier Drive where this
road would have to be located. There is approximately 1000 feet that would be partially on
his land and partially on land owned by another corporation. Dr. Hurt has been saying all
along that he can't build that road because he does not. own all of the necessary land. The
staff sees the second advantage for the County, besides getting the "wetlands," as a major
amount of work done on this road. It may not all be built and paved this summer, but it
would speed the process up and lock in the fact that this road is going to be there. How-
ever, with Dr. Hurt saying that he cannot build the road all the way, this has gotten the
staff in a quandry. The staff does not know if a permit can be issued if it is already known
that the developer cannot meet the PUD requirements. To date, the developer has not filed
any application to amend the PUD plan.
Mr. Henley asked who is responsible for building the section that Dr. Hurt does not own.
Mr. Elrod said that the developer would be responsible for building the road. Mr. Henley
then asked if Dr. Hurt had ever owned that particular piece of land. Mr. Elrod responded
that it was sold to a U-Rent-It Corporation in 1967. Prior to that it was owned by two other
corporations. Mr. Henley asked if Dr. Hurt owned it at the time that the County told him he
had to build the road. Mr. Elrod answered, "no." Mr. Henley said it seemed to him that the
County made the mistake. Mr. Elrod responded that he was not sure what the intentions were,
but the developer is supposed to build the road. He said that it is in the Planning Com-
mission's minutes and on the tape that Mr. Langman pointed out that Dr. Hurt did not own that
land. Yet that is the way it was approved.
Mr. Henley asked if there was any way to tie the road in with the people who own the
land now. Mr. Elrod responded that it is raw land, with a "For Sale" on it that says to
contact Virginia Land Company. Mr. Horne said that this latest development is quite new to
the County staff. He said the staff had been discussing this project with Dr. Hurt for
months, and all of a sudden it dawned on everyone that maybe Dr. Hurt did not own that land.
Dr. Hurt maintains that he does not own it and has never owned that particular piece of land.
This causes some questions with the planning steps of the whole concept of that planned unit
development. The major component of the PUD, from the County's point of view, is that
roadway. Three quarters of the road is still in the PUD, and it could be done. But the
Board needs to be aware that if this waiver goes through, the road can be graded all of the
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
LPage 8 )
way through, and a major section of it will be in the process of being completed. Now, all
that the staff can guarantee the Board is that it will be graded to the property line. The
final 1000 feet would not be graded at that point. He said that somehow a right-of-way will
have to be acquired across that property from the corporation, and the connection made. That
is the whole point of the collector road. It needs to connect to Greenbrier Drive.
Mr. Agnor said if that piece of land is for sale, the purchaser may want to take that
piece of raw land and develop it. The roadway could be included in the development. But,
the County has no timing on that or if it will happen. Mr. Elrod mentioned that another
option would be for the County to acquire the right-of-way and leave the PUD the way it is.
Then the developer could not say he did not own the land. Mrs. Cooke stated that this seems
like a simple way to address the issue. Mr. Agnor said he agreed, if timing could not be
worked out for the connection of that roadway at Greenbrier Drive. Mrs. Cooke asked how the
County could go about acquiring the right-of-way across this piece of property. Mr. Elrod
said the property owners would have to be approached and a price would have to be negotiated.
Mr. Henley asked the disadvantages of just building the road to the property line. Mr.
Elrod answered that the disadvantage is the timing. The road is needed now. Mr. Horne
responded to Mr. Henley's question by saying that the main entrance to Branchlands, which is
north of Greenbrier Drive is going to be constructed when the Marriott is constructed,
because that is its access. The County could potentially end up with that link, from Route
29 up through a portion of Branchlands to Rio Road. However, there would not be a southern
leg of the collector road that comes down to Greenbrier in connection with that. That
portion would be of some benefit, but there would not be the through traffic benefit all the
way to Greenbrier.
Mr. Elrod thinks that the road is important to the development of the Branchlands PUD,
and particularly with the commercial development of the project. The staff is figuring that
a certain percentage of traffic will be coming into the shopping center through the collector
road. If this link-up is not there, the traffic will have to come to the main entrance. He
thought the idea is to keep as much traffic as possible off of Route 29.
Mr. Henley asked if the cost of purchasing the right-of-way could be recovered. Mr.
St. John said he sees this proposal as a first stage of a procedure designed to put the
County in a position to condemn that little strip of land and pay for it instead of Dr. Hurt
having to pay for it. He is not accusing anyone of conspiring to do this, because, as he
recalls, Dr. Hurt has said all along that he did not own the strip of land. Somehow though,
that piece of land was included in the circumference of the original PUD request. He does
not think there is any way the Planning Commission would have ordered a road built over land
that was outside the circumference of the request for the original PUD. He suggested that
maybe the owner of the land at that time agreed to allow the land to be part of the PUD, in
which case the owner would be bound by the Planning Commission conditions. If an owner lets
his land be included in a request for a planned unit development, then the landowner is bound
by any conditions that the Planning Commission puts on it. Mr. St. John emphasized again
that this strip of land must have been included in the circumference of the original PUD
request.
Mr. Elrod responded that there is a line on the map that excludes that parcel, but the
map shows the road going through the parcel and the written conditions of approval say that
the road will go through that parcel. Mr. St. John said that he is apparently wrong. But he
went on to say that if there is a road within the PUD going to within 1000 feet of Greenbrier
Drive and then coming to a deadend, there will be pressure to make that connection. If the
only way it can be done is to condemn it, there will be intense pressure for the County to
condemn that strip, and it will become part of the PUD roadway. If the County does this and
pays for it, Mr. St. John sees no way that the County can recover the money. He said that
one thing that could be done is to say that the PUD can only go forward when the strip is
acquired, and the County is willing to use its power of eminent domain to acquire it, pro-
vided the owner of the PUD, Dr. Hurt, is willing to put up the money with which the County
will pay for it when it is condemned. That is the only solution that Mr. St. John sees.
Mr. Henley said he thinks he could support a plan such as this one. Mrs. Cooke asked if
all of these problems had developed because the road was cut off by the City from going all
the way through. Mr. Elrod answered, "no." He said that has nothing to do with it. He
mentioned that Dr. Hurt owns one-half interest in one piece of property that goes all the way
through to Greenbrier. The other piece of property is the one owned by the U-Rent-It Corpo-
ration. The road has to line up with the road that goes into the Pepsi Plant's development.
Physically, it could be shifted, but then it would be offset on the intersection, and the
Highway Department will not agree to it. The location of the road splits the property line
between those two pieces of property. A 60 foot right-of-way is needed, so only 30 feet
would be taken from each parcel.
Mr. Agnor commented that in spite of this problem of the right-of-way and future acqui-
sition, he sees the advantage of the soil erosion and the grading being done all in one time
frame. Mr. Elrod agreed that this is the advantage of going under the assumption that the
soil erosion plan will be done well, and that the whole project will be done and gotten over
quickly.
Mr. St. John asked if there was once a plan put forward to run that road to the southern
end of what Dr. Hurt does own and then build another road parallel to Greenbrier on his land
out to Route 29. Mr. Elrod said that the PUD shows another road that would be built along
the southern boundary of the PUD, and there is also a major entrance to the south of where
the existing road goes into the Church proper, which will be the major entrance off of
Route 29. He said there is discussion of deleting the road along the southern boundary. Mr.
St. John responded that he believes the deletion of this southern boundary road is only on
the condition that there is some access over Greenbrier and that will hook into the southern
end of the "red" road that is shown on the map. Mr. Elrod pointed out that Board approval
would be needed to delete this southern boundary road.
380
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 9)
Mr. Henley asked Mr. St. John how long the condemnation would take to get the property
available to Dr. Hurt, if he is willing to put up the money to build the road. Mr. Henley is
hesitant to approve this request until this problem is tied down. Mr. St. John replied that
it is hard to say. An appraisal of the strip that is being condemned must be done. The owner
is then offered the amount of the appraisal. If the owner takes it, it won't take long at
all. If he does not take it, then the County would have to go through a court proceeding
that could last for months.
Mr. Elrod asked if access could be gotten to the property. Mr. St. John answered that
the County could get "quick take" access. Mr. Horne thinks that this illustrates the com-
plexity of that planned unit development. The staff has been meeting several hours every
other week with the applicants trying to figure a way that will work for them, so the road
can get started. The viable public interest, in the staff's opinion, is the connector road.
The staff has discussed the deletion of access road number two, which is of very material
benefit, not only to Dr. Hurt but to Mr. Langman who is tied into that road also. He pointed
out that if access road number two is deleted, the County is letting the developers out of a
very major expense at that point.
Mr. St. John said that the developer could use the money that he would have used for
access road number two to pay for the condemnation of this strip. Mr. Horne commented that
he believes that the developer would use less money for the condemnation of the strip than he
would use to build access road number two. Mr. St. John pointed out, though, that the
developer will also have to pay to build the strip, once it is condemned. Mr. Horne said
that the whole, situation is very complex, and the staff would like some direction from the
Board. He said the staff is into a lot of negotiations because the Marriott has a site plan
and is tied into this, too. Mr. St. John stated that a lot of projects will be held up if
some conclusion cannot be reached. He mentioned a nursing home that is also waiting for this
road to be done. Instead of building this road piecemeal as these different developments are
put in, the idea is to do it all at once. He thought that the PUD conditions stipulated that
nothing could be built on the nursing home site until the whole road was constructed. Mr.
Horne said that road is tied to a number of different stipulations. He said that Mr. St.
John's statement relating to the PUD conditions is not exactly accurate. He said that the
staff is in a negotiation process with the developer to get a roadway started, even if it is
not the final roadway design. This would work well for the Marriott and Dr. Hurt and the
Langman project. He would be very encouraged if the Board generally supported the staff's
idea of going to that final property owner and discussing a condemnation procedure. Without
this connection, the whole thing falls to pieces.
Mr. St. John commented that from a legal standpoint, he does not think that the County's
position is weakened by approving this waiver of the erosion control and letting this road go
ahead at this point. In his judgment, it may strengthen ~he County's position. He believes
Mr. Horne and Mr. Elrod have looked at this from just about every angle in addition to the
legal angle, and they feel the same way. The Board has a united recommendation from Mr.
St. John, Mr. Elrod and Mr. Horne that it is a benefit to the County to approve what is
before the Board today.
Mr. Henley said he would go along with this recommendation if Mr. St. John will guaran-
tee him that the County will not have to put up any money for the right-of-way. Mr. St. John
replied that he would guarantee it, because there is no power that can make the County
condemn and pay for something that it doesn't want.
Mr. Bowie asked the County Attorney if there are two issues before the Board. One, the
soil erosion issue to allow the grading to be done, and the other, what to do about the 1000
feet of road. Mr. St. John answered that the 1000 feet of roadway problem is not before the
Board at this time. The soil erosion issue is before the Board, and the waiver will enhance
the County's position to deal with that 1000 feet. Mr. Bowie asked if the Board would still
have the power to get that road done without paying for it. Mr. St. John recommended that
the Board not try to solve the question of the 1000 foot strip today, but deal only with what
is before it.
Mr. Agnor asked if the Board would consider a seventh condition to the waiver of the
Erosion Control Ordinance saying that a waiver would include development of the road to
Greenbrier Drive, and the owner of the PUD will either purchase the necessary right-of-way
for that or enter into an agreement for the County to acquire it at the PUD owner's expense.
Mr. Henley agreed with Mr. Agnor's recommendation because he feels that the County needs some
leverage. Mr. Elrod said that Mr. Agnor's recommendation also sounds good to him. Mrs.
Cooke asked Mr. Agnor to state again what the seventh condition should say, and he repeated
his suggestion to the Board. Mr. Agnor suggests that the developer try acquiring the right-
of-way first. If he fails and has no way to force it, then he will enter into an agreement
with the County so that the County can proceed with it. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. St. John if
this seventh condition is acceptable to him, and he answered that it is.
Mrs. Cooke asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Mr. Jim Sprinkle,
representing Mr. Ron Langman, one of the owners of the PUD, said that Mr. Langman wanted to
be at this meeting, but he had to be out of town. Mr. Sprinkle wanted to be sure that there
was a specific requirement in this erosion control project for going forward with the site
work for reseeding and maintenance in the seeded area since there may be a period of time
before any development work goes on. His client would hate to see someone come in and tear
it all out and leave it as a dirt strip. The second area of concern dealt with the
"wetlands" area, that there be a specific floodway and drainage plan between the two
properties established. He said it certainly has a relationship to the future plans for
Branchlands. There would be an impact in terms of the floodway and drainage plan, and he
wants good clarification on that. The third item is that Mr. Langman has certain site work
that he would like to proceed with that which ties in with the flood road, the wetlands and
everything else. He feels that a precedent is being set if the Board grants this waiver
request, in that he might want to come back and do some of his grading work at the same time.
Mr. Sprinkle directed the Board's attention to Item Number Five on Page Two of the
memorandum and said that his client is concerned that the action on this particular issue not
create a trend of disregarding conditions in existing PUD agreements.
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Elrod responded to Mr. Sprinkle's first concern and said that when the erosion
control permit is issued, the narrative in this part of the plan requires that any areas that
are graded and brought to final grade have to be seeded within 15 days, weather permitting,
and it cannot set, even if it is not in final grading, for more than 60 days without being
seeded.
