1985-09-11581
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held on
September 11, 1985, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room 97, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher (arrived at
10:15 A.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom, J. T. Henley, Jr., and Peter T. Way.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Executive and
Interim Director of Planning, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; and County Attorney, George R. St. John.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the Vice-Chairman,
Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by
Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the items of information on the consent agenda. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
Item No. 4.1. Copy of the annual report of the Victim/witness Assistance Program for FY
84-85 was received. The following memorandum dated August 13, 1985 from Charlene M. Easter,
accompanied the report:
"We have just completed our first year as a comprehensive program operating
out of our newly-formed Police Department. For your information, I have
attached a copy of our annual report. I have also included a program
brochure and a card which is now carried by police officers to give to
victims and witnesses of crime. From the feedback received by both the
people served and the police officers I believe it has been a rather success-
ful year for both the Police Department and Victim/Witness Assistance.
It appears that this coming year will be equally successful. As a result of
the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime, there is currently a
national effort to encourage the development of victim assistance programs.
The Justice Department and the Police Executive Research Forum have
expressed an interest in using Albemarle County's program as a model
program. Additionally, I was invited recently to the FBI National Academy
to speak to 35 Chiefs of Police. We have accelerated efforts to enlist more
citizen volunteers and have been promised more interns from the University
of Virginia.
During the past year a few of you have referred frustrated citizens to my
office. I was happy to be able to help them and would encourage you to
continue to refer anyone who appears to have a problem or a question about
the criminal justice system to me.
I've enjoyed Serving the citizens of Albemarle County and look forward to
another year."
Mr. Bowie stated that he was impressed with the report, the number of victims of crimes
that were assisted and the number of volunteers involved in the Victim/Witness Assistance
Program.
Item No. 4.2. Copy of Development Activity Report for 1984 was received from the
Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development. The following memorandum
dated August 30, 1985 from Katherine L. Imhoff, Chief of Community Development, accompanied the
report:
"Attached please find a copy of the 1984 Development Activity Report,
prepared by the Community Development Division. An annual review of residen-
tial activity has been prepared, by this department since 1981 to assist in
monitoring the effectiveness of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance and the comprehen-
sive plan guidelines. This 1984 report provides an overview of commercial
and industrial development activity as well as residential development.
Included in this report is a summary of all zoning, subdiviSion, residential
building permits and comprehensive plan amendment applications processed
during 1984.
This report includes an inventory of developed and undeveloped acreages for
each zoning class within the designated growth areas of the Comprehensive
Plan. This inventory was generated by use of the Comprehensive Information
System, a computer-assisted, parcel-based land use information now on-line
for all tax parcels in the county. This 1984 inventory represents the
benchmark year for the development of this data. The inventory will be
updated on an annual basis to assist measuring development activity."
582
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting~__
Item No. 4.3. Copy of notice from Potomac Edison Company dated August 22, 1985 stating it
has two applications before the State Corporation Commission, one to revise its tariffs, and a
second to investigate to determine appropriate fuel factor and cogeneration tariffs was receive
A public hearing on both petitions will be conducted by the Commission on November 12, 1985, at
10:00 A.M. in the Commission's Courtroom.
Item No. 4.4.
information.
A copy of Planning Commission minutes for August 27, 1985 was received as
Item No. 4.5a. Notice of grant award from the State Department of Education for the ECIA
Chapter 1, Migrant Education program for fiscal year 1985-86 in the amount of $25,000 was
received.
Item No. 4.5b. Notice of grant award from State Department of Education for Block Grant
Competitive Project: "Early Years... Time for Success" for fiscal year 1985-86 in the amount
of $18,000 was received.
Item No. 4.5c. Notice of 1985-86 Flow-Through grant award under the "Education for Ail
Handicapped Children Act (EHA)" in the amount of $338,381 was received from the State
Department of Education.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: February 13, 1985. Mr. Lindstrom had read
February 13, 1985 minutes, pages 13 through 22, and found them to be in order. Motion was
offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the minutes of February 13, 1985,
pages 13 through 22. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 6. Highway Matters.
Mr. Way reported on the concerns of a resident on Route 631 at the Pancake Falls area
regarding parking along the highway. He said "No Parking" signs have been put in the immediate
area around Pancake Falls. Mrs. Rose, a resident of the area, reported that people are now
parking in front of her home and she has been unable to get them to leave. She was informed
that the Police Department is unable to ticket the people because they are on the highway
right-of-way. Mr. Way requested that the Highway Department look~into the feasibility of
extending "No Parking" signs up the hill from Pancake Falls, and he asked Mr. Roosevelt the
procedure for putting "No Parking" signs in an area. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department
can put signs anywhere requested on secondary system roads. Mr. Agnor said the property ownerI
of land in this area who is issuing permits for use of his land might be requested to limit the!
number of permits issued. Mrs. Cooke suggested he allow these people to park on his property.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that the new pavement and marking at the entrance of Inglecrest is
an improvement.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Elrod for an update on the Whitewood Road passive recreational
trail. Mr. Elrod stated that Engineering has almost finished the plans and something should
in place this Fall.
Mr. Henley reported that the school blinker light at Crozet School is covered with bushes
and asked that these bushes be trimmed.
Agenda Item No. 7. Presentation: Pedestrian Obstacle Study/Discussion: Sidewalk Policy.
(Note: Before beginning this agenda item, Mr. Tucker introduced to the Board Mr. Pete
Bradshaw, who will be coordinating the Moderate Rehabilitation Housing Grant. Mr. Tucker said
that a brief presentation of the Pedestrian Obstacle Study will be presented by
Mr. Joan Davenport, Planner; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development, will review
the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation sidewalk policy; and Mr. Maynard Elrod,
County Engineer, will explain the impact of this on the County regarding future sidewalks.
Ms. Davenport addressed the Board and summarized the following Pedestrian Obstacle Study
prepared by the Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development for the
Metropolitan Planning Organization in the Summer of 1985:
"PEDESTRIAN OBSTACLE STUDY, PHASE I:
SURVEY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
This study was prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development,
in cooperation with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). It is an
MPO companion report to the City of Charlottesville 'Pedestrian Obstacle
Report' and follow-up study to the County's 1984 Transportation Systems
Management study (TSM).
METHODOLOGY
The selection of study areas was an important aspect of the development of
this report. The urban area of the County was divided into twelve neighborhood
study areas which corresponded to the limits of the '1980 Census Neighborhoods'
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
The U. S. Census Bureau, in a trial program, provided 1980 data for these
'neighborhoods' (which are actually sub-block areas) which follow the bounda-
ries of the Comprehensive Plan urban area.
For the purpose of this study, neighborhoods were ranked on the basis of:
1. Population characteristics;
2. Density of development; and
3. Rate of development.
Once the neighborhood study areas were ranked by pedestrian demand, target
locations within each neighborhood area were identified. Factors in selecting
particular target locations included police accident records, the 'Transporta-
tion Systems Management Report' and comments from a Planning Commission
public hearing on a preliminary draft of the study.
The 'pedestrian Obstacle Study' also includes an analysis process which
identifies the areas of heaviest pedestrian use. A mapping system was used
to link pedestrian generators (such as high density residential areas) to
pedestrian attractors (such as schools and commercial areas). This model was
based upon a one-half mile walking radius as the maximum trip length. The
result of this process was the identification of the existing pedestrian
demand network.
In summary, the study employed various methods of identifying problem areas
and established a priority ranking for each of these study areas.
PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDED IN THE STUDY
The 'Pedestrian Obstacle Study' included a variety of recommendations that
would improve pedestrian safety in the County's urban area. For informa-
tional purposes, the major recommendations regarding physical improvements
have been summarized below in priority order:
I. Sidewalks and Pathways
a. Proposed Standard Sidewalks:
Lambs Road from Hydraulic Road to the Jouett/Greer access road.
Hydraulic Road (east side) from Whitewood Road to Georgetown Road.
Georgetown Green school maintenance access road to Albemarle High
School.
Whitewood Road (both sides) to existing sidewalks on Greenbrier.
Barracks Road (north side) from Georgetown Road to West Park Drive.
Proposed Asphalt Pathways
Permanent asphalt paths may be required due to environmental or aesthetic
location factors. Sidewalks whose location are considered temporary due to
future road improvements may be constructed of asphalt. When the road is
upgraded to an urban cross section (with curb and gutter), asphalt paths
should be replaced with a standard sidewalk.
2.
3.
4.
*5.
*6.
*7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Access roads from Albemarle High School and Lambs Road to Jouett/Greer.
Commonwealth Drive from Hydraulic Road to Peyton Drive.
Hydraulic Road from Whitewood Road to Four Seasons Drive.
Off-road path connection from Dominion Drive to Shoppers World.
Fontaine Avenue from faculty housing to interchange.
Off-road path from Route 780 to Oak Hill Store.
Route 780 from Oak Hill Store area to City limits.
Old Ivy Road from City limits to Huntington Village.
Rio Road from SqUire Hills to Greenbrier Drive (city).
Rio Road from Squire Hills to Albemarle Square.
Rio Road from Greenbrier Drive to Pen Park Road.
Pen Park Road from Rio Road to Riverrun.
*Pathways which the Planning Commission believed should have received a lower
priority ranking due to a relatively low pedestrian count.
II. Streetlights
Streetlights for night illumination are very effective tools to protect
pedestrians along less than desirable roadways and areas of frequent pedes-
trian night movement. They are also highly effective in reducing criminal
activity, and thereby promote a sense of pedestrian security and confidence.
This study recommends ten additional streetlights to be placed alongside
roadways and intersections to protect night-time pedestrians:
1. Hydraulic Road/Lambs Road - intersection on the Albemarle High School
quadrant.
2. Hydraulic Road/Georgetown Road - on the Westgate Apartment's quadrant.
3. Commonwealth Drive/Hydraulic Drive intersection.
4. Whitewood Road near the proposed jogging area.
5. Whitewood Road/Greenbrier Drive intersection.
6. Hydraulic Road/Rio Road/Greenbrier Drive near the mobile home park.
7. Barracks Road/Georgetown Road intersection.
8. Four Seasons Drive near the recreation area.
9. Rio Road/Pen Park Road intersection.
10. Southwood Mobile Home Park.
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
III. Intersection and Rural Road Improvements
The following list of intersections and road segments contains recommenda-
tions for r~ral road improvements (road markings, drainage or shoulder
improvements), intersection improvements (channelization or median islands)
or pedestrian advisory signs. These intersections will therefore be of
special concern to Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation, (VDH&T),
requiring appropriate engineering, sign, or speed studies be undertaken;
those requiring rural road improvements will likely necessitate right-of-way
purchase or condemnation proceedings.
Intersection and Rural Road Improvements:
1. Hydraulic/Lambs/Whitewood: concrete median, concrete channelization
island, advisory signs.
2. Hydraulic/Commonwealth: concrete channelization island, advisory signs.
3. Commonwealth Drive: road markings.
4. Commonwealth/Peyton: road markings.
5. Hydraulic/Rio/Greenbrier: concrete channelization island.
6. Hydraulic from Whitewood to Greenbrier/Rio: shoulder improvements.
7. Four Seasons Drive-Dominion Drive: road markings.
8. Fontaine Avenue: shoulder improvements.
9. Oak Hill Store: road markings, advisory signs, shoulder improvements.
10. Solomon Road: road markings.
ll. Georgetown Road/Barracks Road: concrete channelization island, advisory
sign, shoulder improvements.
12. Old Ivy Road: concrete channelization island and shoulder improvements.
13. Fashion Square/Albemarle Square: concrete channelization island and
advisory signs.
14. Rio/Squire Hills: advisory signs.
15. Rio/Penn Park: bus pad, advisory sign, road markings.
16. Rio from Huntington to Stonehenge: advisory signs, shoulder
improvements.
17. Woodbrook School: advisory signs.
18. Rio West of 29: shoulder improvements.
ROUTE 29 RECOMMENDATIONS
The Route 29 corridor was included as a separate study area since it could
not be evaluated using the general methodology of the study. The problems
posed by Route 29 are due ~o its character as a primary route consisting of
high volume, high speed vehicular traffic. Route 29 is very hazardous for
pedestrians to walk along due to multiple intersections and commercial
entrances. Likewise, Route 29 is also extremely dangerous to cross. Because
Route 29 is a primary route, top priority is given to maximizing 'green time'
on 29 (i.e. minimal stop/start traffic movement). Therefore, traditional
pedestrian accommodations such as sidewalks and crosswalks are not suited to
Route 29. These can not be as safely used and may reduce overall vehicular
efficiency of the corridor.
Major pedestrian accommodations such as overpasses or tunnels are not presently
warranted due to a relatively low pedestrian volume and high construction
costs.
The Pedestrian Obstacle Study recommends the removal of as many pedestrians
as possible from the corridor. One method to accomplish this is through
relocating all Central Transportation System Bus stops off of Route 29 and
onto side streets or parking areas.
The Study details specific route recommendations for the two existing Central
Transportation System routes which serve the urban area of Albemarle County
(Routes 7 and 9).
IMPLRMENTATION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS OF PEDESTRIAN OBSTACLE STUDY
One section of the Pedestrian Study examined the effectiveness of county
policies regarding sidewalk requirements. Presently, the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances require sidewalk construction along public streets
where the proposed residential development has a density of two or more units
per acre, and in commercial or industrial districts on the recommendation of
the Planning Commission. However, sidewalk construction has not been
required or occurred as often as one would expect given this rather broad
mandate for sidewalks. Part of the difficulty in requiring/obtaining side-
walks has arisen from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
change in policy on where they will accept sidewalks. (A detailed review of
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's sidewalk policy is
provided in a separate report.) Some waivers for sidewalk construction have
recently been granted by the Planning Commission due to this Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation policy. Other issues concerning
requiring sidewalks have been their costliness, the maintenance responsibi-
lity. issue and their useability. All of the above factors have raised
questions concerning the County's current ordinance requirements for
sidewalks.
Therefore the staff and the Planning Commission have been reviewing the
current local ordinance requirements in order to provide a more precise
definition for where sidewalks should be provided in order to be both most
cost-effective and serve the greatest number of persons. It appears from the
preliminary work of the 'Pedestrian Obstacle Study' that sidewalks should be
585
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
constructed to link areas of highest demand and to provide an integrated
network. Random or scattered sidewalk segments with low usage need to be
avoided, while developer participation in the construction of high priority
sidewalks needs to be encouraged.
The current draft of the proposed ordinance revision bases the construction
of sidewalks on two basic factors:
1. thc volume of traffic along the roadway and;
2. a locational factor.
The volume factor presently proposed is 3,000 vehicle trips per day. This
volume is based on the notion that sidewalks are most necessary on high
volume, high speed roadways due tQ safety considerations. The one-half mile
linear walking distance requirement is based on recent research by the
Highway Research Council. Additionally, the proposed draft ordinance limits
sidewalk construction to secondary state routes or private roads and only
within designated growth areas.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISION: SIDEWALK POLICY, ARTICLE 18-39(n),
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE~ SECTION 32.5.19~ ZONING ORDINANCE
The Planning Commission shall determine that the sidewalk (pathway) require-
ment is reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Provision shall be made for internal walkways which will enable pedestrians
to walk safely and conveniently between buildings and parking areas on the
site. The Commission may require construction of public or private walkways
between adjacent developments where deemed appropriate.
A public sidewalk may be required along at least one side of a state-
maintained or private roadway located in a growth area designated in the
Comprehensive Plan where:
Projected traffic volumes exceed 3,000 vehicle trips per day; and
The site is within one-half linear roadway mile of one or more of the
following:
a. A public school or planned public school scheduled for construction
in the five year Capital Improvement Budget; or
b. A neighborhood, community or regional scale shopping center or an
equivalent commercial area (reference section 25.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance); or
c. A public park, public library or similar community facility which is
likely to generate significant pedestrian traffic; or
d. A major employment facility employing 150 persons or more; or
e. A convenience market, fast food restaurant or other similar facility
which generates high volumes of pedestrian traffic.
Ail sidewalks and pathways shall be of a standard design approved by the
County Engineer. Permanent asphalt paths may be required due to environmen-
tal or aesthetic location factors.
Sidewalks whose location are considered temporary due to future road improve-
ments may be constructed of asphalt.
Sidewalks or pathways located on private property but which serve other than
homeowners shall be declared public easements.
All sidewalks and curbs and gutters proposed to be accepted for maintenance
by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation shall be built in
accordance with the construction standards of the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation.
Ail other sidewalks or pathways shall have a guarantee of perpetual mainte-
nance approved or provided for by the Board of Supervisors."
Mr. Lindstrom asked how these proposed improvements will be funded. Ms. Davenport said
would depend on the type of improvement. The proposed street lights are already in the policy
adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Most of the asphalt pathways recommended address current
existing needs in areas already developed. New sidewalks could be required with the
development. Most of the sidewalks recommended in the study would probably require some Coun
funding. The rural road and intersection improvements are the responsibility of the Highway
Department.
Mr. Tucker said the next phase of this study is to look at how the plans could be
implemented, if the Board concurs with the findings and needs of this initial study. It is
envisioned that County fundS are necessary to fund the improvements as part of the Capital
Improvements Program over a period of time.
Ms. Imhoff addressed the Board. She stated that the proposed sidewalk policy will be
reviewed again by the Planning Commission on September 24, 1985 and then sent on to the Board
of Supervisors. She then proceeded to summarize a report on the "Maintenance of Public
Sidewalks" which included a review of Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation polic
and related issues.
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
"INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to provide the Board of Supervisors with an
overview of the current policies, issues and requirements regarding state
maintenance of public sidewalks and a profile of how these policies have
impacted development in Albemarle County since 1984.
As previously discussed, the 'Pedestrian Obstacle Study' included a compre-
hensive summary of existing problems and conditions as well as recommenda-
tions, including a proposed ordinance amendment. This report will provide
additional background information concerning current problems regarding
maintenance and construction of public sidewalks. Included in this section
are the following items:
1. A Review of VDH&T Policy.
2. History of Policy Implementation.
3. Present Status.
4. Alternative Responses for Board of Supervisors Consideration.
This initial report is presented to the Board of Supervisors for informa-
tional purposes only and to request comments and guidance regarding future
staff activities.