Mr. Bowie said that the "wetlands" area sounds as though it will be a swamp. He asked
about mosquito control. Mr. Elrod said that there has been a lot of discussion of this with
people from the University, and they feel that mosquitos can be easily controlled with the
types of plants that will be put in that area. The University has indicated that the best
thing to plant is cattails. These do not have to have standing water around them all the
time, only moist soil. The "wetlands" will cover two acres. Mr. Elrod said that if the
bottom is graded well over to a channel, the water will not be standing. One of the terms of
the agreement that was proposed to the developer is that if there ever is a nuisance problem,
then that will be the end of the "wetlands" area. This is a state-sponsored demonstration
project to show something that can be put in urban areas to improve the quality of water.
Nobody has any intent of putting anything in that will cause a nuisance.
Mr. St. John said that before a motion is made, he thinks that something should be
clarified for the record. If it comes to the point where the County seeks to condemn that
1000 foot strip under this new Condition Seven, it is then the Board's position, based on its
Engineer's recommendation and the original intent of the PUD, that this road, including that
1000 foot strip is necessary for the general public safety, convenience and welfare from a
transportation standpoint, and the County would not be condemning land of one person for the
benefit of another private individual for development? He asked if he was correct on that.
Mr. Elrod answered that Mr. St. John was correct. Mr. St. John said that this should be
clear from the very beginning when condemnation of property is considered.
Mrs. Cooke asked if this should be made a part of the condition. Mr. St. John answered
that it does not have to be a part of the condition, but it needs to be in the minutes of
this meeting. Mr. St. John went on to say that he thinks the Board should make a resolution
at this point, before the vote is taken, on the matter that is before it today.
Mr. Elrod said that the way the Number Seven Condition will read is that its developer
will either proceed to obtain the right-of-way to Greenbrier Drive or agree to pay for the
right-of-way if the County decides to acquire the property. That way, the Board is not
making a decision now to acquire it. Mr. St. John replied that, if the County does have to
condemn the property, from the standpoint of the public, the Board will not want to go back
to the minutes of this meeting to see where this plan was conceived merely for the benefit of
the developer of Branchlands. Mr. Horne agreed that it is the public that the County is
concerned about and not if this action benefits the PUD. That is just a convenient mechanism
to get the road there. Mr. St. John said that the requirement was put in the PUD in the
first place because it was necessary from the standpoint of the public. He said that all of
this conversation should be in the minutes.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. St. John if a separate reSolution has to be drawn or will this
discussion, highlighting the fact that this is for the public's benefit, be sufficient? Mr.
St. John said that he had changed his mind and does not believe that a resolution will be
necessary, if this discussion is in the minutes.
At this time, Mr. Henley then offered motion that the Board go on record as declaring
the road is needed, and is to be completed as a connector road for the public good. Mr.
Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. St. John suggested that Mr. Elrod read suggested condition 97 again, and Mr. Elrod
read it for the Board. Mr. Way then offered motion to approve the waiver of the Soil Erosion
Ordinance on Branchlands with the six conditions in the staff report and the addition of
No. 7 as suggested by the County Executive. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. There was no
further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
(Note: The conditions of approval read:)
County Engineer approval of a rough grading plan and road profiles and
cross-sections;
County Planner approval of a rough grading plan and location of
roadways;
3. County Engineer approval of the location and design of the wetlands;
4. Construction of the wetlands by June 1, 1986;
e
This waiver will not affect the existing PUD conditions of approval nor
will it obligate the County to amend the PUD conditions;
Developer's acknowledgement that any construction that he performs may
have to be changed at his expense to meet any State or County
requirements;
382
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
The developers will proceed to obtain the right-of-way necessary for
the Branchlands collector road from Squire Hill to Greenbrier Drive, or
agree to pay for all right-of-way costs if the County proceeds to
acquire the necessary right-of-way.
Agenda Item No. 9. Request to be included in water service boundaries of Albemarle
County Service Authority. Letter from Mr. William Pleasants on behalf of the applicant Mr.
Daley Craig, dated March 5, 1986, brought this matter to the Board:
"This letter is submitted to the Board on behalf of Mr. Daley Craig, to
formally request that the property at 338 Rio Road be included in the Water
Service Jurisdictional area.
An addition to an existing office building is currently under construction
at this site. The source of the water supply presently used is a private
well on the property. In accordance with Albemarle County requirements, the
basement area must be protected by a sprinkler system. In order to have an
adequate pressure for the system, it is desireable to tap onto an existing
county water line on Rio Road. In discussing this matter with various
county officials, we understand that an existing building may, by right,
connect to the county water, however the regulations are silent as to an
addition to existing structures. We, therefore, respectively request that
the Board include this property in the area serviced by public water."
The staff report from Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning & Community Develop-
ment, was presented as follows:
"This Department has very briefly reviewed this request for amendment to the
water service jurisdictional area to allow water service to an addition to
an existing structure on this parcel. On January 7, 1986, the Planning
Commission approved an addition to the existing office building on this
site. At that time the issue of water service to the addition was discussed
and it was determined that the addition itself would not be eligible for
service under the existing jurisdiction requirements. The addition is to be
used for office and storage purposes. It is the staff's understanding that
due to the existence of some l~rge overhead doors in the existing basement
area that would provide access to the addition, the BOCA Code will require
sprinkling. It is not feasible to provide the required pressure to the
sprinkler system from a well.
This property is located on the west side of Rio Road. Parcels to either
side of this parcel are provided water to existing structures only. Water
and sewer services are available immediately across the street and water
services are available to new and existing structures in the property to the
rear. While the staff is always concerned as to the precedent for expansion
of utility service boundaries, it would appear from a preliminary analysis
that expansion of the water service boundary for an approved addition to an
existing structure would not materially effect the integrity of utility
planning in this area.
If the Board of Supervisors decides to schedule a public hearing on this
matter, the staff will prepare a full staff report. Please do not hesitate
to contact me if you have any questions."
Mr. Horne said it is his understanding that the BOCA Code will require sprinkling of
portions of that building because they will be used largely for storage purposes. Also,
sprinkling is needed because the lower level of the existing structure has two large overhead
doors that would allow vehicular access. To get the required sprinkling, the applicant will
need to connect to public water. In terms of setting a precedent, he said that on each side
of this property, there is the same type of service area boundary. To the rear of the
property, there is Squirrel Ridge, which is within the boundaries that include water to
existing and new structures. Across Rio Road there is water and sewer available. It is not
a dramatic change in that area, and it would only be to add the public water to an addition
of an existing structure. The staff thinks that, in this case, the precedent is not as
serious as it would be with a major change in the service boundaries.
Mr. Bill Pleasants was present and stated that Mr. Horne had presented Mr. Craig's
position, but he would be happy to answer any questions from the Board. Mrs. Cooke said that
Mr. Horne had mentioned that the building had been constructed in such a way that vehicles
could be housed in it. She asked Mr. Pleasants if the intent is to house vehicles there.
Mr. Pleasants answered, "no." He said the intent of that portion of the building is for
storage, but the access is an overhead door that would permit vehicles to enter. Mrs. Cooke
then asked if this portion of the building might be used by vehicles for unloading purposes.
Mr. Pleasants responded that it could be used for this purpose if it was necessary, but there
is already an unloading area.
Mrs. Cooke put the matter before the Board saying that the request seems reasonable.
Mr. Way then offered motion to advertise for a public hearing on April 2, 1986, the extension
of water to the new part of the building. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no
further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 12)
383
Mr. Pleasants asked if, since this building will be ready for occupancy the first of
April if there is a way that access to the water line could be obtained prior to the Public
Hearing. He pointed out that the existing building, by right, can connect to the water
lines. Mrs. Cooke said that no waiver could be granted prior to the Public Hearing. She and
Mr. Horne said that the existing building, however, could connect to the water lines before
the Hearing because the applicant has already been granted that right.
(Note: At 10:30 ~A.M., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:37 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Request to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Conveyance of Real Estate
by Region Ten Community Services Board and the Execution of Related Documents.
Mr. St. John said the Board, on September 11, 1985, had authorized the Region Ten Board
to have this property appraised and to invite bids on the property. An appraisement was
made, sealed bids were invited and the County Purchasing Agent, Mr. Calvin Jones, was
selected as the fiscal agent to advertise for the bids, etc. Mr. St. John said that the
highest bid was $118,000, which is above the appraisement. He believes the staff and the
Region Ten Board think that this is a good price and it should be accepted. The Region Ten
Board has, in fact, accepted that bid subject to approval by the jurisdictions in Region Ten,
of which Albemarle County is one. This same resolution is before the governing bodies of the
other jurisdictions, all of whom have to approve it. He told the Board that it is being
asked to authorize the Region Ten Board to sign a deed conveying this property to the highest
bidder. The title stands in the name of Region Ten and not of the jurisdiction. The Region
Ten Board cannot convey this property until the governing bodies authorize it to sign the
deed. That stipulatiom is contained in the 1985 resolution. Mr. St. John said the Board
members were furnished a copy of a General Warranty Deed. He does not believe that Region
Ten or any governmental agency should execute a General Warranty Deed. Region Ten's
Attorney, Mr. Cox and the Attorney for the Purchaser agree with Mr. St. John on this and he
has a revised deed, a Special Warranty Deed, to be substituted for the General Warranty Deed.
Mrs. Cooke asked if Mr. St. John had said that there should be a condition on the
Board's approval of this based on receiving resolutions from all the other jurisdictions.
Mr. St. John responded to Mrs. Cooke's question by saying that this is not necessary. To
clarify the matter, he said that this same resolution is being put before all of the other
jurisdictions, and if they do not approve it, the sale cannot take place. He said that a
condition is not necessary, but the record needs to show that he recommends that this new
Special Warranty Deed be used instead of the General Warranty deed mailed to the Board
members with informatiom comcerning today's agenda.
Mrs. Cooke put the matter before the Board. Mr. Way then offered motion to authorize
the selling of the property as outlined iand discussed by Mr. St. John and to adopt the
following resolution as stated and discussed by Mr. St. John:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF
REAL ESTATE BY REGION TEN COMMUNITY
SERVICES BOARD AND THE EXECUTION OF
RELATED DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS, Region Ten Community Services Board, an agency formed pursuant
to Section 37.1-194 et seq. of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, by
the City of Charlottesville, and the Counties of Albemarle, Nelson, Greene,
Fluvanna and Louisa, Virginia, all political subdivisions of the Common-
wealth of Virginia ("Region Ten"), is the owner of certain property at 503
Sixteenth Street, N.W., in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia (the
"Property"); and
WHEREAS, by Resolution, adopted September 11, 1985 (the "Prior Resolu-
tion''), the Board of Supervisors authorized the Executive Director of Region
Ten to negotiate and execute a contract of sale for the Property, and, prior
to the closing of the conveyance of the Property, to present to the Board of
Supervisors the basic agreements and deed necessary to consummate the
transaction, in order to obtain the final authorization of the Board of
Supervisors for the consummation of the transaction (a copy of the Prior
Resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, James A. Nunnally, real estate appraiser, certified the fair
market value of the Property to be $68,500.00, a copy of his conclusion is
attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a sealed bidding process for the sale of the
Property conducted on February 14, 1986, Region Ten received a high bid of
$118,000.00 for the purchase of the Property from Althea Hurt, David Sutton,
and Thomas Hickman (the "Bidders"); and
WHEREAS, Region Ten, by its Executive Director, entered into a Real
Estate Sales Agreement, dated February 19, 1986, with the Bidders for the
sale of the Property (the "Contract"), a copy of the Contract is attached
hereto as Exhibit C, and
WHEREAS, with the consent of Region Ten, the Bidders, by document dated
February 28, 1986 (the "Assignment"), subsequently assigned all their right,
title and interest in the Contract to A. L. Yancey, Trustee of the Le-Jud
Land Trust, which Assignment is attached to the Contract; and
WHEREAS, A. L. Yancey, Trustee of the Le-Jud Land Trust executed a
promissory note, dated February 22, 1986, (the "Note") acknowledging his
acceptance of the Assignment, a copy of the Note is attached hereto as
Exhibit D; and
384
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 13)
WHEREAS, there have been presented to the members of the Board the
basic agreements listed below, which are necessary to the consummation of
the transaction:
A. Real Estate Sales Agreement, dated as of February 19, 1986, by
and between Region Ten and the Bidders (Exhibit C);
B. Assignment, dated February 28, 1986, from the Bidders to
A. L. Yancey, Trustee of the Le-Jud Land Trust (part of Exhibit C);
C. Promissory Note, dated February 28, 1986, of A. L. Yancey,
Trustee of the Le-Jud Land Trust (Exhibit D); and
D. Deed, dated as of March 3, 1986, from Region Ten to A. L.
Yancey, Trustee of the Le-Jud Land Trust (the "Deed"), conveying the Pro-
perty (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E).
WHEREAS, after careful consideration and in furtherance of the fore-
going public purposes outlined above and in the Prior Resolution, NOW
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, THAT:
(1) For the purpose of permitting a more efficient management of
its assets and to carry out its functions more effectively, the Contract and
Assignment are hereby approved and ratified, and the transfer and conveyance
of the Property by Region Ten to A. L. Yancey, Trustee of the Le-Jud Land
Trust is hereby authorized.
(2) The execution, delivery and performance of the Deed by the
Executive Director of Region Ten on behalf of Region Ten is hereby author-
ized. The Deed shall be in substantially the form submitted to this meet-
ing, with such minor changes, insertions, and omissions (including, without
limitation, changes of the date of such document) as may be approved by the
Executive Director of Region Ten, whose approval shall be evidenced conclu-
sively by the execution and delivery of the Deed.
(3) Each officer, official and employee of the County and Region
Ten are authorized to execute and deliver on behalf of the County and Region
Ten such instruments, documents or certificates~ to do and perform such
things and acts, as they shall deem necessary and appropriate to carry out
the transactions authorized by this Resolution or contemplated by the Deed
or such instruments, documents or certificates; and all the foregoing
previously done or performed by such officers, officials and employees of
the County and Region Ten are in all respects APPROVED, RATIFIED and
CONFIRMED.