I. Review of VDH&T Policy
The Virginia Highway Commission adopted a major revision to their
sidewalk maintenance policy (as defined in 'Subdivision Street
Standards') on April 16, 1981. The general guideline for the VDH&T
policy states:
(Sidewalks will be accepted on streets adjacent to and in the immediate
vicinity of multiple businesses of public buildings or on one side of
subdivision streets within specified range of a CoUnty's required
pedestrian transportation policy from home to school.)
The criteria for this policy are defined by six standards. Specifi-
cally, sidewalks will only be eligible for state maintenance within 600
feet of multiple commercial businesses, or in the vicinity of schools if
a locality has an adopted mandatory walk-to-school policy.
With the exception of the Woodbrook Elementary School, Albemarle County
does not have an adopted, mandatory walk-to-school policy. Given the
present hazardous roadway conditions for pedestrians in the urban area,
the County Education Department does not believe it can guarantee the
safety of students-walking to and from school. Therefore, prior to
improving pedestrian conditions, a mandatory walk-to-school policy is
not recommended.
The location of public sidewalks near commercial districts is defined as
follows in Criteria (5):
(Sidewalks will be eligible for maintenance on streets adjacent to and
in the immediate vicinity of multiple commercial businesses or public
facilities. Immediate vicinity shall mean 600 feet beyond Zoning line
or to .the nearest street intersection within 600 feet.)
The application of this criteria item by VDH&T has been extremely
narrow. For instance,'a public sidewalk proposed in Section 2 of Squire
Hills along the collector road was required to be located outside the
public right-of-way because Fashion Square Mall was interpreted by VDH&T
to be a single, rather than multiple, commercial establishment.
In summary, due to the restrictiveness of VDH&T criteria for state
acceptance of public sidewalk maintenance, there exists very few loca-
tions in the County eligible for state-maintained public sidewalks.
This is particularly problematic for the County since one major recom-
mendation from VDH&T regarding the Route 29 North analysis is the
implementation of Transportation System Management (TSM) measures. The
VDH&T recommends increased reliance on bus service in the urban area
which may include park-and-ride lots or increasing the frequency of
service. The provision for sidewalks in the urban area would improve
pedestrian safety, as well as encourage greater pedestrian use, which
may reduce vehicular volumes in the urban area.
II. History of Policy implementation
Although the VDH&T sidewalk policy was adopted in 1981, the VDH&T did
not implement compliance with this policy until March of 1984. At that
time, an applicant for an approved subdivision plat was notified that
the sidewalk shown on road plans was not acceptable for state main-
tenance within the public right-of-way (Georgetown Lane Preliminary
Plat, Applicant: Frank Hereford, Jr.). The applicant, unable to obtain
approval from VDH&T for the sidewalk, was granted relief by the Planning
Commission from the sidewalk requirement. Therefore, no sidewalk was
constructed in this location.
The VDH&T review of this 1984 plat indicated that there had been a major
shift in the interpretation of the eligibility criteria for state
maintenance of sidewalks. The Planning staff subsequently attempted to
September 11~ 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
587
obtain clarification of the 'applicability' of VDH&T criteria. In March
of 1984, staff requested assistance in the interpretation of the VDH&T
policy (See Attachments 1 [letter dated June 21, 1984 from D. S.
Roosevelt] and 2 [letter dated March 19, 1984 from Ronald $. Keeler],
both are on file in the Clerk's office.).
After defining the criteria items regarding a walk-to-school policy and
the limits of the commercial zone, Mr. Roosevelt had the following
comment regarding interpretation of VDH&T policy (Criteria 6):
Criteria: ([6] Sidewalks not covered by these guidelines
may be approved for maintenance eligibility after individual
study by the Department's resident engineer and the county
involved.)
Response: (Item 6 of these criteria is meant to allow
resident engineers some flexibility. Instruction from my
management is that this flexibility is to be utilized very
judiciously and is not 'carte blanche' permission to waive
the policy to meet a resident engineer's desires. The policy
says in.situations where people must walk for long distance,
alongside nonlocal traffic and where a single entity cannot
reasonably be held responsible, conditions exist to consider
a waiver. Unless all of these conditions exist, the Department
has no business maintaining the sidewalk.)
In a further attempt to clarify the acceptability of sidewalks already
approved by the Planning Commission, the County Engineer prepared in
October of 1984 a status report. This report detailed seventeen
projects approved by the Planning Commission which all had proposed
public sidewalks. Of these seventeen projects, eight projects contained
acceptable sidewalks either because they were eligible under the VDH&T
policy or because the projects were ~pproved prior to the policy change.
Of these seventeen projects, five projects were listed where VDH&T would
not allow the construction of sidewalks within the right-of-way unless
the County would guarantee the perpetual maintenance of those sidewalks.
Four additional projects contained sidewalks which were approved by
VDH&T and already constructed, but do not meet the policy requirements.
For these four projects, the resident engineer recommended to the
district office that they be accepted if the county would request
specific policy waivers. A waiver for these four projects is pending.
1. Fieldbrook Subdivision (Old Brook Road).
2. Raintree Subdivision I (Old Brook Road).
3. Village Square I.
4. Wynridge Subdivision (Westfield Drive).
Since that time, the Planning Commission and County staff have deliber-
ated the requirement for sidewalks on a case-by-case basis during the
review of numerous current developments. Presently, VDH&T final
approval of some road plans has been delayed pending resolution of this
problem.
The County Engineer will provide specific documentation of these items.
III. Present Status Regarding Sidewalk Construction & Maintenance
The most immediate issue facing the County with regard to sidewalk
policies is the resolution of maintenance responsibilities for
sidewalks and pathways which do not meet the present VDH&T criteria
for state maintenance. To provide for any sidewalk construction in
public right-of-ways, VDH&T requires assurance of perpetual maintenance
of those facilities which do not qualify under State guidelines.
The County is the only entity which VDH&T will presently accept as
a guarantor of perpetual maintenance responsibility.
To facilitate sidewalk construction under these restrictive conditions,
one interim solution has been to locate public sidewalks outside
the right-of-way and place maintenance responsibilities with
respective homeowner associations. Under this arrangement, public
sidewalks were placed outside the VDH&T right-of-way in Raintree
II, Squire Hills II, Willoughby and Willow Lake.
Sidewalk construction outside the public right-of-way has various
problems:
1. It creates an inconsistent network of maintenance responsibilities
among developments.
2. This agreement may not adequately address liability or the
handling of emergency situations.
3. Additionally, this approach does not provide for sidewalk
connector links between private property and public
right-of-ways, such as at intersections of public roads which
includes handicap curb cuts required under the Code of
Virginia (Recent example: Willoughby).
588
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
IV.
Summary of Board of Supervisors Possible Responses
This report has outlined various conflicts and current issues with
regard to public sidewalks. Possible responses from the Board can be
categorized as interim measures and/or as long-term policy considerations.
Interim Measures:
As previously stated, the most immediate problem facing the County is a
resolution of the problem of guaranteeing, to VDH&T satisfaction,
perpetual maintenance of improvements within the public right-of-way.
To address this rather urgent problem, the Board may:
Consider adopting a sidewalk (pathway) maintenance policy for
proposed improvements located within public right-of-ways which
meet local requirements but not the State criteria.
Until a formal policy on sidewalks is adopted, authorize the County
Engineer to apply for VDH&T permits for short sections of sidewalks
and for drainage pipes and street signs where maintenance costs are
expected to be minimal or nonexistent.
e
A bonding procedure could be formulated to require a developer to
post a construction bond and a maintenance bond with the County for
a specified period of time, until the County is able to develop a
maintenance policy.
Long-term Policy Considerations:
The County Board of Supervisors could request an interview with
either the state office of VDH&T or the Highway Commission to
rewiew the specifics of the VDH&T sidewalk policy. Information to
be obtained from such a meeting could include: the history of
formation of this policy, exact interpretation of criteria, type of
exceptions which can be allowed, and the process for obtaining
special exceptions. Other particular issues which could be raised
at such a meeting include:
a. The provision of links between pathways outside right-of-ways;
b. Wheelchair handicap access ramps and curb cuts required under
the Code of Virginia but disallowed in the right-of-way (for
example, this issue has arisen in Willoughby);
c. Definition of acceptable activities/facilities within the
public right-of-ways (private road signs, curb cuts, etc.);
d. Clarification of guarantee of perpetual maintenance requirement;
e. Clarification of the Virginia Attorney General's opinion
requiring local governments to post surety bonds with the
VDH&T (see Attachment 3; on file in the Clerk's office).
2. After such a meeting, the Board of Supervisors has a range of
options which include, but need not be limited to, the following:
a. Accept VDH&T current policy but request administrative waivers
on a case-by-case basis;
b. Contest VDH&T policy in part or in toto (for instance, request
VDH&T to waive the mandatory walk-to-school requirement prior
to accepting sidewalks in the vicinity of schools);
c. Forward the County's own ordinance requirements and request
that those criteria be used for the standards for state main-
tenance of public sidewalks in Albemarle County;
d. Appeal the VDH&T policy to the Highway Commission.
Ms. Imhoff said that Mrs. Constance Kincheloe, Culpeper District Highway Commissioner, is
the person to whom the Highway Department policy would be appealed. Another procedure for
appeal is through the Highway District Office in Culpeper. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is an~
hope that the Highway Department will reconsider its policy. Ms. Imhoff said Albemarle is not
the only county in Virginia with this problem; a survey of other counties was conducted in
conjunction with the Pedestrian Obstacle Study. Sidewalks are a concern that a number of
counties should get together to discuss. Mr. Lindstrom said it seems to him that is the
problem. The Highway Department does not have any money and the more counties that start to
maintain their own sidewalks the less likely it is that they will change their policy. He ther
asked if anyone has checked to see if service districts are possible for designated areas.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, said this can be done for sidewalks, but it first requires
that a referendum pass. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it is a county-wide referendum. Mr. Elrod said
the district must first be outlined. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the referendum would take care of
construction and maintenance. Mr. Elrod said the referendum would take care of both.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if such a referendum were adopted, and a special assessment district set u~
if that would meet Highway Department requirements for perpetual maintenance? Mr. Elrod
replied yes.
Mr. Bowie said he read the options and feels they are an exercise in futility. He noted
the Code of Virginia requires handicap ramps at curbs, but it seems from this report that
another State agency, the Department of Highways & Transportation, will not allow them to be
put in. Ms. Imhoff said the Department of Highways & Transportation will allow handicapped
ramps as long as someone other than the Highway Department maintains them. Mr. Roosevelt said
the Code requires handicapped ramps at curb cuts if there is a sidewalk. If there is no
sidewalk, then the Code does not require the curb cuts That is an important difference.
Mr. Bowie said on state-maintained sidewalks, where there is a curb cut, the Highway Departmen~
maintains that. The County would only be responsible if it required a curb cut where the
Highway Department will not accept the sidewalks. Mr. Roosevelt said that is correct.
589
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom said there seems to be no satisfactory answer unless the County can convince
the citizens in an area that it is worth having a special assessment district to establish and
maintain sidewalks in that area. In the absence of this, it seems the only option is a
hodge-podge system of asphalt pathways outside of highway right-of-way maintained through
homeowner agreements. Ms. Imhoff said other areas in the State are having the same problems,
but other Highway Department Districts have been more liberal about granting waivers. Fairfa]
County has received several waivers. Albemarle County should not rule out approaching the
Culpeper District office requesting a waiver. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County received all
waivers that could be reasonably expected, would the waivers take care of the sidewalk "gap"?
Ms. Imhoff said the problem will continue to grow as the area grows. If the mandatory walk-to-
school policy would substitute a half linear mile from the schools that would solve a lot of
the problems that the County has now.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, next addressed the Board, and said his presentation
deals primarily with Virginia Department of Highway & Transportation policy regarding permits
for sidewalks, drainage pipes, street sign posts, etc. He summarized the following memorandum
dated September 5, 1985, to the Board:
SUMMARY
The Highway Department's policy precludes private landowners and developers
from installing any structures in the highway right-of-way, that do not
benefit the highway, unless the County takes out a permit and guarantees
that the structure will be maintained. The staff needs Board approval to
obtain these permits for structures that benefit the County and that are not
likely to have high maintenance costs.
DISCUSSION
In recent months we have had several occasions arise in which private
developers or landowners need to install certain facilities in a VDH&T
right-of-way but were prevented from doing so because of VDH&T policy. That
policy requires that a permit be issued for any facilities that the Highway
Department feels have no benefit to the road. In addition, the policy
requires that the permit be issued to someone who can provide a continuous
bond to ensure maintenance of the permitted facilities since the State will
not maintain them. The only entity that meets those criteria is in the
County Government or a governmental authority.
SIDEWALKS
There are three subdivision projects now under construction where the
Planning Commission required the developers to install sidewalks. Most of
the length of these sidewalks is out of the right-of-way. Short sections
however, must be within the right-of-way in order for the sidewalks to
connect to the streets. Those sections total 317 linear feet for sidewalk
and handicap ramps. A permit is required for these walks before the roads
will be accepted by the State for maintenance.
DRAINAGE
There are two homes in Wynridge Subdivision that experienced flooding last
year due to mistakes in design and construction. The developer is willing
to install a pipe to correct the problem. The pipe must cross an existing
state road and a permit is required.
STREET SIGNS
Occasionally street name signs for private roads need to be placed in the
State right-of-way in order for them to be visible to motorists and
emergency vehicles. Many of those signs are placed without a permit,
however, State policy requires that a permit be issued.
POSSIBLE COSTS TO THE COUNTY
We feel that the maintenance required for the street signs and the drainage
pipe, insofar as the Highway Department's requirements are concerned, will
be nonexistent. If concrete sidewalks are constructed correctly they should
last for twenty to twenty-five years without need for major repairs. Tree
roots can crack them and the occasional large truck that cuts the corner too
tight will damage them. Grass and weeds, if left unattended, will encroach
on sidewalks, and mud from erosion will 'cake-up' on them. Asphalt walkways
will last only five to eight years and will require more maintenance.
It the County proceeds with accepting developer installed walks and also
implements the Planning Department's 'Pedestrian Obstacle Study' some of
those walks would be eligible for State maintenance. I have no way of
predicting the amount of walks that would be added each year to a County
maintained system, but as a 'ball park' estimate I think the maintenance
costs would be in the range of $2,000 to $5,000 per year for the first five
years. During the 5th to 10th years, major repairs would be required for
the asphalt walks. During the 20th to 25th years, major repairs would be
required for the concrete walks.
RECOMMENDATION
Until a formal policy on sidewalks is adopted, authorize the County Engineer
to apply for VDH&T permits for short sections of sidewalks and for drainage
pipes and street signs where maintenance costs are expected to be minimal or
nonexistent."
59O
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Me~ting)
Mr. Elrod said his part of the report has more to do with obtaining permits from the
Highway Department. He said he has three examples where the projects are under construction,
so the situation is somewhat of an emergency. The Planning Commission recently adopted a
resolution stating that if the Board of Supervisors does not proceed to take out permits for
these sidewalks, the developer is excused from providing the sidewalks. The firstcase is
Willow Lake which has a network of sidewalks linking the multi-family areas with the recreation
area near the lake. Except for some small segments about six-feet in length where the
sidewalks tie into the highway right-of-way, the sidewalks actually lie outside of the highway
right-of-way. Before the Highway Department will take the roads in Willow Lake into the State
system, the County will have to take out the permit. In Willoughby PUD there is also a
situation where there are privately-maintained sidewalks tied in with sections of sidewalk in
the highway right-of-way. In Raintree Subdivision, Old Brook Road is an existing state road
which is being widened and improved by the developer. In the first section of Raintree, there
is a small length of sidewalk which the Highway Department will agree to accept into the State
system, but when the developer got to the second section, the sidewalk actually lies outside of
the right-of-way, but the short sections whiCh tie the handicapped ramps from the sidewalk into
the street require a permit. Mr. Lindstrom asked the consequences of the permit? Mr. Elrod
said basically the County agrees to perpetually maintain the sections of the sidewalk for which
the permits are taken out. Mr. Lindstrom asked if these will be the only sidewalk sections the
County will be in the business of maintaining? Mr. Elrod said other than the walkway on
Georgetown Road, yes. Mrs. Cooke asked what happens to private sidewalks that would tie into
these county-maintained sidewalks and over which the County has no jurisdiction. In the three
projects mentioned, the Planning Commission required the County Attorney to approve homeowners'
maintenance agreements for maintaining the sidewalks outside of the right-of-way, but other
than that, the County has no jurisdiction. Mrs. Cooke asked how strong the homeowners'
maintenance agreements are. Mr. Elrod said the County tries to enforce these agreements.
Mr. Lindstrom said now that the County is aware of the Highway Department poliCy, how is
the requirement being handled for new subdivisions. Mr. Elrod aid the staff is waiting for
guidance from the Board. Mr, Tucker said the Zoning Ordinance requires sidewalks in areas
where the density is two dwelling units per acre. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the problem then is
just the small connecting links that run the sidewalks onto State right-of-way, and asked if
there is a backlog of approvals for such connections. Mr. Tucker said these three projects
are the only problems now, but there is an existing policy in ordinance requirements that will
continue to perpetuate the problem. Mr. Lindstrom said the Georgetown Road walk is in the
right-of-way and is of asphalt construction. He asked if that is acceptable under Highway
Department standards if the County maintains the walkway. Mr. Tucker replied yes, as long as
the County maintains the walkway.
Mr. Elrod said that if the Board of Supervisors were to adopt the policy contained in the
Pedestrian Obstacle Study, of these three developments the only one where sidewalks would be
required would be Old Brook Road. The policy ties the requirement for sidewalks to 3,000
vehicle trips per day. The two other referenced subdivisions do not have that high of a count
They are also proposed as concrete walkways, so the maintenance for the next 20 to 25 years
should be very low.
Mr. Elrod went on to discuss a different problem. Wynridge Subdivision is almost
completed and some of the streets have been taken into the State Secondary system. Because of
a~mistake made in the design of a drainage pipe, flooding occurred in two homes last year. The
developer is willing to build a new storm sewer, and the Highway Department has approved the
plan with the condition that the County take out a permit for the portion of the new storm
sewer that will be located within the State right-of-way. This pipe will be concrete, down
approximately six to eight feet in the ground and with little chance of a surface load
affecting the pipe down that deeply. Mr. Elrod recommended that the Board allow a permit to b~
taken out for this system.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any way to go back and require the developer to post a
maintenance bond to cover maintenance of these sections? Mr. Elrod said that can be done in
the future, but that would require a developer to pay a bond fee forever, and if he did not pa5
it, the bond could be called. The bond would probably have to be renewed every year.