(4) As adopted in the Prior Resolution, the proceeds from the sale
of the Property are to be used for the purchase or lease of the necessary
renovations to the new mental health program facility of Region Ten. Any
excess proceeds from the sale of the Property, after applying them towards
the purchase or lease of said new facility, shall be added to the Region Ten
Community Services Board Special Projects Fund, provided that all proceeds
of the sale will go only to the purchase or lease of alternative facilities
and not to other projects.
(5) This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
Mr. Henley seconded the motion. There was no further discussion.
the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
Note: Mr. St. John left the meetin~ at 10:46 a.m.)
Roll was called and
Agenda Item No. 11. Request for Dance Hall Permit - Curly's Garage. The Board received
a request for a Dance Hall permit for Curly's Garage at 1464 Seminole Trail from Mr. Lou E.
Catalfano, Manager. Mr. Catalfano was present. He said that Curty's Garage is a family
restaurant, but they had recently added live music and a few people have been dancing. Mr.
Catalfano does not wish to violate any ordinances, so he has applied for this permit.
It was noted that both the Fire Prevention Officer and the Building Official had made
the necessary inspections of the site. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr.
Henley, to approve this permit. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
(Note: Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 10:48 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: Amend Albemarle County Code Section 2-4 to delete
provision that a Board member serve as liaison member of the Planning Commission.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 26 and March 4, 1986.)
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(paqe 14)
385
Mrs. Cooke explained, for the benefit of the public, that since the Planning Commission
now sends its minutes to this Board of all of their meetings, the Board of Supervisors has
found that it really is not necessary to have a member of this Board sit in on all Planning
Commission meetings. Mrs. Cooke said she held the position for two years, and at the end of
that time, she was convinced that it was unnecessary. The Planning Commission has reviewed
this proposal, and this Board feels that individual Board members can go to these meetings
when there are projects before the Commission that affect their district. In the wisdom of
both Boards, it has been decided to delete this liaison member to the Planning Commission.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public present to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following
ordinance to amend and reenact Article II, Sections 2-4(a) through (d) and to repeal subsec-
tion (e) of the Albemarle County Code entitled "Planning Commission".
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT ARTICLE II,
SECTIONS 2-4 (A) THROUGH (D) AND TO REPEAL
SUBSECTION (E) OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY
CODE ENTITLED "PLANNING COMMISSION"
Article II. Planning Commission.
Division 1. Generally.
Sec. 2-4.
Composition; appointment, terms .and compensation of members~
quorum.
(a) Composition. The planning commission of the county shall be
composed of seven members appointed by the board of supervisors. All
members of the commission shall be residents of the county, qualified by
knowledge and experience to make decisions on questions of community growth
and development, and at least one-half of the members shall be freeholders.
(b) Appointment and terms. Of the seven voting members, one shall be
nominated from each of the six magisterial districts by the board member
representing that district, and one shall be nominated to serve at large.
Three of the members appointed from specified magisterial districts shall be
appointed in each even-numbered year following county elections, by nomina-
tion of the newly elected board members and for terms coextensive with
theirs. One member-at-large shall be appointed each even-numbered year
following county elections for a two-year term. Vacancies occurring due to
resignation or other causes shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired
term only.
(c) Compensation. Ail members of the planning commission shall
receive two thousand four hundred dollars per annum to be paid in monthly
installments. The chairman of the commission shall receive an additional
one thousand two hundred dollars per annum to be paid in monthly install-
ments.
(d) Quorum. A majority of the voting members shall constitute a
quorum and no action of the commission shall be valid unless authorized by a
majority vote of those present and voting.
There was no further discussion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried with the
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation by Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation.
Mr. Ron White, Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Cor-
poration, said this is a corporation in which Albemarle County as well as other counties in
Planning District 10 support it as a regional approach to some of their housing problems. He
said the Corporation was established approximately four years ago, and has been operational
for thirteen months. His office is currently administering funds for housing improvements in
the planning district. He said Albemarle, Fluvanna and Nelson Counties are currently funded
with a $580~000 community development block grant. The Corporation's goal is set at 36 homes
to be rehabilitated in Fluvanna, 18 in Albemarle and eight in Nelson for a total of 62 over a
two year period. To date, 29 jobs have been completed, ten of which are in Albemarle. He
said this represents a service to 89 low and moderate income individuals of which 78 of those
individuals are minorities. In doing this, approximately 40 percent of the Corporation's
total budget has been expended. He said the Corporation's primary purpose is to rehabilitate
homes to the minimum property standards of Section Eight, as established by HUD. The pre-
dominant jobs are installation of bathrooms, interior plumbing, providing a sanitary water
supply, and constructing approved septic systems. There are other health and safety hazards
that his Corporation does remedy, but it does not get involved in cosmetic work unless it is
a required necessity by HUD. He mentioned that they are not required to paint a house unless
the paint is chipping or peeling, or if it is lead based paint, it would have to be removed.
He said they have worked closely with the local programs during the past year, such as the
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. He said a slide presentation would be shown to the
Board, and he asked that particular attention be paid to the Hughes Job at Keswick, which was
accomplished with combined efforts of his corporation, Albemarle Housing Improvement Program
386
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
and also Farmers Home funds. He said that this particular job was three times as costly as
an average job, and could not have been accomplished by any one program by itself. He
introduced Ms. Joyce Dudek, Project Manager in Albemarle, and said she would show the Board
the slides, and then he would have a closing remark.
Mrs. Cooke commented that the Board wants the full benefit of Mr. White's presentation,
but she told him that the Board is running a little behind schedule. She asked him if he
could move along with the presentation. Mr. Way asked Mr. White if he is planning to get the
full number of houses done within the allotted time frame? Mr. White answered, "yes." He
said that it does appear that there will be enough funds to cover the full number of houses.
Ms. Dudek then showed the slide presentation and discussed it with the Board. She said the
target areas for Albemarle County include Blenheim, North Garden, Covesville and Keswick.
She said the requirements are that the units have to be brought up to Section Eight standards
and any health and safety problems have to be eliminated. She said that the Corporation can
also install septic systems and dig wells, if necessary.
Mr. White thanked the Board of Supervisors, on behalf of the Thomas Jefferson Housing
Improvements Board of Directors, for supporting the regional program and for giving him and
Ms. Dudek a chance to report on the progress that has been made. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. White
if he could tell the Board the total amount of money allotted to project areas. Mr. White
replied that of the $580,000, there was $159,800 allotted for actual project costs in
Albemarle County, $280,000 in Fluvanna, and $40,000 in Nelson. The balance is adding in cost
which is held at ten percent of the total grant.
Since there were no other questions for Mr. White, Mrs. Cooke moved to the next Agenda
Item.
Agenda Item No. 14. Report from Senior Center. Mr. Albert Johnson, from the Senior
Center, said that he was going to officially present a copy of a letter that he believes the
Board already has in its possession (letter dated March 3, 1986, addressed to Mr. Gerald E.
Fisher, Chairman, signed by Mr. Alva A. Johnson, President of The Senior Center, Inc., had
been forwarded to each Board member and is on file in the Clerk's Office.) He read the
letter to the Board and called the Board's attention to the bulletin attached to the letter.
He said that the Center is specifically requesting this Board to review with the Center's
representatives all buildings in its jurisdiction which may now or in the near future become
vacant and available for the Center's possible use. With the ideas and enthusiasm of the new
Program Director, Mr. Johnson stated that the Center is literally "bursting the seams" of the
building it presently occupies. With adequate space and parking, he believes the Center will
grow 20 percent or more a year, thereby serving a larger percentage of the senior citizens in
Charlottesville and Albemarle County. He said that the Center eagerly looks forward to an
early opportunity to explore any possibilities with the Board.
Mrs. Cooke commented that she is sorry to hear that the Senior Center has not been
successful in the quest for the McIntire Building. She recognizes the needs, and said that
it is not very often that the Board has a request just for assistance to locate something
without any financial obligations. Mr. Bowie agreed with Mrs. Cooke's comments but he
pointed out, as Chairman of the Board's Building Committee, that the policy of the Board is
to first advertise the property to see if it can be used for the public's benefit. He
assured Mr. Johnson that this Board normally refers the sale of any excess property to the
Building Committee for its recommendation. He said that the Board would be happy to do
everything that Mr. Johnson requested. The Senior Center's representatives may look at the
property and come 'up with proposals before developers are notified. He said this is standard
procedure.
Mr. Johnson mentioned that the Center has a five year lease on the building where it is
now located, and the five years will be up at the end of this year. The Center is expected
to sign an extension of this with the City, and he pointed out that the rent that is paid for
the Center is nominal. He added that if the County owns a building that it would like to
lease to the Center for a nominal fee, that would be another idea. Mrs. Cooke replied that
she would refer this idea to the Building Committee.
Mr. Johnson said he appreciates that the County has to put these buildings up for bids.
But at the same time, he solicits the Board's consideration for the Center's needs. He
mentioned that perhaps the County could somehow work around this requirement, and he would
appreciate anything that could be done in that direction.
Mrs. Cooke thanked Mr. Johnson for coming by. She extended him the Board's best wishes
in the Center's quest for finding a building, and stated that she was sure the Building
Committee will keep his request in mind. Mr. Johnson added that if the Center comes up with
any further ideas, they will certainly be brought to the Board.
Agenda Item No. 15. Restructuring Data Processing Department.
from the County Executive, dated March 7, 1986, was presented.
The following memorandum
"The McGladrey, Hendrickson, and Pullen consultant report recommended the
conversion of the Data Processing Department to a Department of Informa-
tion Services with responsibilities for:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Main frame and peripherals
Minicomputers
Microcomputers
Word Processing
Telecommunications.
The staff was assigned the task of analyzing such a change, and making
recommendations to the Board for the conversion.
March 12, 1986 (
(Page 16)
Regular Day Meeting)
The Department of Data Processing (D.P.), was created in 1981 as a main
frame operation under the supervision of a Management Committee. To
review and assess the software needs of departments, an Automation Needs
Assessment Committee (ANAC) was established. During the D.P. Department's
development years, the use of smaller computers and word processors came
into the forefront, and the ANAC group was assigned the task of examining
the need for, and coordinating the use of, microcomputers and word
processors in all departments. Therefore, a portion of the expanded
involvement of 'data processing' functions into 'information services'
activities has already occurred.
Staff has consulted with several local governments which have established
a Department of Information Systems, examining their organizational struc-
tures and functions. Two localities were visited, which had similar main
frame environments and numbers of microcomputers. The result of the con-
sultations and visits indicates that microcomputer support can be costly
and require an ever increasing portion of an Information Center's budget,
but staff believes we can accomplish the conversion in a more economical
manner by expanding the functions of microcomputer responsibilities in the
D.P. Department with the existing staff by spreading the knowledge and
responsibility for microcomputer guidance to user departments over the
entire D.P. staff, and by reclassifying an existing employee to an 'Opera-
tion's Analyst'. The position would be a microcomputer specialist respon-
sible to advise users about microcomputers, and to coordinate their
training through the development of some in-house training capability as
well as the use of outside trainers, where needed. Additionally, the
'Director of Data Processing' should be retitled and reclassified to
'Director of Information Services'.
The expansion of responsibilities within the D.P. Department into the
field of minicomputers is not significant at this time, but minicomputers
should also be under this department's responsibility if needed. The
assignment into the field of telecommunications should be reserved for
telecommunication consultants, when needed, under the coordination of the
Director of Information Services.
Reclassification of one staff position and the department director would
cost $4200 in FY 86-87 in increased personnel costs. Microcomputer and
word processor training for employees in other departments is estimated to
cost $7000 for FY 86-87, and may diminish slightly after that, once
'in-house' training capability is established. Future training costs will
also be dependent upon employee turn-over and continued training needs.
It is recommended that the conversion of the department and its renaming be
authorized effective April 1, with the reclassification of the one employee
position and the Director's position occurring then if the funds needed
for the balance of this fiscal year can be found within the department's
current appropriation."
Mrs. Cooke asked if the Board had any questions for Mr. Agnor. Mr. Bowie asked if
funds were in the Data Processing budget at the Board's work session. Mr. Agnor answered
that the $7,000 was in the budget at that time, but the amount of money required for reclas-
sification of positions was not. Mr. Bowie asked if the Data'Processing Department would be
able to absorb the April 1 costs at the end of the year. Mr. Agnor replied that he is
uncertain if the costs can be absorbed by the Department, but that is his recommendation, if
it is possible. He said the work is underway, but is awkward because the assignment of
responsibilty has not yet been done. He said the responsibility has been scattered among
personnel all over the building and he thinks the responsibility needs to be centralized.
Mr. Bowie asked if this can be handled in the current budget, without redoing everything
that was done at the budget work session. In answer to Mr. Bowie's question, Mr. Agnor said
"no." He said that the Department has no new positions for next year and the salaries are
down to the exact dollar of the salaries that will be in paid. There is no flexibility to
add the reclassifications unless someone leaves and hiring a replacement is deferred. Mr.
Bowie mentioned that a piece of software could be deferred for six months or a year. Mr.
Agnor replied, "yes." But, he said, this cost has nothing to do with software. Mr. Bowie
said that in its total budget, the Department should be able to absorb $4200.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Agnor if he is asking the Board for an approval. Mr. Agnor
answered that he is asking the Board for approval of a conversion that would trigger a
reclassification of two positions, and it would include incorporating funds into the proposed
1986-87 budget or, as Mr. Bowie suggested, not incorporating them. The Board will see this
again with the final approval of the D.P. budget and also the descriptions of the two
positions will be written and brought back to the Board for approval and insertion into the
Pay/Classification Plan.