Mr. Henley said he felt there would be trouble buying such a bond.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that in these areas, the homeowners'associations would
maintain sidewalks not in Highway right-of-way, but if the area is in Highway right-of-way, the
only reasonable way to handle maintenance is through some county administration. Mr. Elrod
said in some of these developments, having homeowners' associations handle maintenance could
cause problems. For example, in Willow Lake there are other amenities such as tennis courts
to maintain, so they will need an organization to do this.
Mr. Lindstrom said evidently in the Planning CommissiOn's view, these sidewalks are
important enough to be required. If not done now, at some point congestion will be such that
it will be evident that they should have been required. He said to make all citizens in the
county pay to take care of sidewalks benefiting only a handful of people does not seem to be
fair. He stated he feels uneasy about setting a precedent where the County agrees to take care
of all of these little bits and pieces of sidewalks even if it will not take any funds for 20
or more years. He said if in the future, the County could establish a mechanism, similar to
that in effect for drainage projects, where the developer contributes to a fund maintained for
the sole purpose of taking care of these situations. It looks like the County has been "backed
into a corner" unless the idea of having sidewalks is discarded.
Mr. Elrod said there is one more item. He has just recently learned that the Attorney
General's office has ruled that if the the County applies for these permits henceforth, the
County must post a bond to cover the maintenance. The Highway Department will no longer take
resolution guaranteeing that the sidewalks will be maintained if the need arises. There will
be an immediate cost to this to take out bonds since the minimum amount of a bond is $10,000
and these cost two percent per year.
a
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if a fund such as he suggested can be set up?
Mr. St. John said this whole thing is a legal minefield. He said there cannot be a bond in
perpetuity and require someone else to pay the premium every year. Mr. Henley said that is
what the State is asking the County for. Mr. St. John said the County cannot commit to do
either because it is a debt being incurred in futura. The Virginia Constitution states a
County cannot oblige or obligate its' taxing power to a specific project beyond the fiscal
year. He said he is not sure whether the County's obligation in this sidewalk policy is sir
to be responsible for maintenance of the sidewalks instead of the Highway Department, or if
CoUnty is making an affirmative commitment to keep the sidewalks up to a certain standard. If
the County is only agreeing that it is responsible for the sidewalks, but not to any standard,
the County can do that because that is not a debt. If the County has to commit to keeping the
sidewalk to a specific standard, then that is deemed to be a debt. Mr. St. John asked
Mr. Roosevelt which commitment is being requested of the County. Mr. Roosevelt said, as with
any item that the Highway Department allows within its right-of-way under permit, if the item
is considered a hazard to the public, then the Highway Department expects the item tobe
maintained. For example if there are tripping hazards such as change in elevations in a
sidewalk, then the Highway Department would expect that to be corrected. It would depend on
whether it is a safety hazard and something needs to be done about the hazard. If it were
considered a safety hazard and the County refused to correct the situation, the Highway
Department would call the bond. Mr. St. John said he questions whether the County can enter
into a bond of this type, make a commitment to pay the premium for the future, and make an
absolute commitment to do certain work every year. Future Boards of Supervisors would have to
weigh all County needs, including the need for sidewalks, and decide which is more important.
In addition, he does not understand the mandatory walk-to-school policy, and questions its
constitutionality. If a public road is going by a school, the County cannot say a student has
to walk to school.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels it is fairly urgent for the County Engineer to get a reply,
and there are some serious legal questions for the County Attorney to think about, but he then
offered motion that the County Attorney quickly contact the Attorney General's office and get
clarification on the permit requirement by the Highway Department. Secondly, staff and the
County Attorney advise the Board about the feasibility of establishing a separate fund for
future maintenance of sidewalks. Mr. Lindstrom said the County will continue to grow. There
is no way to stop that, and most of it will be high density growth. He feels the County must
provide some means of transportation other than vehicles. He said since that is the case, he
would like to have set up for areas such as those discussed today, a fund to which a developer
at the time of approval, could make a one-time contribution for the cost of bonds or main-
tenance obligations for the future. Mr. St. John suggested that before staff looks into this
idea, he would like to find out from the Attorney General whether such a fund can be set up.
The type of fund and the type of payment that can be exacted from a subdivider are not spelled
out in the Code, and this type of fund is not spelled out, he does not think it can be require~
Mr. Tucker said he agrees with Mr. St. John; that is an item to be discussed under legislative
matters later today. Mr. Lindstrom said he sees no option other than those two avenues other
than to scrap all sidewalks. Mr. Bowie said obviously in these three cases there is a problem
and something must be done, but beyond this point what is the County to do? He cannot ask
people who live in Stony Point or Scottsville to pay for any of this because it is not their
problem. The Board has to find a way to keep the problem off of general revenue expense, nor
can this Board obligate any future Boards. He further has problems with requesting developers
to pay this, since they don't pay the costs - it is passed back to the people who buy the
houses. Another issue that has not come up is street signs. Street signs are more of a
problem because of public safety than sidewalks. He would like a recommendation concerning
street signs. What happens when there is no street sign and police must respond to a call in
location?
Mr. Lindstrom restated his motion to be to ask the County Attorney to correspond with the
Attorney General's office and get a clarification of the permit requirement added to the
Highway Department's list of problems; that the staff advise as to the feasibility of
establishing a fund to be drawn upon for future maintenance of these areas of sidewalks; and
added that this include the steps the County needs to take with the Highway Department to find
out if there is any relief with regard to the specific situations. Mr. Lindstrom said it is a]
impossible situation, and simply saying there will be no sidewalks in areas of such high
density is untenable. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr. Way asked why the 3,000 vehicle tripe
per day was proposed? Ms. Imhoff said the idea is to install sidewalks where there was the
most hazards. (Mr. Fisher arrived at the meeting at 10:15 A,M. but did not take the chair.)
Mrs. Cooke stated that she will support the motion, but she feels this Board must take a
serious look at what it wants this County to become. The Board must "bite the bullet" and
decide whether it wants to get into city-type facilities in the County. The County must also
decide how it is going to deal with growth. She feels some guidance must be given the staff i
the near future. Mr. Lindstrom stated this is a ridiculous situation, growth cannot be stoppe~
and according to Mr. St. John the County cannot assess developers for the needs of the people
who will come to this are in future years. The State prevents the County from providing for
those needs, so no one will provide for those needs, and yet people are living in high density
areas. Mr. Lindstrom said that in his seven years on the Board, he has not see a problem so
impossible to solve, if all of the laws as described this morning are in fact as they are.
Mr. Henley said the Board is not contemplating taking any action on the sidewalks as
outlined. He asked if the Board takes no action if that will do away with these sidewalks.
Mr. Henley asked what the Board needs to do today? Mr. Tucker said that is the way he would
interpret such nonaction. He said the Planning Commission has not acted on any policy. If
Board agrees with the recommended policy in regard to the collector roads at 3,000 vehicle
trips per day, that would eliminate some of the problems. With the exception of Old Brook
Road, sidewalks would not be required under that policy. Mr. Henley asked what the Board
should do today to preserve what is being recommended. Mr. Elrod said the Board would need to
authorize the staff to take out a permit. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this is it; there is no more
time on these projects? Mr. Elrod said the contractor is ready to pour concrete, and they
petitioned the Planning Commission as to what to do. The Planning Commission said that if the
Board of Supervisors does not act to take out the permits, the sidewalks can be deleted.
Mr. Henley said he is willing to take out the permit. Mr. Lindstrom said he would rather take
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meetinq)
out the permit than not have the sidewalk. He feels it is an unusual circumstance, and the
Board is not committing to do this type of thing forever. Mr. Agnor said a bond is now
required in order to take out a permit.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested action be deferred until Mr. St. John receives the requested
information. Mrs. Cooke said a motion is on the floor and action needs to be taken on the
motion first. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission is receptive to the policy of 3,000
vehicle trips per day. But, their hands are tied because current ordinances require sidewalks
when the density is two dwelling units per acre. The Commission is receptive to lessening the
requirement. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board can defer a decision on these sidewalks until it
finds out if it can legally put up a bond and the consequences of such action? Mr. St. John
said it is usually a matter of weeks before a response will come back from the Attorney General
Mr. Bowie suggested this matter be deferred a week. Mr. Henley said he is willing to go
ahead and take out the permit, and if it cannot be done, then that is someone else's problem.
Mr. Tucker said a decision is critical for only Willoughby because the developer is ready to
pour concrete. Mr. Lindstrom asked that roll be called on his motion. Roll was then called
and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Fisher
Mr. Lindstrom said he has no problem with taking out a permit on these three projects.
This is not a commitment for any future projects. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that the
3,000 vehicle trips per day criteria is too conservative. The County is building a city,
whether people want to admit it or not, and if the end result is 20 units per acre over a
significant land area with only scattered sidewalks because at the time sidewalks came up,
there were not 3,000 vehicle trips per day, the Board will find that was very short-sighted.
He agrees with Mr. Henley that the Board needs to do what it must to implement its current
policy. It is a need that will not go away. What is not done today, will be more urgent in
the future.
Mr. Henley then offered motion that staff be authorized to sign a permit application with
the Highway Department, or whatever paperwork is necessary, in order to get the sidewalks
approved in the plan discussed today - for Willow Lake, Raintree and Willoughby developments.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and asked if the motion deals with the replacement of the
drainage facility in Wynridge. Mr. Elrod said he would like for the drainage facility to be
included. Mr. Henley said he will include authorization for replacement of a drainage facili
in Wynridge Subdivision in the motion. Mr. St. John suggested that the motion authorize
some officer, by title or name, to sign the application for the permit and to sign the bond.
Mr. Henley suggested that the County Engineer be authorized to sign the permit application and
included that in his motion. Mr. St. John said he would like to review the paperwork when it
is completed. Mr. Lindstrom accepted this as part of the second. Roll was called and the
foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MesSrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Roosevelt said the issue of sidewalks is a very thorny issue. He used as an analogy
several years ago the County recognized that it could not afford to have every citizen provide
his own septic field and drinking water well to serve his own needs, and therefore formed the
Albemarle County Service Authority to provide for this. The County is at the same point with
other items in the urban area, sidewalks being one of the areas. The Highway Department has
decided that it should not maintain sidewalks, only roads. If the Board feels the County has
reached the point where it needs sidewalks, then it is time to decide how to finance the
maintenance and construction of these sidewalks, and to form whatever entity is needed to do
this. Sidewalks are as much of a utility as water lines or sewer lines. Other questions of
this nature are going to come up in the future. He thinks the County is making a wrong
decision putting sidewalks outside of the State's right-of-way just to get out of having the
County take responsibility for maintenance. On private roads, maintenance agreements are great
until things start going to pot and large amounts of money have to be put out in a short
of time, then the maintenance agreements are going to be worthless. People are more apt to
want to do something concerning roadways because they have to drive their cars over the roads,
but less apt to put money into sidewalks. Requiring homeowners' associations to maintain thes~
sidewalks is the wrong way to go. Sidewalks are as much a utility as water lines. If the
County feels sidewalks are necessary, then the County should find some way to maintain them.
Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with Mr. Roosevelt and he would like to get specific
information from the staff about how to set up a special assessment district to deal with
sidewalks in the future.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: Ordinance to vacate a drainage easement in Willow
Heights Subdivision. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 27 and September 3, 1985.)
Mr. Agnor said that a condition of approval placed on the Taylor's Auto Body shop was
vacation of a drainage easement between Lots 4 and 5 in Willow Heights Subdivision. An
ordinance for the vacation was drafted by Mr. Taylor's attorney and approved by the County
Attorney. Adjacent property owners were notified of this hearing.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. David Wood, Jr., attorney for the applicant, was
present. He said no other property owner is affected by the vacation of this drainage
easement. There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt An Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of a Plat Showing a
Drainage Easement between Lots 4 and 5 in Willow Heights Subdivision, as set Out below.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the ordinance was adopted by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
593
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-482(b), as follows:
Section 1. That the drainage easement on the boundary line between
Lots 4 and 5 on plat of Willow Heights Subdivision prepared by William S.
Roudabush, Jr., dated February 1, 1974, attached to a deed from Henry J.
Browne and wife to M & W Associates dated February 7, 1974, and recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in
Deed Book 546, page 268 (plat at page 272) be, and the same is, hereby
vacated and the dedication of the drainage easement to public use is
rescinded.
Section 2. The vacation of the aforesaid drainage easement shall in
no way vacate any other portion of the aforesaid plat of the Willow Heights
Subdivision.
Section 3. The vacation of the aforesaid drainage easement shall be
effective on or after September 11, 1985.
Agenda Item No. 9. Lambs Road Baptist Church: Request to connect to public water and
sewer service. The following letter dated September 3, 1985, from Milton R. Birch, Trustee,
brought this matter on the Board's agenda:
"The members and trustees of the Lambs Road Baptist Church, located on
Hydraulic Road and Route 657, Parcel 6, Tax Map 61, request a hearing
with the County Supervisors on the following subject:
That the above stated church be included in the Albemarle
County Service Authority for the purpose of obtaining
permission to connect to the County water system and the
County sewer system.
Lambs Road is on its' way toward completion. Our goal is to occupy the
ground floor by the last day of October 1985."
Mr. Dave Flynn, a deacon at Lambs Road Baptist Church, addressed the Board. Mr. Flynn
stated that every piece of property adjoining the church is already served by public water and
sewer. This is a five-acre parcel and a buffer zone has been required for water runoff, so no
high intensity development could ever occur on this property. The church building is near
completion.
Mrs. Cooke then asked for a staff report. Mr. Tucker said this is a request to hold a
public hearing and no action is to be taken on the request today. He then presented the
following staff report:
"Existing Use: Church
Acreage:
5.087 acres
Zoning:
RA, Rural Areas
Location:
Property, described as TM 61, parcel 6, is located on the
west side of Hydraulic Road (Route 743) north and adjacent
to Lamb's Road (Route 657).
Character of the Area:
R. E. Lee Construction Company and United Parcel Service abut this property
and are served by public water, and water & sewer respectively. The Albemarle-
Jouett-Greer school complex and County bus maintenance facility are located
across Lamb's Road and are served by public water and public sewer.
History:
SP-82-64 - Albemarle Baptist Church approved by Board of Supervisors
(December 1, 1982) subject to:
1. Only those areas intended for development shall be cleared.
areas shall remain in a natural state;
Ail other
2. Access to the property shall be restricted to Rte. 657.
December 1, 1982 - Albemarle County Board of Supervisors accepted request
for withdrawal of petition to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority's
service area to provide public water and sewer to this site.
April 11, 1984 - Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved extension of
SP-82-64 to September 1, 1984.
May 22, 1984 - Albemarle County Planning Commission permitted stockpiling of
fill dirt on site with minimum removal of trees at the discretion of the
County Engineer.
June 26, 1984 - Planning Commission approved site plan for phase I construc-
tion involving 8,500 sq. ft. building and 76 parking spaces.
594
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Staff Comments:
The Lambs Road Baptist Church has requested that the Board of Supervisors
amend the Albemarle County Service Authority service area to provide public
water and sewer service to this property. During review of SP-82-64, a
particular concern of the staff was that a stream surfaces on the property
and travels about 3,000 feet to the reservoir. The applicant proposed
capping the spring and piping the stream through the property, which was not
supported by staff. Due to concerns of reservoir protection, the Watershed
Management Official and County Engineer recommended that public sewer be
made available.
Regarding the applicant's current request, staff offers the following:
Since the church building is under construction, the request for public
utilities is not viewed as "speculative" and would not set precedent for
extension of utilities to undeveloped properties in the reservoir
watershed;
e
Access to public sewer would require a lift station and force main,
making the sewer line for practical purposes, unusable to other proper-
ties in the area;
Reservoir protection concerns related to septic system usage in this
particular case remain valid (memos submitted by Watershed Management
Management and County Engineer during review of SP-82-64).
Mr. Lindstrom said he realizes t-his .is a procedural matter today, but when SP-82-64 was
first requested, there was a great deal of concern about fitting all of this church on such a
small parcel, particularly one with a stream on it, and the legal precedent that could be set
by extending the Albemarle County Service Authority's service boundaries because of the Board's
concern with the adjoining property. He thinks the applicant tried to answer the Board's
concerns and the applicant then withdrew the original request to extend public water and sewer
to this site. Now it appears that the applicant has problems and wants the services areas
expanded. The way this all happened makes it seem that if someone requests a special use
permit for a residential development and say they do not want public water and sewer, and that
requirement is waived by the Board, that person can later come back when everything is ready
and on the ground, and the staff says it is no longer speculative, the Board will get itself
into a circle of confusion that really will result in a "renting" of this policy against
expansion in the rural area that is in the watershed. Mr. Lindstrom said this one really
"frosts" him because he has seen it coming ever since the Board fist heard the special permit
request. He said the Board lays these traps for itself and then walks in with its eyes open.
Mr. St. John said that he has no basic concerns from a legal standpoint, but the Board's
basic policy is not to allow public water and sewer service in the South Fork Rivanna River
Watershed. Each time that policy is excepted, the exceptions become the policy, and the policy
is no more. Mr. Fisher asked if this request impacts on the general policy and what sort of
precedent would it set? After the buildings are up and the applicant comes back and states he
really needs public water and sewer, is an unusual process. Mr. Fisher said there has been no
demonstration by the applicant that a septic field cannot be constructed. Mr. Tucker said
there is no problem meeting the current requirements. The applicant is ready to put in the
drain field and well, and before they expend funds on those items, the applicant wanted to try
for public water and sewer.
Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board were to look at this site only, without setting a
precedent, it would be desirable to have public sewer and water extended to the site; that is
also staff's opinion. It makes the Board's actions look funny when the Board makes statements
about its concerns about the watershed, and then allow the sewer and water service. It looks
like the Board is concerned about the watershed, but is willing to allow septic fields. The
problem is that, it is impossible to say when the exceptions become more numerous than the
application of the rule. If the Board establishes a precedent that sewer and water can be
extended to that area by right, the kind of development that would follow that in terms of
intensity is where the problem lies. The impact of a scattering of single-family developments
all on septic fields is far less than the kind of density that could naturally go in the area
with sewer and water service. The real danger is that by creating essentially a de facto new
rule to extend sewer and water, the Board will be laying the groundwork for a court challenge
that could succeed in establishing a much higher density in the area, which is the battle the
County went through in three different courts and was successful in those battles.
Judge Mehridge's written opinion was that the County had been very consistent in applying its
standards and restrictions with respect to the watershed. It is so tempting with an
application such as this to forget that the consequence in the mind of a judge may be that that
one exception which deestablished a pattern was finally made and that cannot be denied in the
future. In the long run, the Board has a responsibility for the reservoir.
Mr. Fisher said that the permit was approved with the assumption that there would be well
and septic tank, and the building was begun on the premise that there would be a well and
septic tank. There has been no indication that there is any problem with the building
operating with a well and septic tank, and unless someone can demonstrate that there is or will
be a serious problem, he does not think the Board should change the rules at this time. He
feels the Board should not make an exception to the rule that runs a risk in court. Judges
look at whether something is piecemealed to death so that there are no more rules and
everything is an ad hoc decision. In that situation, the courts will "murder" us.
Mr. Bowie said in this case, and as he has said many times recently, that what happened in
1981 is not a critical factor to him. The deciding point is that there is no reason to do
this. It has been shown to serve no particular benefit to the church and no one has shown why
water and sewer should be connected, particularly since it will require a pumping station.
Connecting public sewer and water does not seem to be an advantage to anyone because for four
years eve~3one has expected it to be on its own system.
September ~1, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
595
Mr. Flynn addressed the Board again. He said in response to Mr. Lindstrom's
statement,-, at the time the special use permit was applied for, it was not known if this
church would be built at this location and that is the reason the church took a low key on
the issue and attempted to show the Board that it would fulfill its original obligation.
The church is now a reality. The Health Department informed them it would be better to
hook up to public water and sewer. A septic system and drainfields would deteriorate in
time and there is a pond behind the church to control runoff from the highway. The church
spent $121,000 preparing the site and is asking to hook up to a system that is only 40 feet
away from the site. This has no bearing on the first permit for the church. All of the
adjoining property owners have access to these facilities. Mr. Fisher said in response to
Mr. Flynn, in 1981 some of the Board members felt this parcel of land was so marginal to
begin with that the church was trying to achieve a false economy by buying a piece of land
that was less expensive than one that would be easier to develop. The Board members at
that time were convinced that the church could be built with a water well and septic field
and the permit was approved on that basis; therefore, he feels it should stay that way.
Mr. Way asked the exact location of this site. Mr. Flynn replied that it is located
next to R. E. Lee Construction Company next to Lambs Road. Mr. Way then offered motion to set
a public hearing for October 9, 1985 to include the Lambs Road Baptist Church parcel of
property in the public water and sewer areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Lindstrom said the notion that the Board can make decisions without respect for the
past is going to ruin the whole concept of planning. There is no way to plan over a period of
time unless some continuity is maintained. He cannot expect people to come before the Board t¢
make specific applications to appreciate the same perspective that by law and position, the
Board members are required to have, and he finds this very distressing. The Board members must
have a perspective longer than the years the members are sitting on the Board, otherwise all of
the time and effort spent on planning and the regulations imposed, are really worthless.
Mr. Henley stated that his voting to have a public hearing does not mean he will vote to
change the Albemarle County Service Authority area, but he thinks that there should be more
opportunity to discuss the situation.
Agenda Item No. 10. William Baker: Request from Norfolk Southern Corporation.
Mr. William Baker of Norfolk Southern Corporation addressed the Board. Mr. Baker stated
that Norfolk Southern is the umbrella corporation for the Southern Railway and the Norfolk, and
Western Railway. Norfolk Southern submitted a bid of $1.2 billion to purchase Conrail.
Conrail isa group of bankrupt railroads in the northeast corridor of the country, which the
Federal Government has financially carried for the last several years. The Feds have been
mandated to get out of the railroad business and therefore get rid of Conrail. Originally
there were thirteen bids submitted for the purchase of Conrail. After reviewing the bids,
Mrs. Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Transportation, recommended that the Norfolk Southern bid be
accepted. Norfolk Southern is seeking a resolution from the governing bodies of Albemarle and
the neighboring counties and towns, to be forwarded to the Federal legislators, endorsing the
effort of Norfolk Southern to purchase Conrail. Norfolk Southern would like to keep Conrail
viable as a railroad and provide the service of transportation to the shipping and receiving
public. The areas served in Virginia by Norfolk Southern could be enhanced from the
single-line service provided through Conrail. For example, the furniture manufacturers in the
Carolina's, ship furniture-to the northeast. Norfolk Southern moved this furniture by railroad
until several years ago when Conrail withdrew from joining the southeast and southwest carriers
in their rate structures. A rate is established from the manufacturer's plant to a point as
far north and Norfolk Southern goes, for example, Alexandria, and then Conrail charges its rate
from Alexandria to the ultimate destination, thereby creating a two-factor rate. From an
economic standpoint, this forced Norfolk Southern out of the furniture market, which in turn
gave the trucking industry all this business for that area. With the purchase of Conrail,
Norfolk Southern could establish a single-line rate structure, which would put them back into
that market. Mr. Baker said 61 of the counties and towns in Virginia are supportive of Norfol
Southern's efforts.
Mr. Fisher asked if there were other bidders for the purchase of Conrail. Mr. Baker said
there were several other railroads involved, but none were of the size of Norfolk Southern.
The bids were narrowed to three: Marriott, Allegheny Corporation and Norfolk Southern. There
is a group of outside investors, under Morgan Stanley, that have come forward since the bids
were submitted, and made a proposal equal to Norfolk Southern in terms of money. This group
intends to keep Conrail for a year and then break it up and sell it at private sales. Norfolk
Southern feels that although the monetary investment is equal, the interest of this group is
not to keep Conrail as a railroad. The security to the shipping and receiving public in the
northeast is jeopardized by this proposed plan. Norfolk Southern's ultimate desire is to keep
Conrail as a railroad and keep the Federal Government out of the railroad business. If broken
up and sold in segments, Conrail may end up back in the government's hands. Mr. Fisher asked
if Norfolk Southern projects that Conrail can be run at a reasonable return as a private
enterprise on a continuing basis. Mr. Baker replied yes, it can be done. Mr. Fisher said tha~
is good to hear. Mr. Fisher said he is convinced that this Administration is committed to
getting out of the railroad business both for Amtrak and Conrail, and he feels the emphasis
should be on maintaining the services in the private sector if at all possible. If Norfolk
Southern's bid is as least as high as anyone else, and they feel they can run it, then he feel~
the Board should support them.
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
At this point, Mr. Fisher (not chairing at this point) offered motion to adopt the
following resolution. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
WHEREAS, Conrail, the government-owned freight railroad in the
northeast and midwest, is being transferred to the private sector as
mandated by law, and
WHEREAS, Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth H. Dole has recommended
that Conrail be sold to Norfolk Southern Corporation, and
WHEREAS, state and local governments in the Conrail area will begin
receiving $32 million annually in tax revenues when such sale is
consummated, and
WHEREAS, more than eighty-four newspapers in twenty-three states and
the District of Columbia have published editorials in support of Secretary
Dole's recommendation that Norfolk Southern purchase Conrail, and
WHEREAS, payment of $1.2 billion in cash for the Government's
eighty-five percent share of Conrail will help reduce the Federal deficit,
and
WHEREAS, returning Conrail to the private sector will be in accord with
a policy of deregulation and of getting the government out of railroading
and transportation, and
WHEREAS, terms of the sale require Norfolk Southern to adhere to
covenants in the public interest for five years to guarantee that current
Conrail service will continue and that Conrail's plant will be maintained
and improved, and
WHEREAS, sale to Norfolk Southern will mean that the Government, once
and for all time, will no longer subsidize Conrail's operations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby support Secretary Dole's proposal to
sell-Conrail to Norfolk Southern, and urges Congress to act without
unnecessary delay to accomplish this end.
Agenda Item No. 11. Request from Region Ten Community Services Board re: conveyance of
real estate. The following letter dated August 21, 1985, addressed to Gerald Fisher, Chairman
and signed by James R. Peterson, Executive Director of Region Ten had brought this request to
the Board:
"As you may be aware, Region Ten Community Services Board consolidated
its Charlottesville offices into the newly renovated United Way Worrell
Community Service Building (the old Daily Progress Building). As a
result of the consolidation, the property owned by Region Ten located
at 503 Sixteenth Street, N.W., is now vacant.
In a separate, but related, development, the demand for services to
chroniCally mentally ill persons has expanded to the extent that our
mental health day program facility located at 409 Third Street provides
only half of the space required to serve this population. A search has
been underway over the past year and a half for a suitable location.
The Region Ten Board is requesting authorization from the six partici-
pating jurisdictions to sell the two properties described above, and to
apply the proceeds toward the purchase or lease of a facility which
would meet the space and fire safety requirements of the day program.
Enclosed is a resolution prepared by the Region Ten Board counsel,
Michie, Hamlett, Donato & Lowry, for your consideration and action."
Mr. Agnor then summarized the following memorandum from his office to the Board dated
September 6, 1985: Board respectively:
"Attached is a letter from Region Ten requesting authorization to sell
property at 503 Sixteenth Street, N.W. and 409 Third Street, and to apply
the proceeds toward the purchase or lease of a facility to house the program
now located at 409 Third Street. A draft resolution accomplishing those
transactions for your consideration is also attached.
Staff has examined the resolution and recommends that paragraph two be
rewritten, as follows:
2. The Executive Director of Region Ten is hereby directed to negoti-
ate and execute on behalf of Region Ten a Contract of Sale for each of
the Properties upon such terms and conditions as the Board of Directors
of Region Ten shall deem to be in the best interest of Region Ten. Any
such contract shall state that it is contingenn upon approval by the
governing bodies of the localities comprising Region Ten. In the
procuring of a buyer for .its interest in the Properties, Region Ten may
retain a licensed real estate broker to act as its agent in these real
estate transactions. Any listing agreement shall state that the terms
of sale are subject to approval by the governing bodies of the locali-
ties comprising Region Ten.
September !1, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
597
Since there are six localities involved, and there may be differences of
opinion on value when a sales contract is presented.for approval, staff
recommends a better approach would be for Region Ten to employ an independent
appraiser to appraise the property, present the appraisement to the governing
bodies of the localities to authorize in advance a sale of the property for
no less than the appraised value. The property can then be offered for sale
by public advertisement or by 'open listing' with all realtors rather than
listing it with one realtor. This is the procedure used for sale of most
publicly owned properties."
Mr. Agnor said he has discussed his recommendation with staff and would recommend adoption
of the resolution with a replacement of paragraph 92 instead of the language recommended in his
letter dated. His recommended wording is:
2. The Executive Director of Region Ten is hereby authorized to employ
the services of a certified, professional real estate appraiser to appraise
the Properties to be sold. The appraiser's report will be distributed to the
governing bodies of the localities in Region Ten for their authorization to
sell the Properties for no less than the appraised value. Upon the receipt
of such authorization the Properties will then be offered for sale by public
advertisement or by open listing as determined by the Executive Director.
Mr. Fisher said it seems to him the direct route would be to have all six localities
approve the final contract. If the sale is not cash, it could become more complicated than
just selling for the appraised value.
Mr. James Peterson, Executive Director, Region Ten Community Services, said the Region Ten
Board has not discussed or anticipated anything other than a cash sale. He stated that about a
year ago he came before this Board seeking approval to place this property in a trust so that
when it became surplus, Region Ten would be able to sell. Region Ten received approval from
five of the six localities, but Albemarle County did not approve that proposal. Region Ten
wants to follow the appropriate procedure in a way that the process can be moved along in a
timely fashion. The recommendation from the staff is satisfactory.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Peterson if there is presently a bidder for the property and if Region
Ten has found a place to move. Mr. Peterson said the Region Ten Board has been actively
looking for property since April 1984, and have in mind two possible sites, but nothing has
been done on either site, since the Region Ten Board did not know what it would do with these
two properties. Mr. Bowie asked what happens if Region Ten receives offers to sell these
properties and have not found another place. Mr. Peterson said a contingency clause would be
put into the contract.
Mr. Fisher offered motion to accept the County Executive's recommendation, and to adopt
the following resolution authorizing the conveyance of real estate by Region Ten Community
Services Board and the execution of related documents, with complete rewording of paragraph 2.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
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 Commonwealth
of Virginia, ("Region Ten") is the owner of certain real estate located at
503 Sixteenth Street, N.W., in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and is
the beneficial owner of certain real estate located at 409 Third Street,
N.E., in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia which property is held in the
name of William T. Stevens and Isabel A, Palmer, as Trustees for Region Ten
(collectively referred to as the "Properties"); and
WHEREAS, in order to promote the more efficient management of its
assets and to carry out its purposes more effectively, Region Ten desires to
transfer and convey its interest in the Properties and to use the proceeds
from such sales for the purchase, or the lease, and renovation of a new
facility to relocate the mental health day program currently housed at the
409 Third Street, N.E. property and to apply any excess proceeds to the
Region Ten Community Services Board Special Projects Fund; and
WHEREAS, Region Ten, at its regularly scheduled meeting held on
June 10, 1985, voted to sell the Properties and apply the proceeds as set
forth above; and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration and in furtherance of the foregoing
public purpose, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FOR THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, THAT:
1. For the purpose of promoting the more efficient management of
its assets and to carry out its functions more effectively, the transfer and
conveyance by Region Ten of its ownership interest in the Properties is
hereby authorized.
2. The Executive Director of Region Ten is hereby authorized to
employ the services of a certified, professional real estate appraiser to
appraise the Properties to be sold. The appraiser's report will be distri-
buted to the governing bodies of the localities in Region Ten for their
authorization to sell the Properties for no less than the appraised value.
Upon the receipt of such authorization the Properties will then be offered
for sale by public advertisement or by open listing as determined by the
Executive Director.
September 11., 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
3. The Executive Director of Region Ten is also hereby directed
and authorized to negotiate and execute on behalf of Region Ten a Contract
of Purchase or a lease for property at which to relocate a facility to house
the mental health day program currently located at 409 Third Street. The
proceeds from the sale of the Properties are to be used for the purchase or
lease of and necessary renovations to the new mental health day program
facility. Any excess proceedS from the sale of the Properties, 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.
4. Upon the due execution of a Contract of Sale for the Properties
or a Contract of Purchase for a new mental health day program facility, and
prior to the closing of the real estate transactions, Region Ten is hereby
directed to present to the Board of Supervisors the basic agreements and
deeds (and other related documents), which are necessary to the consummation
of the transactions, in order to obtain the final authorization of the Board
of Supervisors for the contemplated transaction.
5. 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, and to do and perform such
things and acts, as they shall deem necessary or appropriate to carry out
the transactions authorized by the Resolution or such instruments, documents
or certificates; and all of 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.
6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Extension of Ordinance on Real Estate Tax Exemption for
Certified Solar Energy Equipment, Facilities or Devices.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from his office to the Board dated
September 6, 1985:
"In 1979, the County adopted a section of the County Code to exempt solar
energy equipment from real estate taxation. The exemption is permitted in
the State Code as a local option. The ordinance included an expiration date
of December 31, 1985 which was provided in order to examine the effect of
the exemption', and decide on its continuation, or its termination.
Attached is a summary of the number of parcels involved, and the amount of
the tax exemptions (on file in Clerk's office). As you will note in the
last tax year (1984), there are only 29 parcels with exemptions of $1,170.40.
For this year, it is estimated there will be 38 parcels exempting $1,854.93.
The staff's analysis is that the exemption yields a minimum benefit to the
property owner, and an insignificant impact on the County's tax revenues.
The benefit to the property owner is intended to be when solar equipment
actually increases the total fair market value of the property, and most
sales in Albemarle County, and other Virginia localities, show that such
equipment adds very little to the actual fair market value of the property.
Staff is of the opinion that since the impact on revenues is miniscule, and
emphasis on alternative energy sources should continue, the ordinance should
be continued for a five year period to examine its effect again in. 1990.
Authorization to advertise a public hearing to that effect for your October 9
meeting is requested.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:20 A.M.) Mr. Bowie said this is the first time he
knew the County had a Solar Energy Exemption Ordinance, and he has installed in his home
extensive solar hardware. He supports extension of this ordinance, but thinks a problem is
that nobody knows about it. Mr. Fisher offered motion to set a public hearing for
October 9, 1985 on an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 8-55 of the Albemarle County Code
real estate tax exemption for certified solar energy, equipment, facilities or devices, to
change the termination date, hereof. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Payment of County Taxes by Credit Cards.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, summarized the following memorandum from his
office to Mr. Agnor dated September 5, 1985:
"Based on taxpayer requests, the Finance staff has been investigating the
possibility of tax payments and other miscellaneous County fees being made
by credit card.
Four ' ~n~ localities are currently accepting credit cards (Virginia
Vlrg .... a _
Beach, Suffolk, Culpeper, and Chesterfield) and have indicated that although
initial taxpayer response was not great they have seen an increased usage of
credit cards each year since it was authorized.
The procedures to implement this method of payment are not costly or difficult.
Initial cost would be approximately $300 with the bank furnishing all
necessary forms and training.
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Virginia Code Section 58.1-3013 authorizes any locality to allow payment of
local taxes by credit card and to impose a service charge on the
transaction. The service charge cannot exceed four percent of the total
transaction or the actual merchant discount charged by the credit card bank.
We have received a quote of 1.75 percent for use of VISA/Mastercard, which
would appear to be exceptionally good compared to the other localities where
the rates range from 2.4 percent to 4.0 percent.
The acceptance of credit card payments by the County would provide taxpayers
with an additional payment option which would permit them to make actual
cash payment to the credit card company after the tax due date at a much
lesser cost than the 10 percent penalty for late payment. In addition, this
would permit the taxpayer to spread the tax payment over several months with
only a small additional interest cost.
Payment by credit cards could also help to reduce our delinquencies with the
major benefit to the County being the reduction of the additional billing
and collection efforts caused by the delinquencies. Actual County revenue
would not significantly change since the additional earnings on investments
from earlier collections would be offset by a reduction in collection of
penalties and interest on delinquent taxes.
I am requesting that the Board of Supervisors advertise the an ordinance for
public hearing in October 1985 so it can be implemented for payment of 1985
taxes."