Mrs. Cooke asked for a motion. Mr. Bowie moved that the restructuring of the Data
Processing Department, as outlined by the County Executive's memo of March 7, 1986, be
approved, but that the budget for that Department remain as it was approved on March 10,1986.
He suggested that the Board review the situation again in regard to an increase, if the
Department cannot absorb the expenses. Mr. Henley stated that he will support the motion if
the budget stays the same, with the possibility of an increase later. Mr. Bowie indicated
that his motion was in agreement with Mr. Henley's statement. Mr. Henley then seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote.
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
388
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Agenda Item No. 16a. Distribution of One-For-Life Funds.
the County Executive, dated March 7, 1986, was presented.
The following memorandum from
"The One For Life Program provides for the allocation of one dollar of the
state vehicle registration fee that is collected for emergency medical
services. The law provides that 25 percent of the funds collected by the
State are returned to the localities for enhancement of emergency medical
services systems. The County has been advised that for the period July 1,
1984, to June 30, 1985, vehicle registrations totalled 40,960 resulting in a
payment of $10,240.00 for 1986. This is the third year of the program, 1985
bringing in $8,211.50, with 1984 totalling $9,166.00.
In the first two years, the proceeds were distributed by the County evenly
to the three rescue squads, at their request. The three squads are request-
ing the same distribution this year. It is recommended that an appropria-
tion be approved for $3413.34 to the Scottsville Rescue Squad, and $3413.33
each to the Western Albemarle and Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squads.'~
Mrs. Cooke asked if there were any questions, and there were none. She then asked for a
motion. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the request and
adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $10,240.00 be, and the same hereby is, hereby appro-
priated from the General Fund and coded to the Charlottesville/
Albemarle Rescue Squad ($3,413,33); the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad
EMS ($3,413.33); and $cottsville Rescue Squad EMS ($3,413.34); and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $10,240.00 to Code
2-1000-24000-240415 entitled EMS Funds; and
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
There was no further discussion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried with the
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 16b. Appropriation: Ivy Area School. Mr. Agnor spoke about an appro-
priation for the Ivy Area School. He said that in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program
which was approved last summer, the Board allocated $250,000 to the School Division for need~
that would arise in this fiscal year for development of any school projects. The Board
appropriated $8700 of that for the preliminary work for the Ivy Area School. Since that
project has been authorized to proceed, the Superintendent is requesting that $200,000 be
appropriated in order to proceed with the complete design, bid document preparation, and bid
anaylsis. He also requests that the coding of this $200,000 be assigned a different code so
that the funding ceiling that was placed on the project would not have to absorb the first
few thousand dollars spent in determining the location of the site.
Mr. Way inquired about the total amount that was originally appropriated. Mr. Agnor
replied that the total amount appropriated for the Ivy Area School project was slightly in
excess of $4,000,000. Mr. Henley stated that he understood that the $8700 was part of the
$250,000. Mr. Agnor answered that he thinks it is appropriate to say that this is the first
appropriation for this project. He said the other money appropriated was for preliminary
work that the Board had requested and that amount has been spent.
Mr. Way moved approval of the $200,000 appropriation for the Ivy Area School by adoptin~
the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that $200,000.00 be, and the same hereby is~
appropriated from the Capital Improvements Fund Undesignated
Fund Balance (Code 1-9000-99999-999998) and transferred to the
Ivy School (Code 1-9000-60640-170999); and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is effective this
date.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Mr. Agnor added that he thinks it is a good accounting
system to separate this item. Mrs. Cooke agreed. Roll was called, and the motion carried b
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
(Note: Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:30 a.m.)
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
~Pa~e 18)
389
Agenda Item No. 17. Budget Work Session - 1986-87 County Budget:
Soil & Water Conservation. Requested $10,986; reconwaended $10,926. Mr. Tucker said
that the County provides a part-time secretarial position and copying supplies for the Soil
and Water Conservation Service. The increase in the personnel category is a cost of living
increase, which is recommended for all County employess. The copying supplies expenses have
actually decreased. The total cost of this department's increase is 2.88 percent over last
year's appropriation. There were no changes recommended.
VPI-SU Extension Service. Requested $62,977; recommended $62,407. Ms. Elizabeth Payne,
Unit Chairman, was present. Mr. Tucker said that the bulk of the budget is in personnel
costs, which provides for one full-time secretarial position. The County also provides
one-third of the salaries and fringe benefits for four extension agents. Operational
expenses encompass only the telephone service and office supplies. The total expense for
this department increases less than one percent. That is due mainly to the compensation
category decreasing because the current employee will be retiring and a replacement will be
hired in at a lower salary.
Mr. Bowie inquired as to why the compensation for extension agents was up $3855, and Mr.
Tucker said that item is geared to the state salary scale. Mr. Agnor mentioned that the
state is giving a 4.6 percent raise in July and an second 4.6 percent raise in January. He
said that merit raises are added on top of that. This has been going on for two years, and
the County is beginning to feel the effects in terms of comparable salaries. He said that
for several years the state's salaries were frozen, and now they are rapidly increasing those
salaries.
Mrs. Payne stated that her office had a vacant position for a horticulturist which they
had been trying to fill. The position was advertised, but then all hiring was frozen because
of changes on the federal level. She recently received notice that this position will be
filled based on an internal transfer. She said that at the present time there are three
master gardeners volunteering on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays to cover the calls of people
who need help with their gardens.
There was no change recommended for this item.
Thomas Jefferson Planning District commission. Requested $28,128; recommended $20,810.
Mr. Jim Skove was present. Mr. Tucker said that the Planning District Commission is
requesting an increase in its contribution this year from all localities to 48 cents per
capita. This is a 40 percent increase over last year's request which was 35 cents per
capita. The staff is recommending only a three and one-half percent increase over the
current expenditure projection, which is based on the cost of living increase recommendation.
This three and one-half percent increase equates to approximately 36 cents per capita.
Mrs. Cooke recognized Mr. Skove, who wished to speak. Mr. Skove introduced Mr. Bill
Warner, who will be replacing Mr. Skove in two weeks. Mr. Skove explained that the increase
was requested as a result of a study by the Commission itself and a recommendation by the
Commission of various tasks that they didn't want the Planning District Commission to under-
take. The staff felt, and the Commission concurred, that it would take three professional
planners to handle these tasks.
Mrs. Cooke thanked Mr. Skove for all that he had contributed, and welcomed Mr. Warner to
the area.
Urban Bus Service. Requested $13,973; recommended 10,258. Mr. Tucker stated that the
Bus Service request column indicates an amount of $13,973, but he said that was not really
the request of the City and the bus system. The County has had many requests from people in
the Pantops area, particularly at State Farm and the Riverbend Shopping Center, for a bus
route in that area. The County got an estimate of what the costs would be to expand a route
to Pantops, and that is what this figure indicates. After reviewing the situation, however,
the staff felt that perhaps it would be better not to fund that route at this time. The main
reason for this is because of all the changes that are going on in the federal budget, and
public transportation is directly reliant upon federal fuunds. Even though a route in that
area would be beneficial, the staff is reluctant to recommend it at this time, not knowing
what the fiscal ramifications will be a year from now. The staff did not think it was fair
to the public to recommend a new route and then have to take it away later. The staff is
recommending a level service of the existing routes that are provided on Route 29 North.
This is an effort to reduce the traffic on Route 29, as part of the many things being done to
relieve the traffic congestion there. The staff's recommendation is $10,258 which is status
quo. Mr. Tucker stated also that he was informed yesterday that the City had neglected to
include the new insurance rates for vehicles. Just to maintain the routes on Route 29, the
figure will be $15,935, rather than $10,258, if the Board is supportive of continuing the
same service and routes that it has in the past. He suspects that next year there will be a
re-evaluation of the routes that are being provided on Route 29.
Mr. Bowie mentioned that he spends eight hours a day in the Pantops area, and no one has
ever mentioned the bus line to him. He said he did not want to support the Route 29 bus line
last year, and with the increase in costs, he will not support it this year. Mr. Tucker
responded that Dr. Hurt had requested bus service right after the Shopping Center opened and
some merchants and also individuals that work at State Farm Insurance Company have requested
bus service in that area.
Mr. Henley suggested postponing action on this item until the other two Board members
are back. Mrs. Cooke agreed with postponing action on it, but she said that everything is
costing more, and she feels that the bus service on Route 29 North is essential. She would
hate to see this Board turn it down simply because of insurance rates when it is serving a
very valuable need. That extra $5000 might manifest itself in other ways many times over.
390,
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Henley would be interested to know how many people use this bus service, and even a
comparison to the year before would be helpful. Mr. Tucker said he would be glad to provide
this information to the Board. Mrs. Cooke said action on this item would be deferred until
the other two Board members are present.
Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC). Requested $5,190; recommended $5,190. Mr.
Brent Cool was present. Mr. Tucker said the amount of money requested is basically Albemarle
County's contribution to the Community College for a two year period. He pointed out that
the amount has been unchanged for the past two years, and the College is requesting an
increase now for the next two years. The request is for $5190 from $4670 which is a change
of less than one percent. The staff is recommending approval of that increase.
Mr. Bowie asked why all of the appropriation was not spent last year. Mr. Brent Cool,
Dean at Piedmont Virginia Community College, responded to Mr. Bowie's question by saying that
anytime that monies are not expended that are allotted to the College by the localities, it
is reflected in the next year's revenues. In effect, that money was returned to the County
at the beginning of the year. Mr. Cool said he was speaking on behalf of the College and Dr.
George Vaughan, the President, to thank the Board for all of its past assistance and hope-
fully for its continued assistance. Last fall the College had the largest enrollment in the
history of the school, and Albemarle County made up over 40 percent of that enrollment.
Since there were no other comments, Mrs. Cooke moved on to the next item.
SPCA Shelter. Requested $6,000; recommended $6,000. Mr. Ray Jones told the Board that
the County has a contract with the SPCA shelter, and basically that contract states that if
the County dog wardens take stray dogs to the SPCA, the County pays $2.00 per day up to five
days. If the owner claims the dog, the owner pays this amount. If the owner is not found,
the dog becomes the property of the Shelter, and the Shelter tries to find a home for it.
Based upon this year's experience, the staff is asking for a $500 reduction for next year,
which will put the amount of money at $6,000.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Jones to explain the contract again, and he did.
other comments from the Board, so Mrs. Cooke went on to the next item.
There were no
District Home. Requested $18,000; recommended $18,000. Mr. Tucker explained that there
was no change in the District Home category. He said that this category is to cover the cost
of care of Albemarle County. residents at the District Home in Waynesboro. There is level
funding requested, and the staff is recommending that funding.
Mr. Agnor further explained that this is not the total cost of care. He said that when
certain services have been applied in the Home, and all of the funds available do not add up
to the total billing the Home receives, it draws on the County for funds.
Juvenile Detention Home. Requested $11,989; recommended $11,989. Mr. Jones reported
that the Juvenile Detention Home is located close to Staunton, Virginia, and is operated by
eight localities. All of the localities, except for the City of Charlottesville and
Albemarle County, are located in the Valley. The budget for this year is going to $648,082.
The majority of the budget is funded through the state. Mr. Jones said that last year the
County had a total of 54 children at the Home, and they stayed a total of 464 detention days,
of which 345 were considered local or 8.4 percent of the local days were Albemarle County's.
The budget is increasing less than one percent to a figure of $11,989. He directed the
Board's attention to the item breakdown of that budget. He commented that as far as salaries
are concerned, the state scale is used. He mentioned also that one position is being reclas-
sified to a supervisory position, based on action of the Detention Home Board. He also
mentioned that there is an item in the budget entitled "Relief Wages." He said that this is
for substitutes when the regular people cannot be there. He thinks this is a very conser-
vative budget.
Mr. Agnor added that the relief wages are in the budget because the Detention Home
operates around the clock and around the calendar. Mr. Way asked if there was anyone from
Albemarle County serving on that Board. Mr. Jones responded that the County Executive and
the Juvenile Judge serve on the Board.
Mrs. Cooke asked why there was not a significant increase in the budget. She wondered
if it was because there are less problems with the juveniles or is the Home getting better
management. Mr. Agnor answered that the budget is prepared on a usage basis, and it
fluctuates. There were no other comments.
City/County Revenue Sharing Agreement. Requested $1,942,509; recoitmtended $1,942,509.
Mr. Agnor provided the Board with a memorandum on the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City
indicating that this year the cap does not apply, which is the first year since the plan went
into effect. The other factors in the formula do increase at 3.59 percent. The total
increase in dollars is $67,330. There were no comments from the Board members.
Capital Improvement Transfer. Requested $1,000,000; recommended $1,000,000. Mr. Agnor
said the Board had already been advised in a budget transmittal memo that the Capital Improve.
ment transfer would remain at level funding, which would be a continuation of $1,000,000
a year of current revenues transferred to the Capital Fund, when they are collected in
December. The revenues are then made available to the projects that are approved later on.
There were no comments.
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
391
Agenda Item No. 18.
reconvened at 1:30 P.M.
Recess for Lunch.