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 11:25 A.M.) Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Breeden if
there would be a charge made to cover the Visa/MasterCard fee. Mr. Breeden said yes, it will
not cost the County anything other than the one time expense of $300. Mr. Breeden said there
will be a machine installed to verify every credit card for the amount charged. Mr. Lindstrom
offered motion to set a public hearing for October 2, 1985 to adopt an ordinance to amend the
County Code by adding Section 8.1-5 relating to payment of taxes by the use credit cards.
Mr. Fisher seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Set a Public Hearing to Revise Section 8-40 of the County Code
relative to the interest rate charged on Land Use Deferrals.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, summarized the following memorandum from his
office to the Board dated August 16, 1985:
"It has recently come to my attention that the interest rate charged on Land
Use Deferrals by the County Code Section 8-40 Violations~ penalties;
assessment (b) is in conflict with the State Code and the interest charged
on all other County taxes.
Therefore I respectfully request the fo'llowing change in the Code Section to
read as follows:
(b) The directOr of finance shall, after receiving notice of the change
in use, either from the owner or from any other source, compute and assess
the current owner for the amount of roll-back taxes due, plus simple interest
of ¢~If .833 per centum for each month or fraction thereof from the date
of the original deferment of the tax to the date of assessment.
The above change brings the interest rate to ten per centum per year which
is the other interest rate charged for County licenses and taxes."
Mr. Breeden said when the ordinance was originally adopted, the interest rate on the
roll-back tax was set at six percent. This six percent rate would have been applied from the
date of the deferral to the date of the roll-back. At that time, that rate was the same as
that being charged for any delinquent taxes. Over the years, the ~tate has allowed an increase
in the rates on all delinquent taxes, and the County has followed those changes, but never
changed the rate on the land use deferrals. In order for the interest rates to be uniform, he
is requesting that the interest charge on land use deferrals be increased from six percent to
ten percent. Mr. Lindstrom asked if these ordinances can be written to adopt the State ra~e b
reference. Mr~ Breeden said the County attorney's office had advised that it is not legal to
adopt a state code section by reference; the County Code must be amended. Mr. Fisher said he
thought the rate was held lower on the land use tax after it was raised by the State Code in
other areas.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to set a public hearing for October 9, 1985 on an ordinance
to amend and reenact Section 8-40(b) of the County Code relative to increasing the interest
rate charged on roll-back taxes. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher suggested that thc
recommended language of the ordinance of .833 per centum should be 0.833 per centum or
ten-twelths, or something similar and requested that the County Attorney recommend an appropri
ate figure. Mr. Breeden said the interest is actually added on each month, so this is the
monthly rate. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
6OO
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 15. Request to Change Condition Imposed on SP-84-37, Warren E. Andrew.
(Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 11:35 P.M.) Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum
to the Board dated September 3, 1985, and a memorandum addressed to Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
Deputy County Executive, from William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official, dated
August 30, 1985:
"At your meeting on October 10, 1984, you approved the above referenced
special use permit which provided a condition for monitoring the stormwater
runoff on a monthly basis into Ivy Creek. The watershed management
official, who is responsible for the required monitoring, is requesting a
modification to condition No. 15 (see attachment) which would provide for a
more appropriate monitoring schedule. Monitoring under the modification, if
approved, would occur in the fall and spring when fertilizers, pesticides
and other land applications are made. The watershed management official
would also monitor the stream after a major storm.
Should the Board choose to amend condition 15 of SP-84-37, staff would
recommend the wording shown in the last paragraph (of the attachment). This
amendment can be accomplished by motion of the Board to that effect. No
public hearing is necessary."
"The approval of Special Permit 84-37 for Warren E. Andrews, Ivy Creek Farm,
by the Board of Supervisors established as condition Number 15 the
following:
'On a monthly basis, the Watershed Management Official, or his
designee, shall monitor the runoff from the irrigated areas in
order to determine whether the substances prohibited by condition
Number 13 and condition Number 14 are being introduced into Ivy
Creek. If such substances are found, then the applicant is to
modify or eliminate use of such substances, so as to correct the
problem'. (Condition Number 13 established a restriction to the
use of only fertilizers with an elemental phosphorus source while
Condition Number 14 prohibited the use of compounds containing
Mercury.)
Since actual fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide and fungicide applications are
normally made during the spring and fall, usually during the months of March,
April, May, September and October, it would be more appropriate to monitor
during those five months and/or following major storm events.
I hereby request that condition Number 15 of SP-84-37 be reworded to allow
the Watershed Management Official or his designee greater flexibility in
establishing a monitoring program for this site. The following wording
might be appropriate..
8B-a-me~eh~-Bas~s, On a routine basis, normally during the spring and
fall and/or following a major storm, the Watershed Management Official, or
his designee shall .... "
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the condition state "On a routine basis as determined
necessary by the Watershed Management Official, but not to exceed monthly .... " Mr. Lindstrom
said he does not want to give the impression that the Watershed Management Official is locked
into doing this twice a year. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that Condition Number 15 of
SP-84-37 Warren E. Andrews be amended as he suggested. Mr. Fisher suggested that the words
"but not to exceed monthly" be deleted, because if a monthly inspection is done and then
something happens, then the official may want to inspect. Mr. St. John said he had no problem
with the suggested language. Mr. Lindstrom then amended his motion to state: "On a routine
basis as deemed necessary by the Watershed Management Official, .... " Mr. Way seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Bowie.
At this time, the Board moved to the afternoon portion of the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 18. Appoint Site Selection Committee for Meriwether Lewis School
Replacement and Request for Appropriation. (Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting at 11:40 A.M.)
The following memorandum from N. Andrew Overstreet, Superintendent, dated August 30, 1985,
brought this matter to the Board:
"The School Board has appointed a site selection committee with the following
charge.
The committee is charged with recOmmending to the School Board potential sites
for a new school in the Ivy area. Specifically, the committee will be responsi-
ble for making decisions regarding site criteria in these areas:
1. Where should the site be?
2. How large should it be?
3. What characteristics should it possess?
September. 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
601
The site recommendation should be provided to the School Board by its December
meeting.
The composition of the committee is as follows:
School Board Chairman
Superintendent
Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Administration
Deputy County Executive Robert Tucker
Two School Board members
Two Supervisors (those who served on the School Facilities Planning
Committee)
An estimate of expenses for operation of the site selection and architect
screening committees is $8,700 as detailed in the (attached) memorandum.
School Board requests allocation of that amount for operation of the
committees.
The
Two School Board members will work with me to screen architects with the final
choice approved by the full School Board. A facility planning committee
composed of users of the building, i.e., parents, teachers, and administrators,
will be chosen to work with the architect to plan the building."
Attached was a memorandum dated August 30, 1985, from David Papenfuse, Assistant
Superintendent for Finance and Administration:
"The following represents my estimate of operating expenses related to the
subject activities.
Architect Selection Committee
800.00
1,200.00
400.00
2,000.00
500.00
$4,900.00
Advertising - Invitation to submit request for proposals.
Local and Richmond papers.
Printing, copying and office supplies related to reviewing
and presenting information to local Boards.
Long Distance Telephone - Verification of references.
Travel and lodging for four people visiting a potential of
five sites representative of architectural talents.
Miscellaneous Meeting Expenses
Site Selection Committee
(through presentation of alternatives and recommendations)
$3,000.00
200.00
600.00
$3,800.00
Printing and copying of maps, comprehensive plan, documents,
surveys, etc.
Local travel to site locations.
Miscellaneous Meeting Expenses.
This of course does not represent any architectural fees for efforts related
to site selection.
Mr. Agnor then summarized his memorandum dated September 5, 1985:
"Attached is a memorandum describing the charge to and composition of a Site
Selection Committee for the ~eriwether Lewis School project as established by
the School Board. Also attached is the details of estimated expenses ($3,800)
for the Site Committee's needs, and ($4,900) for an Architect Selection
Committee.
The School Board requests the appointment of two members of the Board of
Supervisors to the Site Selection Committee, and an appropriation of $8,700 in
the Capital Budget allocation for the project."
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the School Board felt it would have to spend the total $8,700.
Mr. Agnor said he did not know, but would hope not. Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way had served on
the School Facilities Planning Committee and both stated that they would like to continue by
serving on the Site Selection Committee. Mr. Fisher said since this school lies in his
district, he would like to be notified when the Committee is going to meet to discuss alternat,
sites, so he can attend the meeting, but does feel that the two people who started this process
should continue. Mr. Bowie said he appreciates getting a complete breakdown of the costs.
Mr. Bowie mentioned a letter he received from someone in the Ivy area suggesting that a hard
look be taken at the existing site, and he hopes that the Board appointees will take a look at
that site. Mr. Lindstrom said he wants to look at the existing site, since that has been his
position all along. There is no reason why the existing site cannot be used and expanded
somewhat. Mr. Way said the only reason for considering another site is that the consultant
felt the existing site was too small, but he also feels this site is worth considering.
Mr. Fisher then offered motion that Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way be appointed to serve on the
Meriwether Lewis School Site Selection Committee and his name be added to the list of persons
to receive notices of committee meetings. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
60£
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher then offered motion to adopt a resolution to approve an appropriation in the
amount of $8,700 to fund the Meriwether Lewis School Site Selection Committee for a replacement
of the Meriwether Lewis School. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
following resolution adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $8,700 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Fund Balance
(2-9000-51000-510100) of the Capital Improvements Fund and coded to
1-9000-60100-300222 entitled Ivy Area School Site;
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 19.
recommendations.
Summary:
Data Processing Consultant's Study with further
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from his office to the Board dated September
5, 1985; entitled "Data Processing Consultant Report":
"The following summarizes the recommendations contained in the above referenced
report, and the action required.
Recommendation
Action Required
1. Convert Data Processing Department
to Department of Information Services,
adding to current operation, responsi-
bility for microcomputer, word processors
and telephone system (telecommunications).
1. Board assign staff to examine and
report impact of the conversion.
If approved, would be targeted to
occur with fiscal budget cycle.
2. Consider Department of Information
Services as Special Staff to County
Executive.
2. This is a long-range recommendation
and would require Board action if
reorganization of administrative
structure was considered.
No action recommended at present
time.
3. Encourage use of micros.
3. Movement by staff into use of
micros has been funded for past
two years. No action required.
4. The use of on-line systems, rather
than batch, should be the norm for
future system applications.
4. Systems have been planned using
on-line applications. No action
required.
(1) Add a 3274 controller for additional
terminal connections.
5. Ail included in Capital Improvement
Program adopted August 14. No
further action required.
(2) Upgrade to a 4361 computer.
(3) Add disc capacity.
(4) Purchase the DOS/VSE operating
system.
(5) Purchase security software package.
(6) Purchase program to download from
main frame to micros.
(7) Purchase program for on-line report
viewer.
6. Employ Manager of Systems and Programming
by January 1986.
6. Authorized by Board on July 10.
Job description and salary range
will be submitted to Board for
approval and inclusion in Pay and
Classification Plan.
7. Employ Senior Programmer/Analyst.
7. Authorized by Board July 10.
Position has been advertised.
8. Place all County personnel on a
salary grade and step in Employee
Management System.
8. Completed for General Government
employees July 1. School system
has classified employees, teachers
and bus drivers, complete, but has
more work to do on administrators.
No action required.
9. Add automated audit trail to Employee
Management System.
9. Completed..
10. Develop disaster contingency plan.
10. As dependency on computer system
increases, plan becomes more critical.
Development of plan will require
funding.. Staff will request funds
September 11, 1985 (Regular Hay Meeting)
6O3
Mr. Agnor said that Item Number 1 is the only item requiring any action of the Board
today. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Agnor if the County currently has the means to handle an emergency
if a disaster were to occur. Mr. Agnor said there are two other machines in the area that the
County could use. Mr. Bowie noted that the consultant had mentioned that the two machines
would be fine for a stopgap measure, but they would not handle a real emergency. Mr. Bowie
said he has no problem with the request, but even though he has read the consultant's study
several times and the other materials, he is having a hard time putting all of this together,
particularly in the use of micros and wonders how that use will be controlled. He would like 8
way to receive a report that indicates when an approval is given, the results of that approval
in the five-year Data Processing plan. Once all the approvals are given, he does not know what
the County has really done as opposed to what it should do. He suggested some sort of score
sheet showing objectives, so that everytime the Board gives an approval, it accomplishes
something. Although the items set out in Mr. Agnor's memo are important, they don't really
tell the Board the direction in which the County is going on Data Processing.
Mr. Fisher asked if the staff is just going to develop a plan and return that to the Board
so the Board can see how the new organization will work. Mr. Agnor said yes and the financial
impact also. Mr. Fisher then offered motion to accept recommendation number one of the County
Executive's memorandum dated September 5, 1985 to: "Convert Data Processing Department to
Department of Information Services, adding to current operation the responsibility for micro-
computers, word processors, and telephone system (telecommunications) and the recommendation t¢
assign staff to examine and report the impact of the conversion. Mr. Bowie seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Summary: Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from his office to the Board dated septembeI
6, 1985:
"Mr. Bowie has received a request from the White House concerning the impact
of the Fair Labor Standards Act on Albemarle County. He requested that a
summary of the impact be prepared for his use in responding to the inquiry,
and for the Board's information.
The impact is divided into four categories:
1. Differentiation of staff;
2. Payment of overtime versus providing compensatory time;
3. Recordkeeping;
4. Financial.
Differentiation Of Staff
The Fair Labor Standards Act requires the grouping of employees into
'nonexempt', which are paid overtime, and 'exempt', which are provided
compensatory time. Prior to coming under the Act, employees were primarily
granted compensatory time, with payment of overtime for known and budgeted
tasks that occurred frequently enough to be measured and funded.
No distinction was made by grouping employees. Therefore, today we have
employees within a department working side-by-side on extra tasks, some of
which will be paid overtime, and others given compensatory time. Differen-
tiation can result in morale and attitude problems.
Overtime versus Compensatory Time
Employees covered by the Act must be compensated monetarily at time and
one-half for hours worked over forty in a seven day work period. Law
enforcement and fire fighting employees are provided a longer work period.
If a supervisor desires to give compensatory time rather than pay overtime,
or if an employee prefers to take compensatory time rather than being paid
overtime, the compensatory time must be taken in the same work period in
which it is earned. Previous to coming under the Act, most overtime work
was compensated by the granting of compensatory time which could be accumu-
lated up to six months. The compensatory time could be managed by a depart
ment head, and usually taken by an employee to suit their personal or family
needs. The requirement that compensatory time be taken within a work period
will usually result in the overtime being paid for monetarily because the
shortened time period to provide compensatory time will not match staff
workloads or employee personal needs.
Recordkeeping
Requirements for recordkeeping are stringent. Records are now being kept on
a daily basis to record any exceptions to the normal work day. The depart-
ments have absorbed this increased recordkeeping demand. The major impact
has been on the Personnel and Data Processing departments which assimilate
and store the increased volume of files and records.
Financial
The financial impact is difficult to measure. There are a number of hidden
costs such as differentiation of staff causing effects in work production
and increased recordkeeping which require staff training, new forms, and
time to record information. The costs associated with the lack of flexi-
bility to grant compensatory time instead of paying overtime will not be
known until a period of time of management under the Act has elapsed.
Analysis also of the effect on levels of service need to be made after a
Period of oDeratin~ under the Act.
6O4
Z
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
With appropriate management, it is anticipated that financial costs in
general government will not be significant primarily because some funding of
overtime has been authorized in the annual budget of departments where it
occurred annually in repeated cycles (Board and Planning Commission meetings,
tax collections, etc.). In the School Division, however, it has not been
funded and could have more of a financial impact, again dependent upon
appropriate management of personnel and budget allocations.
In conclusion, the Act has changed personnel management and budgetary
decisions. In time, its impact can be more effectively determined. At the
outset, the impact is not expected to be significant. The staff's
preference would be to manage and fund our extra time requirements without
having the Federal government tell us how to do it. We believe it has been
managed in the past with fairness to employees, and with due regard to the
costs. Federal regulations may change both."
Mr. Agnor said an example of the impact of the Fair Labors Standard Act is its effect on
firefighters. If a paid City-based firefighter is also a member of a volunteer fire company
the County and answers a fire call while off duty, even though his services are volunteer, the
County would have to pay that person overtime pay. An employee is not allowed to volunteer
services in the same field in which he is employed.
Mr. Bowie said he received this request from Mr. Ron Elvarado, Special Assistant to the
President on Governmental Affairs. Mr. Elvarado is attempting to gather this information.
Mr. Bowie said most of the problems are related to the Department of Labor's application of the
law as opposed to the law itself on administrative rules. The White House has requested
resolutions so the executive branch might try to prevent actions that local governments object
to. Mr. Bowie said he intends to send Mr. Agnor's memorandum to Mr. Elvarado noting the
example of the fire department. Mr. Fisher said this is going to be a hot issue at the
Virginia Association of Counties meeting in November. Mr. Bowie suggested that the staff
prepare a resolution to VACO and National Association of Counties relative to the impact of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and a copy of the resolution be sent to the White House. Mr. Bowie
then offered motion that a resolution be drafted and made available for review by the Board at
its meeting on September 18. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Not Docketed: Mr. Lindstrom said he has prepared a draft resolution regarding the
University of Virginia.
Mrs. Cooke said Brenda Langdon, Albemarle High School Athletic Department, came by her
office and left complimentary tickets for all Board members for all Albemarle High School home
athletic events.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to discuss the 1984 Development Activity Report from the
Department of Community Development later today. He said Mr. Agnor may want to ask that a
member of that staff be present.
Agenda Item No. 16. At 12:05 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch. The Board reconvened a'
2:45 P.M., without Mr. Henley and being present Mr. Fisher assumed his duties as Chairman.
Agenda Item No. 17. Report: Land Use Regulations Committee.
Mr. Bruce Dotson, Chairman of the Land Use Regulation Committee, addressed the Board. Th6
other members of the Committee present today are Don Wagner, Peggy Van Yahres, John Greene, Ji~
Skove, Tim Michel and Treva Cromwell. Mr. Dotson said the Committee began meeting in February,
1985 and agreed upon a list of objectives. The Committee evaluated whether there was a need
for streamlining, clarifying, or simplifying the County's development review process. If the
need was found, then the Committee woUld make suggestions and recommendations for improvements
The Committee surveyed other jurisdictions in the State, reviewed studies conducted elsewhere
and held an open meeting where members of the commUnity attended and presented their ideas.
That was the basis for the report and the Committee is now reporting its findings and recommen
dations. The Land use Regulation Committee feels that its work has been completed. The
recommendations are general and have not been developed to the point of having specific implemE
tation, because the Committee felt that was not appropriate for them to do. After direction
from the Board, it would be a more appropriate action for the Planning Commission and the staff
to be given such directions. Mr. Dotson then summarized the most significant findings:
Albemarle County is not out of line compared to other jurisdictions in
terms of the time it takes to obtain development approvals. This is
significant since delay can be thought of as a "bottom line" measure
of the need for streamlining. This does not mean, however, that we
have found no problems. (Frederick County is the only other jurisdic-
tion that is consistently speedier than Albemarle County.)
e
We have found widespread agreement among citizens, developers, and
officials that improvements are needed in Albemarle County at this
stage of its growth. These needed improvements relate less to
approval times than to the need to better orchestrate the county's
practices so that they are clear and consistent and so that mutual
obligations and expectations in the land use process can be better
defined and adhered to by all.
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
6O5
Mr. Dotson said the Committee has identified a number of improvements it feels would
result in a more responsive and better understood development review process. Two recommenda-
tions stand out as having occupied the greatest amount of Committee attention, and as having
been echoed widely from different sections of the community. These two also encompass or
enable many of the Committee's more particular recommendations. One of the recommendations is
a change in the way the County deals with site plans, and the other recommendation is the
establishment of a Development Information Office. There are a number of other more specific
recommendations.
Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres next addressed the Board. She said the reason a large amount of
time was spent on the site plan review process is because the Committee heard a lot about
problems in that process. The Committee thinks it is very important that the Planning
Commission and public continue to have a role in reviewing site plans. Applicants do have
some legitimate complaints. Albemarle County is not unique whereas people want to have a role
in the site plan. The recommendations are based on a process currently in effect in Arlington
County and the current Albemarle County system of subdivision review. Mrs. Van Yahres
proceeded to summarize the recommendations by the Land Use Regulations Committee:
"Recommendation 91 - Site Plan Process Revisions
We have seen that the frequency of Planning Commission meetings clearly
differentiates Albemarle from other jurisdictions. We also note that
roughly one-third of all Commission items concern site plans. Commission
members and staff have expressed concern that the amount of meeting time
spent on site plans crowds out other important Planning Commission actions
- particularly that involving the comprehensive plan, policy and community
development matters. Developers have complained that more and more detail
has been expected on site plan submittals and subsequent to Planning
Commission action and public input that details and costly engineering have
to be redone. The staff feels that technical matters are best left to
staff. The public feels that their input often comes too late (e.g. at the
Planning Commission meeting) and that even then they are told that the
Commissions options on site plans are highly constrained - a site plan
being a ministerial rather than a discretionary action.
The Committee feels that there is a significant amount of truth in each of
the above perceptions. We also understand that the County has been
grappling with this for several years and that the needs of each group need
to be addressed in any revision.
We recommend an approach that revises current practices but which does not
make a wholesale revision in the handling of site plans. We recommend that:
Se
Certain engineering details be omitted from 'development plans' at the
time of initial submittal for staff review and Planning Commission
consideration but that these be included as part of 'construction
plans' submitted for final technical approvals. Standard conditions
would be attached to each approved 'development plan' indicating that
final approval is subject to engineer, highway, service authority,
etc., final approval. If there were a discrepancy between
'development plans' approved by the Commission and 'construction
plans' submitted subsequently, then the Planning Director would be
obligated to resubmit the item to the Planning Commission. Guidelines
would need to be developed which would indicate when discrepancies
were significant enough to warrant referral.
Appendix 1 of List A of items we propose as a first draft of what
would be submitted on 'development plans' for Planning Commission
consideration and List B of additional items to be submitted to staff
as part of 'construction plans' prior to final permit issuance, (are
on file). Review of these lists will show that substantial information
would be included on a 'development plan' and that review by staff
will not be 'flimsy or superficial' for lack of information. Developers
have indicated that these changes could result in savings of 25 to 50
percent in initial submittal costs since detailed engineering could be
deferred until after Commission action. County staff indicate that
the information proposed to be included on 'development plans' is in
some cases more than is actually submitted now and that by reducing
the necessity of reviewing detailed engineering twice, there could be
staff time savings. Each department consulted has expressed support
for what is here proposed though they can express themselves in this
matter at a later time if the Board desires. The Committee support
the idea of rejecting 'development plans' that are not complete or
legible once it has been made clear what is in fact necessary. This
is done in every jurisdiction the Committee visited. Checklists like
Lists A and B, as well as ordinance clarifications, are seen as
necessary to accomplish this purpose.
We also recommend that more informatiVe notices be sent to the public.
Most people agree that notices stated in legal terms and lacking a map
sometimes create unnecessary alarm but most often convey little or no
information. This frustrates early input and finds neighbors coming to the
Planning Commission meetings to find out that it is too late for constrUc-
tive criticism. We recommend that the County look into:
Se
Spending more on published hearing notices so as to have more words to
describe what is proposed and publishing a small locational map for
each Commission agenda. These costs could be reflected in future site
plan fees.
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
be
Amending County ordinances to require each applicant to submit a brief
statement of intention and a sketch plan (or reduced site plan) of the
proposed project plus the applicant's phone number. We feel that
these should constitute an important part of what is mailed out as
notice to abutting owners. A standard disclaimer about the County not
being responsible for accuracy of the statement or map would be
included. While this would impose some additional costs on
developers, the Committee feels that these would be more than offset
by the reduced costs resulting from the modified submittal
requirements on 'development plans' and would make Planning Commission
deferrals less likely, resulting in time savings as well.
Ce
Modifying Planning Commission practices so that site plans where staff
and applicant were in agreement and there was no public comment, could
be dealt with summarily as consent items. It is also recommended that
the public be informed in the hearing notice of the nature of the
decision before the Planning Commission and what its options are and
what kind of input it will be most able to respond to. Standard
language for this purpose could be developed in conjunction with the
County Attorney.
The Committee views this set of modifications (clearer submittal require-
ments, authority to reject incomplete submittals, public notice improvements,
and streamlining Planning Commission practice) as a set. Together we feel
they strengthen and clarify the County's site planning process with the
result that it will be more responsive and better understood."
Mr. John Greene and Mr. Jim Skove next addressed~the Board. Mr. Greene said the Committee
recommendations are in the form of directions and strategies, rather than specific items. Mr.
Greene and Mr. Skove then proceeded to summarize recommendation 92 for a Development Informatio
Office.
"Recommendation ~2 - Development Information Office
One of the consequences of growth in the County is that a more professional
and more specialized staff has been created. In addition to County general
government offices, there is the Service Authority, the Health Department,
and the State Highway Department. While such specialized agencies are
necessary, their existence also fragments the development review and
approval process. This fragmentation makes it difficult for the public as
well as developers to get complete or consistent answers to their questions.
In a literal sense, it makes people feel that they get the run around as
they go from office to office collecting partial information.
To respond to this situation, some jurisdictions have set up new departments
to process development applications in so-called 'one stop shops.' Prince
William County is one example. The Committee feels that this goes beyond
what would be useful in Albemarle County at this time. We feel that a more
modest approach - that of an information office - possibly consisting of
one professional staff person and one clerk - could accomplish what is need
in Albemarle. We envision that this office would perform several functions.
These would be especially valuable to citizens, first time developers or
those inexperienced in this County.
Se
Answer questions and provide information about the County's development
services (how to file planning, zoning, engineering and building
applications as well as what to expect in terms of time, meetings,
letters, etc.).
It would be a single application intake and tracking point - there
would be a single place where planning, zoning, engineering and
building applications would be submitted and their progress regularly
monitored.
Ce
Troubleshooting and investigating complaints about the review process
would also be done, checking out problems and keeping supervisory
staff informed.
de
The Development~Information Office (DIO) would also both receive and
initiate suggestions for improving the County's regulatory process -
such as those in this report.
Where to locate a Development Information Office physically so as to
interact well with the relevant County departments as well as where to
place the Development Information Office in the County's organization chart
(i.e., part of Planning, part of Zoning, under an executive committee of
department heads, or in the Office of the Deputy County Administrator) are
questions best addressed by the County administrator after the Board of
Supervisors has indicated interest in the idea of a Development Information
Office. How this office would blend with existing departments and what
budget demands it would create, as well as relieving the demands on current
staff who would become less involved in answering routine questions, is
best assessed by the County administration after further study. The
Committee feels that the County is at a stage in its growth where the DIO
is a logical next step and that it would serve the needs of citizens as
well as developers while freeing staff time for development review."
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
6O
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Skove if the Committee felt one person-could satisfactorily handle
the current level of needs of this recommended office. Mr. Skove replied it could be done by
one person with knowledge of County regulations, and a secretary. He said a complaint has been
heard that no one person speaks for the various departments. Mr. Lindstrom said this person
would not be someone to track a given application. Mr. Skove said the person would be the
intake person. This person would keep information and coordinate the information, but this
person would have no command responsibility. Mr. Way asked if this person would be available
to handle a citizen who comes in off the street to obtain to obtain approval for a minor
project. Mr. Skove said the person would tell someone how to get approval for the project, not
actually take the paper and process it. This person would tell someone the process to proceed
to complete the paperwork. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Skove if this is envisioned as a one-person
operation. Mr. Skove said yes. Mr. Fisher said it sounds like that would be one person who
knows everything, and never takes a sick day or annual leave. Mrs. Cooke said this is an
excellent idea, but coming up with a person of these capabilities would be very difficult.
There would have to be some support and she envisions a tremendous amount of clerical work
along with this. Mr. Skove said this person would have to have a very broad and thorough
knowledge of the County processes and regulations.
Mr. Tim Michel next addressed the Board. In addition to the two proceeding recommenda-
tions, the Committee also formed a list of other useful items. Some of the items also tie into
the Development Information Office. Mr. Michel then summarized the following recommendations
made by the Committee.
"Recommendation ~3 - Brochures About County Services and Practices
One of the functions of the Development Information Office would be to
develop easily understood brochures which would describe County procedure
and protections regarding development. These brochures should be user-
oriented and address questions like what needs to be done to.add a garage,
to transfer land to a family member, to site a mobile home, etc. The names,
phone numbers and locations of people to contact should also be provided.
The Committee has collected such brochures from other jurisdictions and
finds many of their features to be quite useful and worth Copying.
While such brochures will not eliminate the need to talk to the Development
Information Office or to other staff, such pamphlets can serve as reminders
of what was explained in a personal contact.
Recommendation 94 - Application Checklist and Summaries
Closely related to information brochures and to the modified site plan
process proposed above would be application checklists. The purpose of the
checklist would be to communicate clearly and consistently what needs to be
submitted for what type of application. This may first require ordinance
clarification before a checklist can be prepared. The County does not now
have a complete set of checklists for all the types of applications that
might be filed. Having clear checklists, would also make it more realistic
to require completeness before applications are accepted for processing.
Recommendation 95 - Building Directory/Visitor Contact Facility
Many people still find it difficult to find their way around the County
Office Building to the several offices needed to be contacted in connection
with development activity. While a central Development Information Office
will ease this problem somewhat, there remains a need for a clearer picture
of where things are located in the building. There could be a kiosk in the
central hallway showing a floor plan and containing shelves for brochures
and pamphlets. Hearing and meeting schedules could be posted. There could
be an intercom/assistance phone. Various audio/visual displays could be
built in. A whole range of configurations from simple to hi-tech are
possible.
Recommendation 96 - Key Word Index for County Ordinances
The County Zoning Ordinance has a table of contents but no index. As an
example, the Committee tried to locate the section of the ordinance
addressing rezonings and had great difficulty in finding it. It is also
frequently the case that a topic is dealt with in several places in the
ordinance. Omitting one may be very costly to an applicant or
embarrassing to staff. Public confidence would also be strengthened by
making it easier for those not familiar with County laws to locate the
sections that deal with the requirements that concern them.
Recommendation ~7 - Policy Notebook
Finding needed information in the County's written document is one thing,
locating policies is another. Some policy statements have been adopted
(i.e., policy on submittal of comprehensive plan amendments adopted by the
Board on April 17, 1985; policy on withdrawal of lands from an Agricultural/-
Forestal District also adopted by the Board on April 17, 1985; policy on
industrial development, adopted several years ago by the Board). These
should be collected and made available for reference or copying in a
central location. Similarly County Attorney opinions should be included.
The existence of such a policy notebook might then serve as an incentive to
the Board and Commission to put other policies into written form. The
advantages of such a policy notebook would be that it would reduce guessing,
would make interpretations explicit, would increase likelihood that 'it
would be done right the first time,' and would force some issues to surface
that otherwise might be avoided. At least one example of a policy notebook
used elsewhere has been examined and appears useful as a model.
6O8
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meetinq~
Recommendation $8 - Engineering DesiGn Manual
This manual would compile, in one place, all of the engineering design
specifications or performance standards required by the County. Like the
policy manual, it would increase the likelihood of plans being submitted
correctly the first time. As the County developed more standards or
revised old ones, the manual would be updated. Several Virginia jurisdic-
tions have such manuals and users and staff speak favorably of them. The
County Engineer is now working on such a manual.
Recommendation $9 - Sketch Plan Option
One of the reasons that plans are delayed is because they strike off in
directions that cannot be supported as feasible after preliminary analysis.
In other cases, plans are submitted which are complete because the applicant
is really only trying to determine project feasibility. In Prince William
County's streamlining study, partial blame for lengthy processing times was
directed toward applicants submitting plans that were incomplete as a way
of drawing reaction. The Committee recommends that the County create a
sketch plan application that would receive site plan review committee
comments but would not go the Planning Commission. The sketch plan option,
would tailor a tool to a need and reduce misuse of the regular application
process.
Experience in another jurisdiction with an optional sketch Plan was,
somewhat surprisingly, that it saved time by discouraging infeasible
projects and by giving useful direction to other projects so that they
could be better designed at the outset. More review up front essentially
saves time later. While the Committee recommends the creation of the
sketch plan as an option, we also caution that applicants not attempt to
use this as a device for getting county staff to design their project. We
feel that this potential problem can be handled if participants are alert
to avoid it.
Recommendation $10 - Work Load/Staff Resources Study
As was indicated in our findings, we recommend that the County evaluate the
work load and staff resources in its development services departments. The
Committee's feeling is that there is likely a need for additional staff.
This would need to be considered in light, of Whether the steps recommended
in this report are taken. If a Development Information Office is established
this will relieve some of the time demands upon current staff who are
called on frequently to provide information. This could also reduce
interruptions and enhance productivity.
With the arrival of the new Planning Director, the Committee feels that a
careful needs and resources analysis should be conducted and that it would
assist the new Planning Director in getting on top of his responsibilities.
We recommend that this study be completed in time for the next. County
budget cycle.
Recommendation 911 - Training and Organizational Development
The Committee recommends that it would be useful to make available to the
staff and to the Planning Commission certain skill building and training
opportunities. Time management, stress management, communications and
strategic planning training might be most helpful in performing at a high
level and encourage retention of capable staff. New, as well as existing
Planning Commissioners should be encouraged to participate in the Planning
Commissioner 'certification' sessions now provided by the Virginia Citizens
Planning Association. While the Committee did not feel that it was its
charge to scrutinize Planning Commission practices, we do feel it would be
useful for the Commission members to examine their own priorities as well
as how other jurisdictions operate. The Commission might develop its own-
strategic plan that would address questions about allocation of its
resources to applications and to plan and policy matters. The arrival of
the new Planning Director provides a special opportunity for this type of
activity.
Recommendation $12 - Special Use Permits and Planned Developments
After experience has been gained with the two stage 'development/construction
plan' process recommended above, we recommend the County consider extending
such a process to other applications such as special use permits and
planned developments. In the case of use permits, the County might first
need to amend its ordinances to have more extensive submittal requirements.
Then, in exchange, an applicant would not be required to return to the
Commission with a separate 'development plan' but could, in most cases, go
on directly to 'construction plans.'
Mr. Bruce Dotson again addressed the Board. He said the Committee felt it might possibly
need some consultant services, but not presently. Any resources for these efforts should go
directly into improving the County's development services. It is the Committee's suggestion
that these items be referred for further study and perhaps development of implementation steps
by the staff and Planning Commission. The Land Use Regulations Committee (LURC) is ready to
assist in any way. The Committee feels that it has substantially completed its work by
submitting this report to the Board. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this report was by unanimous
recommendation by the Committee members. Mr. Greene said yes.
September
11, 1985
(Regular Day Meeting)
609
Mrs. Treva Cromwell, representing other members of the Committee, said she wanted to
congratulate Mr. Bruce Dotson on his work as Chairman. She said Mr. Dotson helped to establish
the objectives, procedures, and a time schedule, moderated with skill, and returned with
summaries of discussions and conclusions. Mrs. cromwell said the Committee wanted the Board
and public to know what a good job Mr. Dotson did.
Mr. Fisher thanked all of the members of the Committee for its work, and noted that the
Committee had met every other week for seven months. He emphasized that he knows that is a
substantial investment of the time and energies of the Committee members. He said the
statement that was made that a consultant is not needed, but it seems that there has been a
volunteer consultant who has done much of the work the County might have paid dearly for. The
recommendation is to refer this report to the Planning Commission and the staff for a timely
response as to what their feelings about how this could be done, and hopefully come to a
consensus within a few weeks as to how to implement the report. Mr. Fisher said he thinks the
work that has been done should not "drag on" as a recommendation without action and he hopes a
way can be found to implement all or most of what has been recommended.
Mr. Lindstrom said he noticed in the report that Prince William County spent $45,000 for
a study which is probably still going on, and he feels that there is only one proper way to
thank the Committee and that is to see that something actually comes of this report in the
fairly near future. He agrees that the Committee has discharged its responsibility, even
reporting within the time period requested. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like for the Committee
to be persistent with the Board, and see that the Board is responsible with these recommendatio
Everyone is convinced that changes need to be made. These are recommendations he suspects most
of the Board members will agree need to be implemented and followed through. If the Committee
feels the Board is dragging its' feet, then the Committee should let the Board know.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to personally thank the Committee and he feels the report is
better than could have been hoped for.