At 12:01 p.m., the Board recessed for lunch, and
Agenda Item No. 19. Budget Work Session - 1986-87 County Budget (continued):
911 Dispatch Center. Requested $133,140; reconmmended $133,140. Mr. Agnor reported that
Albemarle County's contribution to the 911 Dispatch Center would increase by $17,206 or 14.84
percent. He indicated that the current budget is underfunded, and the error was discovered
in early summer. The 911 Board elected to get through three-fourths of this year to see if
it could fund the portion of that error from fluctuations in operating expenses. The Board
also wanted to get the audit report completed so that the 911 Center Fund would show the
carry-over balance. The audit report is now completed and in the fourth quarter of this year
there will be a report of that carry-over balance and its return to the localities. The
error was all in salaries with none of the base salaries in the 911 Center having any incre-
mental change for last year's budget adjustment of four percent. Mr. Agnor also indicated to
the Board that the requested amount for this year and the recommended amount shows as one and
the same. He said this is not entirely accurate. Mr. Agnor said that the 911 Board went
through a series of several meetings on the budget, and he pointed out one example in the
Computer Program where the requested amount and the recommended amount are shown as being
identical. He said the requested amount is really $490,146 which was derived from Mr.
Carroll's presentation of the budget. Mr. Carroll had some additional staffing needs
requested as well as some salary adjustments that he feels are necessary for the Center to
function properly. Mr. Agnor reminded the Board that this budget is for the second year of
full funding of the Center. He said that some of the line item expenses are "still settling
in," since the 911 Center has finished only slightly more than a year of its operation. He
pointed out that the Center Board did not grant the staffing increase and then took a long
look at the staffing needs and decided to operate another year before adjustments were made.
The Center Board also did not grant the salary adjustments that Mr. Carroll was requesting in
order to take care of some internal matters in relationship to salaries of existing staff to
incoming staff. He emphasized that in terms of requests, there was a request from all three
of the resque squads asking that the 911 Center assume the responsibility of dispatching for
rescue squads. The initial review indicated that this responsibility would take approxi-
mately $122,000 more money a year. The 911 Board elected not to recommend this and asked Mr.
Carroll to do some more analysis of the workload requirements for "around the clock" rescue
squad dispatching operations and training that will be required. The response to the rescue
squads was that this will be considered, but not in this fiscal year. Mr. Agnor said that
essentially all that is before the Board is a "settling down" budget with two significant
items. One is "Electrical Services," because there was nothing budgeted for electric current
that the Dispatch Center requires of the electrical system at City Hall. He mentioned that
the City has carried the Center for a number of months. The City will not continue to do
this, so there is a new $6500 line item, which was omitted in error. Secondly, there are
insurance costs, with public liability insurance increasing from a funding level of $6500 to
$15,000, which is a 130 percent increase. He pointed out the shares of the three partici-
pants in this program, with Charlottesville paying $209,000, an increase of 15.3 percent, the
County's share, which the Board has already seen, and the University's share for next year
being $71,723, an increase of 13.24 percent. Mr. Agnor mentioned that a population factor,
crime index factor and a calls for service logging factor are used as the formula that
creates the shares. Mr. Agnor said that if it was not for the increasing costs for the
electricity and insurance, there would bela 6.9 percent bottom line increase in this
department's budget.
There were no questions or comments.
Emergency Services. Requested $8,16i5; reconw~ended $8,165. Mr. Agnor gave a brief
history of the Emergency Services category and said that Mr. Carroll is the Coordinator, and
his salary is funded by the State, the Cilty and the County. When Mr. Carroll was employed as
the Manager of the 911 Center, the Emergeincy Services Coordinator responsibilities were added
to that job. The cOunty has traditionally paid its contribution to Mr. Carroll's salary for
the Emergency Services Coordinator job. iThis line item can now be removed because the
County's contribution will be incorporateid in the 911 budget, and there does not have to be a
separate contribution for the Emergency Siervices Coordinator position. In addition, Mr.
Agnor reported that the State has always paid its share to the City and the County's share
was paid to the City for the Emergency Services Coordinator position. These were all grouped
together in the City's General Fund. Because the University was not involved at all in this
process, the 911 budget was addressed by itself, with the three entity shares being singular
and by themselves. The State revenue fo~ the Emergency Services Coordinator Position will
go directly to the City, but instead of keeping it and applying it to the 911 Center, it is
going to have to be divided between the City and the County. Mr. Agnor's recommendation is
that the County not only eliminate its contribution to the Emergency Services Coordinator
position, but show in the County's revenues a share of the State's revenues for that position
that will now go through the City to the County. He said this will be a new item under
"Recovered Costs," which will show the share of the Emergency Services Coordinator position,
and is estimated to be $4,300. When $4,300 is added and $8,165 is taken out, these two items
combine to improve the budget by $12,465. Mr. Agnor said that action is needed by the Board
for these two changes.
Mrs. Cooke then asked for a motion, and Mr. Bowie moved that under the Emergency Ser-
vices Cost Center, that the $8,165 become a zero and that $4,300 be recognized as additional
income, as recommended by the County Executive. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called
and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 21)
Rescue Squads: Charlottesville/Albemarle - Requested $8,923; recon~ended $8,923.
Scottsville - Requested $17,846; recommended $17,846. Western Albemarle - Requested $17,846;
recommended $17,846. Mr. Jones said the contribution to the three rescue squads is being
increased by four percent. As in the past, the County is carrying the same ratio which
allows for one-half of the contribution to go to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad.
This means that the Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad gets a four percent increase or
$8,923, and the Western and Scottsville Rescue Squads get $17,846. He mentioned the "One for
Life" program which will bring in approximately $3,500 next year for each rescue squad, in
addition to these contributions.
There were no comments from Board members.
Joint Security Complex (Regional Jail). Requested $62,411; recon~ended $62,411.
Present was Mr. Mike McMahan, Jail Administrator. Mr. Jones said that, on Page 419 of the
budget, only the County contribution to the Joint Security Complex is shown. He said this is
slightly misleading because the County is paid $13,540 for acting as fiscal agent. This goes
into the General Fund as an Administrative Fee, so the net cost to the Joint Security Complex
is $48,871. He highlighted a few things by saying that this is a joint operation between the
City and County, and there are sources of revenue that come into this budget from other
localities. The City and the County pay for only that portion of the operation that the
State, other localities and the Federal Government do not fund. He said that the other
jurisdictions pay approximately $26,000 or about two percent of the cost for keeping their
prisoners. The City's share is $126,714, which is 8.82 percent of the total cost. The
County's share is $62,411 or 4.34 percent of the cost. The Federal Government contributes
$14,000 or approximately one percent of the total cost. This leaves the State paying approxi.
mately 85 percent of the total cost of the Complex. Mr. Jones pointed out that the Complex
has 45 employees, with salaries based upon the State increase this year of 4.57 percent. The
"Professional Health Services" category is adding a mental health technician, and that is the
reason for its increase. He said that data processing costs also increase. Mr. Jones said
the figure shown for "Contractual Services, Other" is not an increase, but is the contri-
bution to the Shenandoah Valley Training Center. Prior to this year, this figure was shown
in the "Travel and Education" category, so there is a reduction in that category to offset
this increase. He pointed out that the total cost of operating the Joint Security Complex
has decreased approximately 17 percent. He said the County's share is based on the prior
year of County prisoner days. He said Mr. McMahan is at the meeting if Board members have
questions.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. McMahan if he would like to address the Board. He said the Complex
has been running fairly smoothly. He commented that, hopefully, each Board member has
received a packet of information from the jail board on an upcoming community meeting, and he
hopes that everyone can attend. He said there will be discussions on the jail and jail
expansions, etc. There were no other comments.
Regional Library. Requested $648,985; recom~ended $598,150. Present was Mr. William
Swinson, Library Director. Mr. Tucker said the Library Budget Committee has decreased the
original request substantially. The increase in the budget is primarily found on the opera-
tional side, and there are some new programs. He said there is a half-time van driver still
to be funded in this current request, as well as extending the hours of a part-time libarian
in the "Reference and Adult Services" section. There was a request in the original budget
for the extension of hours in some of the other branches, but those requests were deleted.
As in the past, this budget is based on book circulation. Albemarle County's circulation has
steadily increased, and that is driving the County's share of the budget up considerably.
This request, as recommended by the Budget Committee, is also recommended to the Board by the
County Executive's staff.
Mrs. Cooke asked if Mr. Swinson would like to say something to the Board. Mr. Swinson
pointed out that the Library contract is set up so that the expenses as to the localities are
tied to circulation, especially in regional costs. He said the increase in regional circu-
lation between last year and this year was 28,572 transactions. Of that total, Albemarle
County residents accounted for 22,097 of the transactions. He said that Albemarle County
residents are taking advantage of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library's resources. He
does not see this usage of the library changing. He said that the 11.82 percent increase for
Albemarle County is large, but it is largely determined by the contract. He said the overall
increase in the budget is 7.19 percent, so they have tried to keep costs down. The state aid
in years past has helped to keep percentages dOwn, however the state is now at the full
funding level, so there will not be the large percentage increases from the State that there
have been in the past. He mentioned that the Library will be embarking on an automation
process which he believes will immediately have an impact on the Library's efficiency in
managing the State and Federal aid. In terms of local dollars, there will probably be an
impact from automation on local funding in the calendar year of 1988, but more likely in
1989.
Mr. Bowie said it used to be that paperback books did not have to be checked out, and he
asked, since they are checked out now, if part of the libraries increase is due to this
change? Mr. Swinson replied that the books have always been checked out and counted, but the
old system was more liable to statistical abuse. Under the new system, statistics are more
accurate. In this case, it does have an impact on Albemarle since Albemarle County partici-
pates so heavily in the Gordon Avenue and the Central Libraries. Between 65 to 70 percent of
the circulation is at those two locations.
Mrs. Cooke asked if Mr. Swinson had a breakdown as to whether adults or children use the
libraries more or is there a combination? Mr. Swinson responded that Albemarle County
residents accounted for a 3.99 percent increase at Central, and a 16 percent increase at
Gordon Avenue. He said he is not an expert on traffic patterns, so anything he has to say
will be unofficial, but he thinks the Ivy area accounts for a lot of the usage. He said the
juvenile collection accounts for approximately 40 to 45 percent of the usage at Gordon
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 22)
Avenue. Mrs. Cooke said she also wondered if University related employees would account for
some of the high usage at the Gordon Avenue Branch. Mr. Swinson believes that Mrs. Cooke is
correct, but he does not know the percentage.
Mr. Agnor mentioned that the Scottsville and Crozet libraries in recent years have had
tremendous jumps in usage. He asked if this usage has levelled. Mr. Swinson said he be-
lieves it will level more in the next fiscal year. He mentioned that he was really pleased
with the increase at the Crozet library.
There were no other comments.
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (A~I¥). Requested $179,990; recommended $179,990.
Mr. Tucker said that AHIP is the first program to be reviewed under the Program Review Com-
mittee's new recommendations. This is the fifth year of the program review process, and
representatives this year are composed of members of the County Executive's Office, Depart-
ment of Social Services, Department of Planning and Community Development, and for the first
time, the Department of Education. The Committee received requests from 20 community service
agencies for County funding which totaled $1,079,468 or a 36 percent increase. Of those 20
programs, three are totally new programs, and they are the Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult
Day Care Program, the Charlottesville Rape Crisis Program and the Community Mediation Center.
Three agencies were not funded by the County last year, and they include the Central Virginia
Child Development Association, the United Way Child Care Scholarship Program and the
Youth Service Center. However, these three agencies submitted requests again this year. Six
of the agencies which were funded by the County last year submitted requests to expand their
existing programs or initiate new programs. They are the Charlottesville/Albemarle Legal Aid
Society, Jefferson Area Board for Aging, Community Action Agency, Offender Aid & Restoration,
Outreach Counselling and Region Ten Community Services. Requests for funding for new and
expanded programs were initially reviewed by the Board of Supervisors at a January work
session. He thanked Mrs. Sandy Markwood, who coordinated the whole process this year. He
said it is an arduous task, and she did an excellent job.
Mr. Tucker then discussed the AHIP Program, and said it provides housing repair and
improvement to low and moderate income homeowners. It provides rehabilitation through
several funding sources which include Charlottesville Housing Foundation loan fund, Farmers
Home Administration loan and/or grant fund, and smaller grants from the Virginia Water
Projects, Fuel Assistance Program, and the Federal Office of Community Service Grants. He
said the largest grant comes from the State Community Development Block Grant. AHIP
anticipates rehabilitating approximately 55 to 60 dwelling units for the fiscal year 1985-86.
Last year's funding was $166,950, and AHIP is requesting a seven percent increase or a total
of $179,990. Mr. Tucker said that approximately $380,000 have been leveraged for this
current fiscal year. AHIP usually ranks very high in every category under the review
process, and for that reason, full funding is recommended by the Review Committee and the
County Executive's staff. There are no programmatic recommendations proposed or necessary
due to AHIP's intense involvement in the implementation of the CDBG Program.
There were no further comments.
Community Attention. Requested $24,360; recommended $24,360. Mr. Paul McWhinney,
Director, was present. Mr. Tucker said that last year Community Attention was funded at
$22,720, and it is requesting $24,360 or a 7.2 percent increase. The Community Attention
~system operates a 12 bed boys' attention home, a 12 bed girls' attention home and a 13 bed
family group home program. All three programs provide 24 hours a day supervision and care
including counselling, recreational and socialization activities and educational and voca-
tional services for youths who are experiencing difficulty at home, school and in the commu-
nity. The objective of the program is to provide a local, positive alternative to incarcera-
tion or other institutionalization of juveniles. Mr. Tucker said that during the 1984-85
fiscal year, community attention served 14 Albemarle County youths. Of that total, nine were
referred by the County Social Services Department, four were court referred and one was
referred by his mother. The services of the Community Attention System are available for
young people aged 12 to 18. The annual amount requested for funding from Albemarle County
reflects the standard rate for services for one youth per program per year. The Program
Review Committee is recommending full funding of the Community Attention Program. Since the
Community Attention Agency did not score high in terms of its ability to leverage state or
federal funds, nor in demonstrating fiscal self sufficiency, the staff is recommending that
the agency continue pursuing alternative funding sources. The Review Committee encourages
Community Attention to strengthen its documentation efforts in terms of quantifying the need
of Albemarle County youths with the program services of the Agency and recommends that
Community Attention use its waiting list to collect population and geographic data on poten-
tial clients. The Agency should coordinate this documentation effort with various local
agencies, most notably, the County Social Services Department and the Special Services
Department in the Department of Education.