Mrs. Cooke said she would like to echo Mr. Lindstrom's remarks. Through sitting on the
Planning Commission for the past two years, she has witnessed the struggles by the Commission
and applicants. The recommendations are a result of having to deal with the situation and she
feels this is a much more thorough investigation than any hired consultant would have done.
She congratulated the Committee on its work and reiterated Mr. Lindstrom by saying that the
proper action for the Board is to do something about this report.
Mr. Don Wagner said he is not surprised that a unanimous decision was reached on this
report. There is a great commonality of interest between the responsible developers in
Albemarle County, the Board, the Planning Commission and the staff. There are arguments
sometimes about the methods of achieving the ends, but there is not much argument about the
ends that need to be achieve~.
Mr. Bowie said he would support a work session and proceeding with this report.
is in the court of the Board and the Board should pick it up.
The ball
Mr. Fisher said there is a joint session scheduled with the Planning Commission on
October 2, 1985 at 4:00 P.M. and this is one of the items that should be discussed. Any work
that can be done by the Planning Commission and the staff prior to the joint meeting would be
accepted with gratitude. Mr. Fisher said the Board would also like to thank the individuals of
the staff that have contributed to the report.
Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres said the Committee was a little concerned on its recommendations on
a consultant. A consultant is not needed right now, but will be needed later for some of these
recommendations that everyone would like to have implemented, and when there is a lack of
manpower and staff time.
Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees October 2 is a good time to discuss this report, and it would
be helpful if the staff would give suggestions on development of this office, staffing and
possible costs. Mr. Agnor said he, Bob Tucker and Ray Jones have already started discussions
on implementation of the report, and will be able to give suggestions at the joint meeting.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to make sure the minutes show that Mr. Lindstrom is responsible
for initiating this idea. Mr. Fisher said the idea of the development plan and the construc-
tion plans are very exciting ideas and he would like to see these moved forward as a change in
structure and ordinances as an efficiency item for the many people who look at general concepts
and try and make decisions on those. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to refer the Land Use
Regulation Committee report to the Planning Commission and the staff for review. Mr. Bowie
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. FiSher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 21.
and Amounts Budgeted.
Comparison of Insurance Costs for FY 85-86 Against Prior Year Actual
Mr. Agnor said this item is presented to the Board for its information. He summarized tht
following memorandum to the Board from Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, dated
September 5, 1985; and also memorandum dated September 5, 1985 from David C. Papenfuse,
Assistant Superintendent, Finance and Administration to Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive,
on School Board Insurance Coverage, respectively:
"Municipal jurisdictions are facing renewal premiums on fire, casualty
(auto) and liability insurance ranging from a 100 to a 300 percent increase
over the prior year, even in cases where their loss experience was unchanged.
Some jurisdictions have been forced to switch to self-insurance for liability
because they simply could not afford the premiums or were unable to secure
the coverage.
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
The general explanation for this horrendous market upward cost swing is
caused by a withdrawal from the market of many underwriters of reinsurance
due to the large interest rate drops on investments combined with the
excessive court awards on claims. Insurance companies last year resorted
to using large dollar reserves causing large numbers of companies to
withdraw from the market this year.
We were advised in May 1985 by our risk management consultants that due to
the insurance market's lack of stability, the County should seek to extend
the coverages with our current carriers for at least one year and this was
done. FolloWing is a comparison of costs showing the increases in General
Government from FY '84-85 to FY '85-86 as compared to the budgeted amounts.
Type of Policy
84-85 85-86 Per Cent
Cost Cost Increase Budgeted
Cost
over/(under)
Budget
Vehicle $23,727 $ 92,254(2) 289 $ 25,397
$67,857
Public Officials
Liability
4,264 10,868 155 4,200
6,668
Police Liability
12,858 26,842 109 19,940
6,902
Fire Casualty
30,238 34,744 15 35,000
(226)
Sub-total $71,087 $104,738 132 $ 84,537
$80,201
Workman's Comp.
Total
6,190(1) 27r415 343 40r000
$77,277 $192,153 149 $124,537
(12,585)
$67,616
(1) Several years of accrued dividends were applied to the premium on
workman's comp. in 1984-85.
(2) Approximately ten percent of this premium increase for vehicle
insurance is due to the addition of vehicles in police, inspections
and the car pool.
As you can see from the above schedule, vehicle insurance increased three
times, public liability increased two and one-half times and police liability
increased two times when compared to the prior year premium.
Attached is a memorandum from Mr. David Papenfuse setting forth the situa-
tion being faced in Education. This memorandum is showing a shortfall in
funding for FY '85-86 in the amount of $134,810. The total shortfall in
funding in both General Government and Education is $202,426. Since some
of these coverages (Workman's Compensation and Public Officials Liability)
are based on estimated payrolls that are audited later, the total excess
cost over budgeted could exceed $225,000. In addition to these potential
audited increases, we have just recently learned that the State Department
of Welfare will no longer provide Liability Insurance Coverage on local
employees. Therefore, the County will have to add this coverage for its
Social Services employees immediately - an additional cost not reflected
above.
This memo is for informational purposes at this time. It is anticipated
that we will have to ask for additional appropriations at mid-year after
all insurance costs are finalized from renewals. Then staff can determine
how much if any of the insurance costs over runs can be absorbed by cost
savings in other areas. Some of these insurance coSts are covered in cost
centers where insurance costs make up a relatively large portion of the
bottom line total budget. This condition exists in the Police Department
of General Government and the Vehicle Maintenance Facility within Education.
Staff is seeking alternative solutions for the future as it is anticipated
the problem may get progressively worse. Some of those alternatives are
placing coverages with the Virginia Municipal League's Group Self Insurance
Program. VML is currently limited to providing coverages for smaller
localities with populations under 50,000. We are seeking changes in this
limitation due to the fact about ten percent of our population is located
on the UVA grounds. Other alternatives are larger deductibles and self-
insurance. Both of these alternatives would require rather significant
amounts of monies set aside and reserved for losses."
"Per your request, I am forwarding information relative to our insurance
premiums for FY '85-86. Our rates have gone through the roof and have
exceeded our expectations. Any attempt to offset this increase would be
greatly appreciated
Type of Coverage
Budget Actual Variance
Multi Peril
(Comprehensive loss & Liability)
Boiler
Vehicular & Garage
Workman's Comp.
School Board Errors & Omissions
Excess Umbrella
$ 37,000 $ 83,652 $ 46,652
4,000 4,140 140
42,000 101,931 59,931
49,000 83,4373 34,437
4,000 Unknown 1
6,350 (35,000) (6,350)
Bid
Total $142,350 $134,810
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
1
The Excess Liability provided additional coverage up to $3,000,000. This
policy would take effect after the limits on the primary policies are
exhausted. It was recommended that this policy be discontinued and that
the maximum limits on base policies be increased to $1,000,000, ~The
increased limit on our base policy had little effect on the individual
premiums
Contains many more exclusions than before, including air conditioning
equipment.
This policy is up for renewal on October 1, 1985. We have not received
an estimate for renewal, but the current rate is $1,920.
We are members of a group self-insurance plan with approximately ten
other school districts. As this is only our third year, our dividends as
applied to premiums are small. $16,793 of this increase is due to an
audit adjustment of the FY '84-85 payroll.
In short, the majority of the premium increases have been attributed to
liability coverage and not loss reimbursement."
Mr. Fisher said he has been hearing about this problem from other localities around the
state and throughout the country, and the cause of this has been liability suits. Mr. Agnor
said liability suits, and interest rates dropping rapidly over the past two years, and
insurance companies investing reserves with huge returns which reflected in lower premium
costs, and now insurance companies are caught with having to make up costs through premiums
rather than investments. Mr. Bowie said he appreCiates this report, but no one mentioned
whether the County is taking definite financial management steps to shift funds within what is
available, and hold the funds until it is seen what develops. Mr. Agnor said that is correct.
Agenda Item No. 22. Traffic Management Information System.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated August 19, 1985 from Ray B. Jones,
Deputy County Executive, to the Board, and memorandum dated August 13, 1985 from Melvin A.
Breeden, Director of Finance, respectively.
"Application was made to the State Department of Criminal Justice Services
three months ago for a grant to automate traffic accident data for Albemarle
County. The application was a 50/50 matching grant to purchase equipment
consisting of an IBM PC/AT computer, graphic plotter, and additional data
storage estimated to cost $9,500 in state funds. The grant included a
local match of existing police department staff in the amount of $9,575
which is currently funded in the FY 1985-86 budget. Software is being
acquired at no cost through the State Highway Safety Commission.
Ail information collected on traffic accidents will be loaded into this
system. The computer will provide two important pieces of information in
the future referred to as 'Frequency Index' and 'Severity Index' on various
road locations in the County. It will provide a basis for increasing
future police patrols on County highways as well as a guide to future
improvement needs with the intent to solve highway safety hazards.
The State has notified the County of the approval of the grant."
"The County of Albemarle has been awarded a grant from the Department of
Criminal Justice Services (No. TR85-2-59202) in the amount of $9,500. The
grant is to be matched with local expenditures of $9,575, which is primarily
salaries of existing, staff which have already been funded in the '85/86
Budget. This grant is for data processing hardware and software support
for the traffic management information system. It is envisioned to have a
significant impact on solving highway safety problems."
Mr. Agnor said this is for award of a grant made by the State Department of Criminal
Justice Services, initiated several months ago through the Highway Safety Commission. This
involves the matching of funds from the State to record and plat the "frequency index" and
"severity index" of automobile accidents on county roads. This award will provide the hardwar~
for a Traffic Management Information System; the software will be provided by the State Highwa
Safety Commission at no cost. The County's obligation is to match these grant funds with
services of existing staff members. This was determined to be a match when the Board approved
the addition of police officers to the staff, a majority of which were assigned to patrol work
for the 1985-86 year. The use of this System will help on patrols in terms of traffic
management, will provide guides for the Highway Department to determine where there are design
safety hazards, and provide information for the Board when dealing with planning issues.
Mr. Agnor said this grant will provide the Police Department with its first micro-computer
primarily for the Traffic Management Information System, but which will also be used for the
storage of administrative data which needs to be stored where there is a retrieval capability.
Mr. Agnor said the Board needs to accept the grant, and appropriate the funds.
Mr. Fisher asked if this microcomputer is compatible with and will be maintained to the
County's mainframe computer. Mr. :Agnor said not initially, but ultimately it will be
connected. Mr. Fisher said his experience has been that people with micros do not want to
connect to the mainframe. Mr. Agnor said the Planning Department is also purchasing a micro
and will be loading the Comprehensive Information System (CIS) that they have developed. All
of the data in the CIS, one part of which is traffic information will be retrievable interdepa]
mentally. Mr. Fisher said he can envision a person with a scratch pad and a piece of paper
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
trying to retrieve information from the micro. Mr. Agnor said the new Development Office has
been planned to have a tracking system on every permit, so that the information can be called
up in planning, zoning, inspections, engineering, or any department to find out the exact
status of the permit. This grant will will be used to get the Traffic Management Information
System running and then the system will be integrated into the mainframe. The system will
initially be standing alone, but ultimately it will be linked. Mr. Fisher said he feels that
if it is worth the effort to developr~e~t the system, put the information in, keep the system
updated, and generate reports, then it should be available to everyone electronically within
weeks or months, not years, and it should be a function that everybody will agree to.
At this point, Mrs. Cooke offered motion to accept the grant and to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $9,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
Grant Fund and coded to 1-1228-31130-700700 entitled Data Processing
Equipment for the Traffic Management Information System; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $9,500 to code 2-1228-31130-330001
entitled Grant Proceeds - Federal; and
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion and said this is an example of requests for data processing
equipment that come up one at a time, and the Board does not know how this request fits into
the long-range plan. Mr. Agnor said that nothing is bought in the data processing field that
does not go through the Automatic Needs Assessment Committee. The Committee's function is to
avoid duplication of equipment, incompatibility of equipment, and the tie-in of that equipment
with other departments that need the same information. This hardware will not be ordered
without the Committee's involvement. Mr. Fisher said the Committee should assign a date as to
when the micro will be put on the mainframe, not allow the micro to stand alone. Mr. Lindstron
asked if this hardware can be "plugged" into the mainframe. Mr. Agnor replied yes. Mr. Agnor
said if the County was purchasing the equipment itself and did not have an obligation to
fulfill the requirements of a grant, then the equipment would not purchased until the require-
ments for the entire use of the machine were determined. This grant is being used to get
$9,500 worth of computer hardware and a free software program that is only for a traffic
information management system, but the County is going to obtain additional software so this
computer can be used for a comprehensive information system. Mr. Fisher asked if there is any
money available for the salary of an operator. Mr. Agnor said there is currently a clerical
person in the administrative section of the Police Department on staff, and additional people
will be trained on the use of this machine. Mr. Ray Jones said this equipment does have the
capability of downloading to the mainframe. Mr. Fisher said before the machine is purChased, a
schedule should be set on how soon the information will be available to the rest of the staff.
Mr. Agnor said the Data Processing Management Committee sets the schedules for when software
programs go on-line. The Data Processing Technical Committee is more oriented toward the
technical aspects of the use of the machine. Mr. Fisher said the tendency is to "float alone"
in free space as independent from the rest of the world for as long as possible, and the Board
should guard against that happening. Roll was called at this point and the foregoing motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 23. Update on Court Square Project and Request for Special Appropriation.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated September 5, 1985 from Ray B. Jones,
Deputy County Executive, to the Board:
"Due to the delays in the contract completion of the Courthouse plus the
necessity for the Circuit Court to move out of the Federal Court Building,
the following arrangements have been made:
1. Move the Circuit Court Clerk into her renovated quarters on September
5, 6 and 7;
2. Move the Circuit Court Judges and secretary into their renovated
offices in the Old County Office Building on September 12;
3. Made temporary arrangements for holding Circuit Court in the old Real
Estate building beginning on September 17;
4.Arrangements have been made with Judge Helvin to use the new General
District Court Room on Wednesday of each week;
5. The Circuit Court will schedule non-jury cases in its new chamber in
the old County Office Building.
The above arrangements were made on August 29 with Judge Berry who is
substituting for Judge Trembly. These discussions included Mr. Bill
Sullivan of Staff Services, Mr. Calvin Jones, Mrs. Shelby Marshall,
Mrs. Jean Easton (secretary to the Circuit Court Judges), and myself.
It was also learned last week that the Opportunities Industrialization
Center (OIC) had made permanent arrangements with the developer of the
Monticello Dairy property for space and will not need space from the
County.
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
,6! 3
The Mediation Center (MC) was offered two rooms (300+ square feet) in the
Old Jailors' Residence immediately following the decision to make the old
Real Estate Office into a court room. They were offered the two rooms
upstairs in the Old Jailors' Residence formerly occupied by Mr. John
Connors of the Community Diversion Incentive Program (CDIP). It is antici-
pated that one room will be used for an office and reception area plus one
room for mediation will be adequate for the beginning of that program.
Also, the monthly rent of $191.25 brings the rent cost back within the
amount budgeted for rent by the Board of Directors for the MC. On Wednesday,
September 4, 1985, the Board of Directors of the MC took official action to
accept the offer. A lease agreement will be executed as soon as possible.
Additional Work in the Courthouse
The real reason for the temporary location of the Circuit Court Room to the
old Real Estate building was the review of the additional work uncovered in
the renovation to date on the Courthouse. This review by the arChitect,
contractor, subcontractor, judges, Bill Sullivan and myself uncovered
twelve essential items that were not in the original contract as follows:
Cost
1. Roof work on cupola inclusive of shutters, $14 000
flashing. '
2. General repair of the slate roof and ridge cap 3 400
on the entire building. '
3. Stripping, refinishing and repair of the railing 3,600
in front of the judges bench and the benches in
main Courtroom.
Install a laminated support beam for support of
the second floor joists in area where a support
wall on the first floor between the old dispatcher
area and old sheriff's office was removed inclusive
of repairing the ceiling and wall.
5. Replacing the juror chairs with solid walnut 4,674
pedestal chairs with leather seats.
6. Replacing door of the new juror room which was 562
previously the judges' chamber.
7. General repair and replacing facial boards on 2,216
east and west end of the building.
8. Pilaster work (base to columns) at entrance to 492
old sheriff's office.
9. Two additional benches for the new General 3,000
District Court in public seating area.
10. General repair to front entrance inclusive of 2 600
replacing facial boards and corners. '
11. Replacing door and repair facing to Courthouse 750
entrance from new link between the buildings.
12. Rearranging and refinishing of judges' bench and 5,000 (est.)
lawyer areas in Courtroom (old General District
Court) inclusive of refinishing all benches and
relocating some electrical and-sound equipment
outlets.
Sub-Total
Additional architectural and engineering fees
Total
2,773
$43,067
3,200
$46,267
Items three, five, nine and twelve are requests of the Circuit Court judges
that were not included in the contract. These four items cost $18,274 and
would significantly add to the overall comfort and attractiveness of the
facility. The remaining items are due to excessive deterioration and
leaking roof. All costs except items eleven and twelve are firm quotes by
the contractor and have been reviewed by the architect. In the staff's
opinion, the proposed work is necessary.
Funding
This project was awarded on an original contract figure of $1,367,700.
There have been twenty change orders to date bringing the net contract to
$1,495,679 as of September 1, 1985. Previous change orders have utilized
all of the ten percent contingency allocated in the original project
funding. Therefore, all of the above work will require a special appropria-
tion before staff can authorize the work. Some of the twelve items have to
be interfaced with the work on the existing contrac~ work. Also, the
proposed work (12 items) will extend the contract about five weeks or until
the end of November 1985.
Staff Recommendation
There are two official actions necessary at this time.
First, a motion of approval on the twelve items with official authorization
for the County Executive or designee to execute the proper change orders to
accomplish the work.
Second, an additional appropriation as follows:
From 9000-99999 Undesignated Fund Balance
$46,267
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
To 9000-06000 Court Square Building
300212 Architect and Engineer Fees
700200 Furniture and Fixtures
70100 Contract - Alterations to Buildings
3,200
4,674
38,393
Total $46,267"
Mr. Agnor said all former tenants of the Old County Office Building have now moved back
into the building, except the judges, and they move in tomorrow. The Circuit Courthouse is
still being renovated. As expected, the ten percent overrun on the contract for renovation of
an old building, has been inadequate. Now, the project is down to a number of items which
require the Board's attention, and additional funds. These funds have been placed into three
different groups. Four of the items were requested by the judge, four items were for invisible
repairs and not known until work began on the walls and ceilings, and the other four were small
items shown to be deficiency in the design of the work.