Mr. McWhinney said that he would update the Board by saying that last year the Board
appropriated to his Agency $14,525. His Agency expended or delivered $13,320 worth of
services, therefore it was within the budget guidelines that had been established. For the
1985-86 fiscal year, the Board appropriated $22,720 of which $6,800 has been expended as of
February 28. It is projected that, at minimum, $10,354 will be utilized. This is because of
a youth at the boys' home now who is expected to be there through June 30. There is a
potential for the amount of money to go to $14,000 if more youths are accepted. He said the
girls' home is full now, and three inquiries had to be turned down. Mr. McWhinney went on to
say that the rate of service relative to the total number of youths served is higher than
last year. To date, 13 youths had been served, and last year the Agency served 14. Five of
the 13 youths being served are being paid for from the appropriation. Mr. McWhinney
explained that some youths are staying a shorter amount of time because of a new service
offered called the Temporary Care Program. Last July i, the State Legislature passed a law
which made it more difficult for court services to detain a child in detention, so alter-
natives had to be found for these people. This Temporary Care Program meets the need of the
394
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
local cour= service unit. He said his program is changing with the times and the laws to
meet the needs of the community. This means that more children are served, but the stay may
be shorter. He mentioned that eight of the children, this year, have been paid for from
other sources. He pointed out that if the County had been paying for the 13 children
strictly from the appropriation it would amount to approximately $19,000. If the Social
Services' resource and a parent had not been there, the Agency would be getting close to the
limit on its appropriation for this year. He said referrals continue to be made to his
Agency, but it is using other resources. He thinks that the funding request of $24,360 as
based on one youth per program per year is a sound formula.
Mr. Way asked if the money is not spent, will it be returned to the County. Mr.
McWhinney said his Agency bills the County when a service is delivered to the child. Mr.
Bowie said that it is apparent that there will be some money left from the $22,700 appro-
priated for last year. He asked if this would be returned to the County. Mr. McWhinney
answered that be believes only $14,000 will be spent. He said it is very unlikely that the
whole appropriation will be spent. They receive the funds only after billing for services.
Mr. Bowie asked if statistics were available to show how many youths no longer get into
trouble after they leave this program? Mr. MCWhinney replied that he does not have the
statistics. He said he had submitted some information to the Review Committee which
illustrated the percentage of children who were achieving their goals when they left the
program. He said the percentage was in the range of 30 to 50 percent. He said the diffi-
culty of this is that a child may not change his behavior; he may be manipulative enough to
meet his goals but not change his thought processes. He said, however, that the Agency has
had some children who have changed their way of thinking and will think before they act. He
said there is an evaluation plan under consideration that will include some psychological
testing of these youths to see what happens when they leave the program, and hopefully give
the Agency some measure of their behavior in the community.
Mrs. Cooke asked if any children ever come back to the Community Attention home. Mr.
McWhinney replied that some children do come back. He said he can point out people on the
street who are successful who were served by his Agency, but he also reads in the paper about
the people who left his Agency who are not successful. He said they are difficult to track,
but residential care across the Stateis trying to work out a method of measurement.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to have some information during the next year to see if
these homes are doing any good. Mrs. Cooke asked if parents are required to pay for children
when they have the financial means to do so. Mr. McWhinney answered that his Agency serves
generally a lower income group, but it is getting more aggressive in asking parents to pay
when they can. He said when the Agency is not successful in collecting payments, the City
Attorney will help in this matter. Mrs. Cooke stated that she thinks it is very important
that parents be made to pay when they can afford to do so. Mr. McWhinney added that the
courts have also been helpful in regard to collections. He said if it is obvious that
parents can pay for the service, the Judge will order the parents to pay.
There were no other comments on this Agency.
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) (continued from earlier in the meeting).
Mrs. Cooke said that, although the AHIP program has been discussed, she will give Mr. Gary
Oliveri an opportunity to speak to the Board, if he wishes to do so.
Mr. Oliveri apologized for not being at the meeting when his program was discussed. He
is pleased with the County staff's recommendation and with the different funding sources that
the AHIP Program has had. He said that with the ambitious production schedule that AHIP is
trying to maintain, a close eye has to be kept on the budget. He does not feel that more
funding was requested than is needed, and he thinks that, with this funding, the grant
program can be completed and AHIP can be very close to its production goals. He appreciates
the Board's support.
There were no other comments.
Community Mediation Center. Requested $6,191; recommended $-0-. Ms. Rebecca Bowman was
present. Mr. Tucker stated that the Community Mediation Center is one of the agencies that
is new to the County in terms of requesting funding. He presented the following background
information:
"The Community Mediation Center was established in July, 1985 to provide
residents of the Charlottesville and Albemarle community with a cost-saving
alternative to traditional methods of solving interpersonal disputes.
Through the use of professionally trained volunteer mediators, the Center
will handle a wide range of interpersonal disputes including: landlord-
tenant; employee-employer; consumer-merchant; property infringement or
damage; interpersonal conflicts among family, friends, neighbors, etc.; and,
other problems deemed appropriate for mediation on a case-by-case basis.
The Program Review Committee does not recommend funding for the following
reasons:
1. a)
Its inability to meet the goals and objectives of the Compre-
hensive Plan;
b)
The lack of data provided on the need for such a service in the
County; and
c) The lack of adequate justification for the local share formula.
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(PaGe 24)
395
The Program Review Committee was concerned that the needs assessment
that was performed by the Mediation Center's Steering Committee regard-
ing the perceived need for such a service focuses only on City resi-
dents rather than City and County residents. Therefore, it is diffi-
cult for the Center and the Committee to document the need for media-
tion services in Albemarle County.
Although the Mediation Center was established in July 1985, it did not
begin accepting cases until December. Therefore, the Mediation Center,
in addition to not having a needs assessment, also does not have a
'track record' of referrals with which to document the need for media-
tion services in the County.
Given that the Mediation Center is aiming to serve low- and middle-
income residents of the community, the Program Review Committee
believes that the Center should initiate a sliding scale fee for its
services."
Mr. Tucker said the Center's request is for $6,191, which represents 25 percent of the
total funding request. The Mediation Center bases its funding request for this year on the
number of clients from each jurisdiction it expects to serve. Mr. Tucker indicated that the
Program Review Committee and the County Executive's staff do not recommend funding the
Community Mediation Center for several reasons. He said that the Center's submittal scored
very low in the rankings for the Program Review process, due to its inability to meet the
goals and objects of the Comprehensive Plan, the lack of data provided on the need for such a
service in the County, and the lack of adequate justification for the local share formula.
Ms. Bowman said that, given the recommendation from the Program Review Committee and the
information that it had at the time the recommendation was made, there probably is no reason
why the County should give the Mediation Center any funding. However, since January when the
Center's request was submitted, things have changed greatly. She gave the Board some supple-
mental material which included statistics on the calls that the Center has received since
that time and also an informal needs assessment based on meetings that Ms. Bowman has had
with County agencies. She emphasized that as of yesterday, the total number of calls that
the Mediation Center has received regarding cases number approximately 35, which means 70
potential participants. Nineteen of the calls have come since February 1, which she thinks
demonstrates the fact that the Center is in a position where it is getting started, moving
and growing quickly at this point. One-third of the participants are County residents and
half of them are City residents. One mediation has been completed successfully. A second
mediation has been started but will require a second session, and two more mediations will be
scheduled this week. She said she believes that the Center fits into the goals and objec-
tives in its service to low-income individuals who disproportionately have less sophis-
tication with the legal process and with the court system. She said that often middle and
sometimes upper income people have a hard time dealing with the court system, and these
people sometimes look for an alternative to the system that is more neutral or more amicable
in focus. That is why the Center is not asking for funding from the County on a continuing
basis. The request is a one year request to allow the Center time to get other funding
options together and become an independent organization. She believes that this is necessary
since the Center will be serving a greater portion of the community and not just low income
people. Among the options that the Center is investigating in terms of long term funding is
that it is accepting and acting upon the recommendation by the City and the County in imple-
menting a sliding scale fee system for clients. She said the Center is also considering
affiliation with other organizations in order to cut administrative costs, and discussions
are being held with the Better Business Bureau and the Community Diversion Incentive Program.
She said other organizations will be contacted in relation to the possibility of affiliation
with them. She said that sponsored research is being considered as a means of funding for
the Center and working out a corporate program where services can be provided to local
corporations in terms of an employee assistance program or seminars for middle management is
also a possibility. She said that local fund-raising projects and events will be held also,
as well as soliciting private donations. She mentioned that the County's support is
important to the Center not only in terms of getting started, but also in leveraging funds
from other entities. She said the City will be looking very closely at whether the Center
has the support of the County and other private and foundation organizations will be looking
at community support. She appreciates the position of local governments in terms of trying
to fund social service organizations. However, she does not think this is a good time to
scuttle a good idea, when the momentum is going and the organization is getting off the
ground. She said any support the County could give the Center would be appreciated.
Mrs. Cooke asked if any Board members had questions for Ms. Bowman. There were none.
Central Virginia Child Development Association (CVCDA). Requested $6,250; recommended
$-0-. Mr. Tucker remarked that no one was at the meeting at this time to represent this
Agency. He said funding is not recommended, so he suggested that the Board discuss the next
item.
Madison House. Requested $4,200; recommended $3,120. Mr. Tucker mentioned that no one
had arrived to represent Madison House, and full funding is not recommended. Mrs. Cooke
moved on to the next item.
Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA).
requested a deferral until next Monday.
Mr. Tucker stated that this Agency has
396
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Offender Aid & Restoration (OAR). Requested $20,844; recommended $20,844. Mr. Tucker
said that no one was at the meeting from this agency, but full funding is recommended. He
said that OAR provides service to offenders in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area and in some
of the outlying counties in Planning District Ten. The Agency's primary effort is aimed at
rehabilitation, and integrating offenders and ex-offenders into the community. Mr. Tucker
mentioned that OAR provides services to offenders through programs such as the Court Services
Program, which provides bail and bond assistance to newly arrested individuals and community
service restitution alternatives to misdemeanants. Another program is The Volunteer Program,
which matches citizen volunteers on a one-on-one basis with inmates incarcerated at the Joint
Security Complex. A third program, Transitional Services, provides assistance to offenders
in their transition from jail or prison back into the community and support services to the
families of the offenders. In FY 1984-85, OAR provided services to 238 County residents, and
in FY 1986-87, the Agency projects to serve 269 County residents through its programs. Last
year the funding level was $18,284. The Agency is requesting this year $20,844 or a 14
percent increase. OAR's local share formula is related directly to the number of persons
served from each jurisdiction. The Agency does not request the total funding proportionate
from each locality, but uses United Way and State funds to supplement the requests from each
jurisdiction. The Program Review Committee and the County Executive's Office recommend
funding of OAR at its requested level because of its ranking in the program review process.
OAR is also requesting additional funds to maintain services at a full-time level for the
Transitional Services Program. In FY 1985-86, OAR is projecting to serve 84 individuals
through this particular program and 88 individuals are projected to be served in the next
fiscal year. The Program Review Committee supports the services provided to offenders and
their families through the Transitional Services Program, and therefore recommends funding
the Agency at its requested level in order to assure its maintenance. The Program Review
Committee requests, however, further documentation of the success of the Transitional
Services Program to assist offenders and their families in OAR's FY 1986-87 program review
application.
There were no comments from the Board.
Madison House. Mr. Tucker said that Dr. Jane Parker, from Madison House, had arrived,
and he suggested that the Madison House item be taken up at this time. Mr. Tucker explained
to the Board that Madison House is a non-profit corporation which organizes and implements
volunteer services in the Albemarle/Charlottesville communities. Its primary focus is to
recruit student volunteers from the University of Virginia and channel their time and skills
toward those individuals in community groups and organizations needing volunteer assistance.
Mr. Tucker said Madison House has two programs aimed solely at serving County residents.
These two programs are AHIP and the Migrant Aid Project. Madison House also notes increases
in the number of County residents projected to be served in this fiscal year by the Agency's
Big Brother/Big Sister, Day Care, Kindergarten Boosters, Seniors, Tutoring, and Youth Recrea-
tion programs. Madison House programs serve various populations in the community and spon-
sors several programs which serve children and youth. In FY 1985-86, Madison House projected
that it served over 831 County residents. For the next fiscal year, the Agency expects to
serve over 1,000 County residents. The request this year is for $4,200, which is a 40
percent increase over last year. The Program Review Committee and the County Executive's
staff recommend funding Madison House at $3,120. This represents a four percent increase
over the current year's appropriation. The Agency received a high ranking on its compliance
with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the Committee commends Madison House for
its documentation and quantification of data which was much improved over previous years.
More than an inflationary increase in Madison House's budget cannot be justified at this
time due to its medium ranking, and given the fact that without a funding increase last year
the Agency was able to increase the number of volunteers serving the County. The Program
Review Committee recommends that Madison House look to the University for more financial
support.
Mrs. Cooke asked Dr. Parker if she would like to address the Board. Dr. Parker thanked
the Board for its support on behalf of the Madison House Board of Directors. She responded
to Mr. Tucker's comments on the Review Committee's recommendations, and mentioned that 24
percent of the Madison House budget comes from the University.
Mr. Bowie inquired about the children's programs, and asked what children are served in
these programs. Ms. Parker replied that Kindergarten Boosters serves kindergarten children,
and this program will soon be extended to first grade in public schools. The Day Care
Program is serving day care centers in the area, and even though a large majority of the
programs are in facilities in the City limits, the overwhelming majority of people who use
these programs are County residents. She believes these centers are used by parents coming
to work in the City or at the Univesity, but the data as to occupation has not been substan-
tiated. She said the Tutoring Program serves individual children within the public schools
in the City and County.
Mrs. Cooke asked if these children are from low or moderate income families. Dr. Parker
said quite an effort is made to substantiate that children are from low or moderate income
families by use of teacher referrals. She said that these children are discussed with
teachers again during the year to make sure they are at the levels that should be receiving
services.
There were no other comments about Madison House.
Not Docketed: Mrs. Cooke said that the Board would take a break while it was waiting
for representatives from other agencies to arrive at the meeting. Mr. Tucker suggested that
the Board go through the budgets for the agencies, and if representatives arrive after their
budgets have been presented, they could still be given a chance to talk. Mrs. Cooke agreed.
Mr. Agnor said that some legislation was adopted last week which provided law enforce-
ment liability insurance through the State pool. He said that the Governor has signed the
bill, and it goes into effect on March 15. It is a self insurance program primarily for
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 26)
397
liability insurance on law enforcement coverage, and the Virginia Association of Counties is
inviting all interested counties to Richmond tomorrow to have an explanation of it and to
determine whether or not to participate. The Association is asking counties to bring with
them a copy of the County's insurance policy, a list of officials and employees who are
covered under the policy, and authorization from the board of supervisors for the county to
participate in the meeting. He said that this is one of the programs that the Board had
asked about at Monday's meeting, but the staff did not think that the self insurance plan
would go into effect, if adopted, until July 1. However, as Mr. Agnor mentioned, this plan
will go into effect earlier than that. Mr. Agnor said he will report back to the Board on
tomorrow's meeting, but if the plan will save money, he thinks it should be pursued.
Mr. Bowie made a motion to give the administrative staff authorization to attend the
meeting in Richmond for an explanation of the law enforcement liability insurance through the
State pool. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
seen.
work.
Not Docketed: Mr. Bowie commented to the staff that this budget is the best that he has
He said it is easier to work with and to understand, and he appreciates the staff's
The Board recessed at 2:45 p.m. and reconvened at 3:00 p.m.
Central Virginia Child Development Association (CVCDA). Present was Mrs. Mary Joy
Matthews. Mr. Tucker gave the following background information on the Central Virginia Child
Development Association:
"The Central Virginia Child Development Association is a comprehensive child
care information agency formed originally to coordinate day care services in
the community. It originated in 1970 as a volunteer effort, and after
incorporating in 1973, received funds from the University of Virginia
Hospital Department of Pediatrics to conduct workshops on child development
and consult with the community on child care concerns. Since that time
CVCDA has also contracted with area social services departments to recruit
and train foster parents and provide other youth services. These contracts
have, in the past, formed the core activity and funding base for CVCDA.
CVCDA is requesting funding from Albemarle County for only one of its
programs, Child Care Provider Training. If funded by the County, this
program will provide training in child care in nine, two-hour weekly
sessions to ~County residents who provide child care services in their homes.
The training would be provided free of charge. CVCDA would provide
reimbursement for travel to sessions for providers in outlying areas and
substitute child care while the providers are attending the sessions.
Comments/Recommendations: The Program Review Committee does not recommend
funding for the following reasons:
CVCDA ranked low in the Program Review process primarily because of low
ratings on attention to comments, quantification of data, and local
share formula.
The Committee is concerned that the program would not be specifically
targeted to low-income participants (and yet no fee is to be charged),
and that needs for the target population have not been better assessed
and documented.
In addressing low-income needs for child care, the Program Review
Committee favors direct services (e.g., scholarship plans).
The Committee would like, however, to commend CVCDA for providing
better information than in previous years and for their efforts to
tighten their administrative structure and program focus. It should
also be noted that the Child Care Provider Program is compatible with
the Comprehensive Plan in that it would improve employment possibili-
ties for successful participants."
Mr. Tucker said the cost of the total program is based on a unit cost of $250 for
training each of the 25 participants. The Program Review Committee and the County Executive
do not recommend funding for the Child Care Provider Training Program at this time because
the Agency ranked low in the Program Review process, primarily because of low ratings on
attention to comments, quantification of data and local share formula. The Committee is also
concerned that the program would not be specifically targeted to low income participants, and
yet no fee is to be charged.
Ms. Matthews said that since the Agency was formed, child care needs have been expanding
at a rapid rate. She mentioned that CVCDA is a support agency for the USDA Child Care Food
Program. She said that her Agency is responsible for the whole Central Virginia area. This
is a Federal food program that provides reimbursements for licensed day care providers. The
average reimbursement to the providers is approximately $200 a month. There are approxi-
mately 50 providers on the program, but only five are in Albemarle County. This concerns
her, because she knows there are more children in Albemarle County who could benefit from the
reimbursement that the providers would get. The money is available, so one of the Agency's
goals is to try to increase the number of providers on this program. She stated that another
398
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
major service that her Agency provides to the community is the information to parents who are
looking for day care facilities. She said that counseling is provided for selection of a day
care center, and a directory of information on day care centers is kept available, as well as
a directory of family day care providers. She said that the directory information is updated
semi-annually, but she said her Agency is handicapped because it does not have enough staff
to handle all of these services. Ms. Matthews mentioned that her Agency also trains and
recruits child care providers, but there is a tremendous shortage, particularly for infant
and toddler care. There are very few places in the area that are licensed that will provide
infant care. Most of this care is done in family day care homes. She said that the Agency's
training for the day care providers is done only for City providers and includes workshops.
She said that her Agency does have a contract with IBM Corporation to provide child care
resource and referral services for its employees. The Agency does training for these pro-
viders as well. Ms. Matthews said that a newsletter is sent to child care providers semi-
monthly, and there is a provider organization. This allows providers to get information
about medical issues, child development issues, business matters, and how to deal with
parents. Currently, support for these services comes only from the City and from the con-
tract with IBM Corporation. She added that the IBM contract has allowed the Agency to get a
computer which has enabled it to computerize all of its data. There is a $10 fee for County
residents to use the directory and for counseling services. However, this fee is waived in
cases when it is determined that it would be difficult for the person to pay for the service.
She said that a broad base of support is going to be necessary for the Agency to continue its
services and to improve them. The Agency is approaching some employers in the community to
encourage them to look at child care needs of their employees. She also mentioned that the
University has been contacted in hopes that an agreement could be worked out to meet its
employees' child care needs. She said that currently training for child care providers is
nonexistent in Albemarle County. She said that six County providers have attended the
provider organization and have expressed a desire to be in the current training session, but
they cannot be included because there is no funding. Ms. Matthews added that it terms of
charging a fee for this service, it has not yet been determined what the incomes are for all
of the providers, but national studies have shown that two-thirds of all child care givers
have less than poverty level income and 87 percent earn less than minimum wage. It is one of
the lowest paying professions and one of the most demanding. She feels that the low income
for the services provided and the general status in the co~nunity indicates that these
providers deserve to have some training. This would be a reasonable support service for the
community, and for many of them this is the only way they could ever get training. According
to the 1980 census, there were 56 percent of working mothers in Albemarle County with chil-
dren under the age of six, and population projections from the Tayloe Murphy Institute for
1985 indicate that there are approximately 5,000 children in Albemarle County under the age
of six. If half of these children have working mothers, there are probably 2,500 children in
Albemarle County who need day care. There are spaces in licensed, certified child care
situations for approximately 1,100 children in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Ms.
Matthews said the question is where are these children getting their care. If they are
infants and toddlers, the probability is good that they are being cared for in private family
day care homes, and only five County providers are licensed and certified. The remainder of
the County child care providers are in no way supervised, and there is no contact with them
from any agency which might be able to ascertain the quality of care that is being given to
the children. She believes it is an issue that needs to be considered. Her Agency is
concerned with the quantity of care, but also with the quality of care. She said that what
happens in day care homes has a significant impact on how a child gets along in school. She
ended her remarks by saying that the Agency needs assistance in finding out who needs this
child care training and providing it for them.
Mrs. Cooke asked if CVCDA would accept child care providers who are capable of paying
for the service themselves. Ms. Matthews answered that the Agency has not had that situatior
in the past. She said there has not been much contact with County providers, and the Agency
is just getting acquainted with them and trying to get them listed in the directory. A
policy has not been established as to a fee schedule for training at this time. Mrs. Cooke
pointed out that Ms. Matthews had stated that several County providers had wanted to be
included in the training sessions, but there was no funding. She wondered if these people
were turned down. Ms. Matthews replied that unless a policy is quickly established, the
County providers will not be included in the City sessions.
Mr. Webb, President of the Board of CVCDA, asked if he could address Mrs. Cooke's
question. He stated that none of the six County residents who wanted to be included in the
training sessions could pay for the training. Mrs. Cooke wondered what kind of facilities
could these people offer for child care that could be licensed, if they are not in a positior
to pay for this training. She said she is confused by this whole situation. Mr. Webb said
that most of these people are earning a low wage and are doing it, in part, to supplement
their income. Mrs. Cooke then asked Mr. Webb how much money would be involved for these
training sessions, and he replied that it would be approximately $250. Mr. Webb went on to
say that even if the Board would consider funding a portion of the request, and even limitin9
it to low income people, it would be beneficial. He Pointed out that while people may not
in an affluent setting, and there may not be much cash in the house, the facilities could be
adequate. He said that the few who are certified by the Department of Social Services are
monitored to see if they are giving appropriate care to the children. He pointed out also,
that if the center is certified, it can participate in the USDA Food program.
Mrs. Cooke asked what type of individual takes advantage of this kind of child care
service, and wondered if there are limitations as to recipients of this service. She said
there are a lot of unanswered questions that are confusing to her and do not give her any
reason to believe that the Board should consider funding this program unless there is very
low income involved from the people who are providing the service to the people who are
receiving it. Ms. Matthews answered Mrs. Cooke's questions by giving an example of a certi-
fied provider. She said this person would be certified by the Department of Social Services
and would meet certain minimum standards of quality. This person may keep some children thai
are sent through ADC and paid for through the Department of Social Services, but that same
person may also keep some private children. She pointed out that CVCDA does not license
providers, and that the food program is only open to certified or licensed homes.
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
399
Mr. Webb mentioned that the Department of~Social Services has as one of its requirements
for certification, which is a prerequisite for eligibility to the USDA Program, an agreement
that it will take in a certain number of children who are funded through ADC. The reimburse-
ment rate for the provider of those children is approximately half of the average rate for
services that are not through ADC. He said that it is necessary for a provider to have a
combination, because if there was a home which was just for poor children, that home would
probably not exist because the provider would not be able to survive on the ADC money for all
of the children who might be in the home. He thinks it is a good idea to have a certain
number of trained providers from low income families, but it is not practical to limit the
children who actually receive the service. Mr. Webb said the Agency is interested in child
care for all of Albemarle County and would like to have the providers trained in some of the
skills that would come from these sessions.
Mrs. Cooke asked if there were any more questions from the Board. There were none.
Outreach Counseling. Requested $23,500; recommended $11,232. Mr. Alan Segar, Director,
was present. Mr. Tucker gave the following background information:
"Outreach Counseling Services, Inc. is a private, non-profit agency which
provides counseling for low- to moderate-income youth and their families.
Outreach provides community-based, non-residential preventative services
which are specifically designed to reduce the need and higher cost of
residential treatment for youth. Outreach is the only counseling agency in
the area which delivers all clinical services on an outreach basis.
Comments/Recommendations: The Program ReView Committee recommends funding
for Outreach Counseling for the following reasons:
Outreach received a medium ranking in the Progress Review process based
on the following factors:
The agency received good ratings on program description, compli-
ance with the Comprehensive Plan, quantification of data, and
attention to comments;
be
The local share formula appears equitable as it is directly based
on services rendered;
Ce
The requested amount is necessary to serve additional County youth
and is based on assessed need;
The focus of services provided on an outreach basis is unique in
the area and effective, given the rural, dispersed and low-income
target population;
The use of volunteers is commended and encouraged as are needs
assessment and follow-up studies to evaluate effectiveness of the
programs.
The Committee encourages Outreach Counseling to develop a sliding fee
schedule for clients who can afford to pay for services."
Mr. Tucker said this is the only counseling agency in the area that delivers all
clinical services on an outreach basis. The program will serve approximately 15 Albemarle
County youths and their families who would otherwise be ineligible for outreach counseling
services. Clients are referred to Outreach by the Social Services Department, Juvenile Court
and the School system. Last year's funding level was $10,800, which makes the percentage
increase for this year's request 117 percent. The request is based on the number served and
vendor rate per counseling session. The Program Review Committee is recommending funding of
the Outreach request because it complies with the Comprehensive Plan, and the quantification
of data and attention to comments were very good. The Committee encourages Outreach
Counseling to develop a sliding scale fee schedule for clients who can afford to pay for the
services. The County Executive's Office, however, is recommending only a four percent
increase to give Outreach a chance to establish this sliding fee schedule. The success of
the fee schedule will be reviewed next year.
Mr. Segar said he would like to report how Outreach has used the $10,800 that the Board
appropriated this year. He said that Outreach has rendered individual family group
counseling services to eight youths and their families during the course of the year, with
approximatley four and one-half months of counseling per family at a cost of approximately
$300 per family. To date, Outreach has received over 30 requests from families who do not
have a source of funding for this service. He said that information for this budget request
was gathered in October, but now there are even more requests for service. He said there is
far more need for this service than funding will allow. Because Outreach uses the County
appropriated funds to serve only families which are ineligible for other sources of funding,
this year all eight of the families that received services were referred to Outreach by the
school system. He said that Outreach has served all of the middle and high schools in the
County over the past two years.
Mr. Way asked if these children were referred through the schools' guidance offices.
Mr. Segar replied that these referrals come from guidance counselors, school pyschololgists,
visiting teachers and sometimes the principal. He said, however, the referralS could be
initiated by a classroom teacher, but Outreach coordinates with whomever is the most familiar
with the student and his family.
4OO
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Bowie asked if Outreach served all economic levels. Mr. Segar answered that Out-
reach has traditionally served only low income families. He said, though, this funding has
opened up the possibility for other clients. He mentioned that one client this year was able
to pay a small portion of the fee. He said the recommendation that a sliding fee schedule be
established was a result of an inquiry that Outreach had made to the County to get its
reaction to such a schedule. He said the problem with a sliding fee schedule is that the
cost of rendering an hour of service is roughly equivalent to the fee. If someone is charged
less than a full fee, whether a portion of the fee is paid by the client or not, money is
lost in rendering the service. If there was a mechanism for County funds to pick up the
difference between what the client pays and what the actual cost, the sliding fee schedule
could easily be established. Mr. Segar reminded the Board that Outreach offers master's
level, clinical counseling services that are essentially preventive in nature, although the
youths who are referred to Outreach are already experiencing some kind of difficulty.
Outreach attempts to remediate those problems and prevent more serious problems from occur-
ring. In County school referred clients, Outreach deals with school dropouts, deliquency,
family breakdowns, as well as a significant risk of a more restricted placement of that youth
such as special education placement or in some cases removal of the child from his home
setting. Mr. Segar hopes the benefit of Outreach services will prevent more costly services
from being necessary. With respect to the four percent increase in funding, Outreach anti-
cipates approximately a five percent increase in costs. Mr. Segar suggested that besides
appropriating the funds directly to Outreach, there could be a mechanism whereby the County
could appropriate $8,000 to the Youth Service Center and receive $16,000 of Outreach coun-
seling services in addition to the $11,000 that is appropriated directly to Outreach. With
combined appropriations of $19,000, the County would receive in excess of $27,000 in Outreach
counseling services. He suggested that it may be better to address this matter directly with
the Youth Service Center, but he explained that the working arrangement that Outreach has
with the Youth Service Center allows for any locally appropriated funds that are earmarked
for the Youth Service Center to have a four to one match from the State. This translates
into a two to one level of outreach counseling services.
Mr. Way asked how many children Outreach could serve if everything took place that Mr.
Segar described. Mr. Segar answered that Outreach could then serve approximately 20 families
with the $27,000. He went on to comment that when Outreach did a needs assessment, it
received a n~mber Of letters from the County staff at various levels. He handed copies of
these letterS to the Board members.
There were no other comments.
Charlottesville Rape Crisis Group. (CRCG). Requested $10,000; recommended $-0-. Present
was Ms. Nanette David Fithian, Director. Mr. Tucker provided the following background infor-
mation on this agency:
"The Charlottesville Rape Crisis Group provides a hot line/companion service
for confidential crisis intervention, counseling and information on sexual
assault on a no-fee basis to any and all members of the Charlottesville/
Albemarle community and the University of Virginia campus. The hotline is
staffed by volunteers from 5:00 P.M. until 7:00 A.M. and by the Shelter for
Help in Emergency during the day (7:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M.). The group
also provides public education programs on all aspects of sexual assault for
community groups, including educators, professionals, students and parents
at no charge and is a co-sponsor with David C. Wilson Hospital of Support
Groups for Victims. Past groups have been for victims of rape and adult
incest survivors and the Attention Home.
Population Served: CRCG serves victims of sexual assault in Charlottesville-
Albemarle. The agency is projecting to serve 19 county residents with the
support groups and indirectly or directly serving all county residents
through the Hotline. In addition, CRCG is projecting that 715 county
residents will be served through public education. From January 1, 1985
through September 30, 1985, CRCG served a total of 91 people who were in
crisis through the hotline.
Comments/Recommendations: The Program Review Committee recommends no
funding for CRCG for the following reasons:
CRCG ranked low in the Program Review process providing insufficient/
inadequate information with regard to program description, quantifica-
tion of data, leveraging, self-sufficiency, local share formula and
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
CRCG projects their private funding to decrease by 39 percent with
corresponding rationale for the decrease.
CRCG states that it serves Louisa, Fluvanna, Nelson and Greene counties
through its hotline/companion program and with occasional education
programs, yet no funding request was made of those counties.
e
The County already supports the Victim-Witness program through the
general budget which also serves rape victims on a one-to-one basis.
The Committee is supportive of the Victim-Witness Program and suggests
perhaps a joining of forces to reduce any possible duplication and to
strengthen the overall support system for victims of sexual assault.
The Committee is concerned that while CRCG expects to serve 5,400
University of Virginia (UVA) students, the agency indicates that it
cannot receive University support. The Committee recommends that since
the agency does use UVA students as volunteers, it should discuss the
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
issue of University funding further with appropriate University offi-
cials. Another option the agency should explore is direct funding/
contributions from UVA's sororities and fraternities.
The Program Review Committee does commend CRCG for its active use of
volunteers (currently they number 43) which meets the County objective
of encouraging the use of volunteers.
The Committee also commends CRCG for the establishment of the Hotline
and the Public Education Program."
Ms. Fithian handed out a number of pamphlets to the Board that she said are given out on
a regular basis through the Group's public education program. She then updated the
statistics that were included in the budget proposal. In 1985, Ms. Fithian stated that the
Rape Crisis Group handled a total of 278 calls on the Hotline. Fifteen of those calls were
crisis companion calls, which means that a counselor is called to the Emergency Room to stay
with a sexual assault vicitm during the medical exam. She said that very often, after
accompanying a victim through the emergency room procedures, the counselor will go with the
victim through any legal interviews that the person might have. Seventy calls were crisis
calls, and the rest were follow-up calls on the part of the counselor or information calls.
Ms. Fithian stated that the Rape Crisis Group is working with the Victim-Witness Program at
this time but pointed out that these two groups do two very different things. It is her
understanding that the Victim-Witness Program works with people who will be witnesses in a
court appearance. She pointed out that the Rape Crisis Group will also sit with a victim at
court hearings if the victim desires. Only about 25 percent of rape victims go to the
police, and it is the other 75 percent that the Rape Crisis Group is concerned about, because
it knows that victims are out there. At the least, these victims could talk to someone over
the phone, confidentially, who is non-judgmental and will provide them with information about
resources in the community. Because sexual assault is a crime that necessitates confi-
dentiality, it makes statistical gathering more difficult than many types of organizations.
It also carries a stigma of trauma that makes it very difficult for victims to seek help
through normal social service channels. She also indicated that the Rape Crisis Group has
approached the University many times for funding, but unless the Agency becomes a full
student run organization, which means no staff people who are not UVA employeeS, the Group is
ineligible for any type of student or general budget funding. She stated that the Group is
looking into a contract with the University to provide training for its resident advisors and
its dorm staff members.
Mrs. Cooke asked how many victims were counseled last year, and Ms. Fithian responded
that the Rape Crisis Group served 91 victims. Mrs. Cooke then asked what percentage of the
91 victims were University students. Ms. Fithian replied that this is not a question that
can be asked of a victim, but she estimated that approximately one-third of the victims were
University students. Ms. Cooke next asked Ms. Fithian if these are all telephone consulta-
tions. Ms. Fithian answered that recently face to face conversations have dramatically
increased. She said that one reason for this is that the Group is having longer contacts
with the victims, and after a while it becomes natural to have face to face counseling. She
said, however, most are telephone consultations, and it is left up to the victim and the
counselor as to which type of consultation will be used. Mrs. Cooke asked how many of the
face to face victims that were counseled were University students, and Ms. Fithian replied
that she did not know.
There were no other comments.
Region Ten Community Services. Requested $192,605; recommended $120,376. Present was
Mr. Louis Fibel, an Albemarle County member of the Community Services Board. Mr. Tucker
presented the following information:
"The Region Ten Community Services Board is an agency of local government
responsible for the provision of mental health, mental retardation and
alcohol and drug abuse services to all citizens in need of those services in
Planning District Ten. The agency was created in 1969 in response to a
state mandate which sought to deinstitutionalize the chronically mentally
ill and mentally retarded and transfer care of these individuals to local
community service boards. The mandate to address alcohol and substance
abuse needs was added by the State in 1978.
Region Ten provides a continuum of mental health, mental retardation and
drug/substance abuse services in the community such as infant development,
prescreening, case management, group counseling, outpatient services, job
training, forensic evaluations, crisis intervention and public education on
such relevant issues as teen suicide.
Comments/Recommendations: The Program Review Committee recommends that
Region Ten be funded at $120,356 for the following reasons:
Region Ten received a medium ranking in the Program Review process.
The agency's ranking was based on the following factors:
Strong compliance with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan,
quantification of clients served, and equitable nature of the
agency's local share formula.
Inadequate data provided on the need for, activities to be pro-
vided with, and purpose of funds requested for expansion of day
programming activities for the mentally retarded. This was
rectified to some degree by follow-up materials provided by the
agency.
402
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(~aqe 31 )
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors during the FY 1985/86 Budget
review process, made a commitment to fully fund Region Ten's local
share formula as approved by all six local jurisdictions served by the
agency. The local share formula used by Region Ten is a variable
formula based on the jurisdiction's proportion of the total population
within the region and the level of services received.
Last year the proposed three-year phase-in of the full funding formula
was recommended and approved based on the large increase in funds
($52,000 or a 51 percent increase) being requested by the agency. The
large increase in funds requested from Albemarle and other localities
during last fiscal year was derived from the Region Ten Board's antici-
pation of reduced Federal and State support and an increase in service
levels, neither of which occurred.
For FY 86/87, Region Ten is requesting $120,376, the amount needed from
Albemarle to fully fund the agency's formula plus an additional $72,230
to fund an expansion of the agency's day programming activities. The
$72,230 is being requested to meet the need for day programming activi-
ties for the area's severely handicapped mentally retarded adults. The
reduction in the amount being requested to fully fund the agency's
formula is due to the increase (rather than anticipated decrease) in
funding from Federal, State, private and other sources in FY 85./86
($181,240) which is generally expected to continue in FY 86/87, and a
decrease in the level of services provided Albemarle County residents.
Due to the agency's moderate ranking and drop in level of service to
County residents in FY 85/86 despite an increase in the level of
funding, the Program Review Committee only recommends full funding for
Region Ten's existing programs ($120,376) based on the agreed upon
local share formula. No funding is recommended at this time for the
expansion of the agency's day programming activities. The Program
Review Committee believes that much greater documentation of need for
day programming services and activities planned to meet the need must
be provided by Region Ten before such a large program expansion
($72,230) could be considered.
Based upon the Program Review Committee's concerns regarding last
year's drop in the level of services delivered (a reduction of 239
individuals served in FY 85/86 over the level served in FY 84/85) to
County residents despite an increase in the level of funding received,
and the agency's increasing requests for funding from the County, the
Committee requests that Region Ten provide the following information in
next year's funding application:
List of mandated programs.
Unit cost of services provided."
Mr. Bowie asked if the Federal funds are not being reduced, why the County is funding
this amount of money. Mr. Tucker responded that the-amount of money requested is Albemarle
County's fair share, based on the existing formula· Mr. Agnor added that this amount of
money is to bring Albemarle County's funding formula up to the level of the contract that was
agreed to many years ago. He said that the increase last year was not in anticipation of
losing Federal funds.
Mr. Bowie then asked why there is money requested beyond the agreement. Mr. Tucker
answered that the additional request is for an expansion of day programming activities. But
he pointed out that it is not a recommendation of the Committee or the County Executive to
fund this expansion.
Mr. Lou Fibel remarked that he is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to serve on the
Community Services Board. He appreciates the fact that the County is recommending funding in
full according to the basic formula. He is hoping that the rural jurisdictions will come up
with the formula amount also, but if they fail to do so, there will be problems because the
program will be reduced in succeeding years. He pointed out that no provision is being made
in the Region Ten Community Services' request for what could be reductions in funding at the
Federal or State level because of Graham Rudman Act or because of other legislative action.
He also pointed out that there is no provision in the request for anticipated increases in
insurance premiums. He was recently appointed Chairman of a State Community Services Board
Task Force on insurance problems, and throughout the State of Virginia there are many prob-
lems concerned primarily, but not exclusively, with liability insurance. He said that no
contribution by the County of Albemarle has been requested for the Charter House, which is
the center for homeless alcoholics. The City of Charlottesville funds this facility and has
suggested several times that Region Ten should seek a contribution from Albemarle County. He
mentioned that Region Ten appreciates the sentiments expressed by the County Executive and
the Program Review Committee concerning the expansion of the day programming activities. The
matter will be studied further and hopefully some more data and substantiation can be sub-
mitted to the Board of Supervisors at another time. He thanked the supervisors for the
opportunity to serve the County through his service on the Community Services Board.
There were no further comments.
March 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
4ro3
Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
There were no comments, so Mrs. Cooke asked the County Executive if he had anything else to
tell the Board. Mr. Agnor informed the Board that the March 17th meeting would begin at 2:45
p.m. instead of 1:00 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 21.
adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was