Mr. Agnor said the four items which were invisible had to do with the roof and ceilings,
and were items which were not apparent when the design work was done. Items 6, 7, 10 and 11
are visible items needed to make the renovation job complete. Mr. Agnor said the items that
concern him are the items requested by the judge, %3, %5, ~9 and #12. The staff feels that %3
is needed since lacquer is off of the benches down to the bare wood, so repair is needed, just
to maintain the benches.
Mr. Agnor said item five for replacing the juror chairs may be desirable, but staff does
not really think necessary. The juror chairs are round-backed, walnut chairs with a removable
cushion on the seat. The requested replacement chair is identical except it has a built-in
cushioned seat rather than a separate cushion. The difference in the chairs is that it makes
the elevation of the back and the curvature of the wooden part of that back one-half inch
difference in the elevation. Judge Tremblay says the jurors who use those chairs complain that
they are uncomfortable. It has been found that the General District Courtroom is already
crowded so item ~9 will add two additional benches. The last item is ~12 for work in the
second flOor courtroom in the Courthouse. The architects did not address the arrangement of
the judges bench, lawyers tables, witness box, to which all are "jammed" together at the front
of the room. That room will now be used by the Circuit Court judges, and they have asked that
there be a rearrangement of the furniture. When it is separated, it will need to be
refinished. Mr. Agnor said most remodeling jobs cost fifteen percent more than estimated, but
the staff thought it could get by with just ten percent. The requested money will fund all of
the pending change orders that cannot be executed until some action is taken by the Board, and
the project will end with a thirteen percent contingency account. It is entirely possible that
there might be other changes although this has been checked again and again with the architects
Mr. Fisher asked who drafted the contract. Mr. Agnor said it was a standard American
Institute of Architects type of contract and then modified it to remove some undesirable
language, it was reviewed by Mr. St. John, and the County Executive's staff and then presented
to the Board for approval. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any consideration given to a penalty
clause for late completion of the project. Mr. Agnor said it was discussed and concluded that
the clause would be paid up-front, the project might still come in late. Mr. Fisher said this
building was supposed to have been finished in March and now it is proposed to be December.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks the Federal court, the Circuit Court judges, and the County's constii
tional officers have borne an enormous cost, in addition to what the County staff has put up
with, because of this lateness, and he is very unhappy about it. Mr. Fisher said Judge Trembly
has talked to him twice about the new chairs and if the judge feels the County citizens are
going to need these chairs, and it is not a large investment, the Board should try to-make
these people happy.
Mr. Lindstrom said it seems to him that if there is a contractor who is lax in completing
a project, then the staff should prohibit that contractor from bidding on future projects.
Mr. Agnor said he does not think the contractor can be prohibited, but it can be considered
when other bids are taken. Mrs. Cooke said she has never been involved in a construction
project that came in on time. At this point, Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve the additiona
items for the Court Square Project outlined in Mr. Ray B. Jones memorandum dated September 5,
1985; to authorize the County Executive or his designee to execute the proper change orders to
accomplish this work; and to adopt the following resolution of appropriation. Mr. Lindstrom
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $46,267 be, and the same is hereby appropriated from the
Undesignated Fund Balance of the Capital'Improvements Fund and coded to the
following, for completion of the Court Square Project:
Expenditure Codes
1-9000-06000-300212
1-9000-06000-700200
1-9000-06000-701002
Description
Architect Fees
Furniture and Fixtures
Alteration to Building
Amount
$ 3,200.00
4,674.00
38,393.00
FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is effective this date.
Not Docketed. At 4:30 P.M., Mr. Fisher suggested that Agenda Items No. 24 and 25 be
deferred until later so the Board might go into a scheduled Executive Session.
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
6!5
Agenda Item No. 26.
Property.
Executive Session:
Acquisition, Disposition or Use of Public
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion for the Board to adjourn into executive session for these
purposes. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley
The Board reconvened into open session at 5:25 P.M., with Mr, Way being absent at this
time.
Agenda Item No. 24. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Rates.
Mr. Agnor said the County is on a contract year from October through September for its
Health Insurance Program. This information was last received from Blue Cross/Blue Shield last
Thursday and he then proceeded to summarize the following memorandum to the Board dated
September 6, 1985 from the County Executive's staff:
"A staff committee from the County Executive's office, Superintendent's
office, Personnel office, Service Authority and Joint Security Complex
reviewed the financial status of the current Blue Cross contract with
representatives of Blue CrosS Insurance Company.
It was found in that review that income during the past year was approximately
$200,000 less than the costs incurred by the Plan from July 1, 1984 to
June 30, 1985, thereby reducing the contract reserve from $330,000 to
approximately $135,000. As a result of this decline in the Plan's reserve
fund, the committee looked at adjusting the rates on the current contract
(Blue Cross/Blue Shield 7510 Plan). It was determined that in order to
adjust the income to the projiected costs for 1984-85 an 18 percent rate
increase would be needed. Such a rate increase would have produced the
following change in monthly rates.
Employee only
Employee and one minor
EmploYee and family
Current Projected
$ 53.11 $ 62.68
74.43 87.84
149.89 176.88
This adjustment would have exceeded the budgeted amounts of $670 per
employee by $123 for the '84-85 FY in General Government and even more in
Education. The committee felt that such a rate increase was excessive.
Consideration was then given to reducing coverages especially in the area
of mental health care. This !benefit has increased in cost (claims) three
fold in the past two years, iThere were 108 cases costing about one quarter
million dollars last year. Iit was agreed by the committee to reduce this
coverage to 30 days, 'cap' it at $2,000 and shift the cost to an 80 percent
medical plan cost and 20 percent individual cost.
The committee .also spent a considerable amount of time discussing what is
known as a 'KeyCare' Plan. ~ 'KeyCare' Plan is a plan where the health
care carrier (Blue Cross) negotiates rates with hospitals and surgeons.
For those approved 'KeyCare' facilities, the insurance pays 100 percent of
the costs and 80 percent to 'non-KeyCare' facilities and surgeons. Blue
Cross has negotiated this plan with the University and Martha Jefferson
Hospitals and is currently nelgotiating with area physicians. They expect
to have the plan in operation by January 1986 or before.
Recommendation
The staff recommends the extension of the current 7510 Plan with Blue Cross
with the intent of convertingl to the 'KeyCare' Plan in January or sooner,
if available. The staff also recommends the reduction of days of coverage
for mental health care in the current 7510 Plan to 30 days care, out-patient
psychiatric maximum to $2,000! per year, and 80 percent cost coverage by the
plan.
The staff also recommends the. following increase in rates effective
October 1, 1985:
Monthly Rates - 12 Month Payment
From: (Current)
Subscriber
Subscriber with one minor
Subscriber with family
Rates
$ 53.11
74.43
149.84
County Pays Employee Pays
$ 53.11 $ -0-
53.11 21.32
53.11 96.78
To:
Subscriber
Subscriber with one minor
Subscriber with family
$ 57.36
80.38
161.88
57.36 $ -0-
57.36 23.02
57.36 104.52
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Monthly Rates - 10 Month Payment (School Employees)
From:
Subscriber
Subscriber with one minor
Subscriber with family
Rates CountyPays Employee Pays
$ 63.73 $ 63.73 $ -0-
89.31 63.73 25.58
179.89 63.73 116.16
To:
Subscriber
Subscriber with one minor
Subscriber with family
68.83 $ 68.83 $ -0-
96.45 68.83 27.62
194.25 68.83 125.42
The above rate changes represent eight percent increases in all categories.
The proposed rates will provide adequate rates for the conversion to the
'KeyCare' Plan in January 1986 pursuant to rate projections provided by
representatives of Blue Cross. However, they will not provide adequate
income to continue the current 7510 Plan for the full year. Also, the
proposed rates are approximately one percent over the amounts budgeted in
FY '84-85. Hopefully this can be absorbed from other categories within the
budget.
The same joint recommendation is being presented to the School Board,
Service Authority Board and Joint Security Complex Board for official
action in order to implement the rate changes in the September payroll.
you know, insurance premiums are payable in advance.
Respectfully you are requested to officially approve the rate changes with
the intent to convert to the 'KeyCare' Plan in January 1986. As we all
know, we do not want the medical plan to incur a deficit like it did in the
mid1970's."
Mr. Agnor said the reserve fund balance was over $300,000, but it is now down to $135,000
That reserve is maintained for incurred claims not yet cleared through the insurance company.
If the same insurance benefits are maintained, rates would need to be increased by 18 percent.
Health care providers are encouraging participation in the cost by the recipients of the
benefits. The staff assimilated a recommendation for the. Board today, and that is to maintain
the current plan, changing only mental health coverage. Mr. Agnor said a Blue Cross analysis
of the usage of the drug and alcohol area of mental health coverage indicates that the benefit
is being used because it is available, and most other plans have been modified or put on'
limitations. Under the County's present policy, there is no limitation on how long a person
may stay in the hospital for a mental health related condition, and the plan pays 100 percent
of the costs. Blue Cross is recommending that this be changed to 80 percent. Blue Cross also
recommends that a limit of 30 days inpatient be put on the coverage. This is recommended
because mental health care is not under new mandates that require a doctor to determine how
many days care a case is limited to. Blue Cross recommends that the County itself set the
limit. Changing coverage to 30 days inpatient coverage for alcohol and drug use, and a $2000
limit on the total cost of the program with the participant paying 80 percent of the fees, the
staff recommends that the Blue Cross plan be renewed without making any other changes. The
staff also recommends that when "KeyCare" is offered by Blue Cross that the County switch to
that plan. Blue Cross will contract with the two major hospitals, and the physicians and
surgeons in the area. They already have a contract with Martha Jefferson Hospital and expect
to have one with the University of Virginia Hospital soon. When a member of the County's plan
required one of these services, that person would go to one of the people contracted in the
program for that care. If that person choose not do this, then the Blue Cross plan would only
pay 80 percent of the costs. This is called a "preferred provider", because the provider
contracts his service at a fixed rate. Mr. Agnor said the staff will talk to the employees
about "KeyCare" between now and January, and if is available by January, then all of the health
insurance costs can be absorbed during this fiscal year with an eight percent rate increase
beginning October 1, 1985. Since this benefit is paid for in advance, the increase would go
into effect on the September paycheck and that is the reason a decision is needed today.
Mr. Agnor said he has a comparison of a regular Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan and a
"KeyCare" plan which he had intended to distribute, but he would prefer to wait and explain the
"KeyCare" plan in more detail when it becomes a reality. Presently, Blue Cross has the doctors
and the hospitals signed up for the plan, but they do not have the surgery staff they need in
this community for the program. It is too early to go into the details right now. The staff
has looked at "KeyCare" and feel that is the answer to the accelerating cost of health care
insurance. If "KeyCare" is adopted by January 1, 1986 there would be no further rate change
until next year's contract renewal. If "KeyCare" is not acceptable to the employees and/or the
staff runs into difficulties, then there would have to be a second rate adjustment in January,
1986. Mr. Agnor said if staff has to request another rate increase because "KeyCare" is too
abrupt a change in the plan, then staff would have to look at the budget to see if there is
anyway to absorb those costs. Mr. Agnor said he recommends the eight percent adjustment on all
of the rates effective October 1, 1985, and he will come back to the Board with more details
for adoption of the "KeyCare" plan.
Mr. Fisher asked when the 80 percent cost relative to the mental health care would take
effect? Mr. Agnor said that would be effective October 1. Mr. Bowie asked what happens if the
County does not go to "KeyCare"? Mr. Agnor said there would need to be another rate adjustment
in January. The $57.36 is within the County's budgeted amount for this current fiscal year.
If there were a January rate adjustment above this amount, it would be questionable as to
whether the County could absorb the cost. The eight percent can be absorbed in the current
budget without problems. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to accept the recommendations of the
County Executive to be effective October 1, 1985, regarding the Health Insurance Program, as
follows:
September 11 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
617
Extend the current Blue Cross/Blue Shield 7510 Plan with the intent of
converting to the "KeyCare" Plan in January, 1986, or sooner if available.
Reduce days of coverage for mental health care in the current 7510 Plan to
30 days care, out-patient psychiatric maximum to $2,000 per year and 80
percent cost coverage by that plan.
Change of rates representing an eight percent increase shall be adjusted
as follows:
Monthly Rates - 12 Month Payment
Subscriber
Subscriber with one minor
Subscriber with family
RATES
$ 57.36
80.38
161.88
COUNTY EMPLOYEE
PAYS PAYS
$57.36 $ -0-
57.36 23.02
57.36 104.52
Monthly Rates - 10 Month Payment (School Employees)
Subscriber
Subscriber with one minor
Subscriber with family
COUNTY EMPLOYEE
RATES PAYS PAYS
$ 68.83 $68.83
96.45 68.83
194.25 68.83
27.62
125.42
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion.
the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
· ~ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 25. Discussion: Legislative VACo Program.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from his office dated September 6, 1985 to
the Board:
"The following legislative matters have been assimilated by the staff for
the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) legislative program:
1. Request from Jefferson Area Board on Aging to support legislation for
an $8.2 million appropriation for the 1986-88 biennium to the Virginia
Department for the Aging for social and health-related services. The
1984-86 biennium appropriation is approximately $1.5 million.
2. Request from Chief of Police:
ae
Amendments to Section 46.1-252.1, 254, and 254.1 to permit County
Police to use vehicle parking tickets in lieu of Uniform Traffic
Summons, which require the officer to identify the vehicle operator
and have the summons signed. Parking enforcement is too time
consuming when an officer has to await the return of an operator to
a parked vehicle.
Request legislative change that would allow the proceeds of drug
seizures (assets and/or monies) to be used for local drug enforce-
ment activities. Currently all proceeds are awarded to the State.
Support legislation to require a mandatory minimum term of imprison-
ment of two years with no suspension of sentence, upon conviction
of malicious bodily harm to a law enforcement officer, and a
one-year term for unlawful, but not malicious, bodily injury.
3. Suggestion from staff to request legislation that would authorize local
governing bodies to assess impact fees on development of land to aid in
defraying the costs for providing local and State government services such
as fire protection, highways and transportation, local school system, law
enforcement, waste disposal, parks and recreation, etc.
VACo recommends that legislative matters be forwarded to them by resolution
of the Board, with the drafting of a bill being handled by Legislative
Services once it has become a part of the VACo program. If VACo does not
adopt a legislative request, the drafting of the bill would be provided
through a sponsoring member of the General Assembly requesting Legislative
Services for such services."
Mr. Tucker said, in reference to suggestion 93, VACo is not looking for specifics. There
are many different ways to assess properties such as, when development occurs to assess a flat
fee for the number of dwelling units being developed so as to recoup monies that can then be
used to upgrade streets, etc. Mr. Fisher said he thinks something specific should go to VACo,
transfer taxes is one thing that could be done. Mr. Bowie said in reference to the police
issues, the first item on ticketing, he is sure it will get through Committee, but it does not
have a chance of being in the VACo programs, because it is not significant. He knows that the
Criminal Justice Committee will support item (c). Mr. Bowie said he would like for the Board
to support sending item (b), even though it does not stand a prayer in its present form, if the
Board could get it into the Committee, then it may be able to go forward with a recommended
compromise. Mr. Fisher said that before these suggestions are sent, parenthesis should be put
September 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meetin~f!___~
around the last sentence of items (a) and (b) to show that that sentence is not a part of the
emphasis. Mr. Lindstrom said in regard to an impact fee (~3), it might be better to increase
contractor's licenses or something of that nature. Mr. Fisher said he took the "Hollymead
Study" done in 1972 and did an analysis of the capital costs_~~by the County as a result
of the~'development, and the net cost to the County was approXimately four percent at the time.
Mr. Fisher said he has some concern about supporting the first request. Mr. Bowie said he has
a hard time supporting a 5 1/2 increase in anything. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to adopt
recommendations number two and three as outlined in Mr. Agnor's letter dated September 6, 1985
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 7. Appointments. There were no nominations presented.
Agenda Item No. 28. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda From the Board and Public.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested the Board read the 1984 Development Activity Report from the
Planning Department (shown on the consent agenda today). The report is a sobering document an,
he said it is putting him in a position to say "I told you so." Five exempt lots per parcel ir
existence at the date of the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1980, plus the 21 acre excep-
tion is just a "Mack" truck that drives right through the Comprehensive Plan. He thinks that
tracking how the Ordinance is doing is very important and he would like to have a work session
on this. This is one of the most important advantages to the computer (discussed earlier) and
he appreciates having this information. This bit of information is important to the planning
function of this Board. It does not look to him that the overall purpose of the zoning is
working as well as anticipated. At a work session, it could be interpreted and explained why
it is not working. Mr. Lindstrom read the following series of statistics: "Of the majority o~
single-family dwelling units, 330 out of 603 are located in the rural areas. Residential
activity continues to concentrate in rural areas one and three. The majority of rural areas
one and three are also located in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir drinking water impoundment.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends an average lot size of ten acres per dwelling unit in those
areas that are in the watershed and yet the average lot size in a rural areas one and three is
between five and one-half and six and one-half acres, etc." Mr. Lindstrom said he does not
know how many of those particular statistics relate to the fact that there are a number of
approved subdivision lots that already exist, but certainly the statistics about the new
subdivision lots that are being approved do not have anything to do with existing plats. Thes~
are new plats being approved and a substantial number of those lots are in the rural areas.
Mr. Fisher said he has not yet had time to study the report. Mr. Tucker said it is true that
the majority of building activity is still greater in the rural areas. However, subdivision
activity has taken a different trend (it did not show in the analysis), starting in 1983, the
number of subdivision lots occurring in the growth areas versus the number of lots occurring i~
the rural areas, a little different trend started to occur, More subdivision activity is
occurring in the growth areas than the rural areas. Mr. Lindstrom said he encourages everyone
to examine the report. As he interprets it, there is still a preponderance of subdivision
activity occurring in the rural areas. Maybe the Board should set aside some time next month
to talk about this repOrt. Mr. Fisher suggested that the report be discussed with the Plannin¢
Commission at the joint meeting scheduled for October 2, 1985.
Agenda Item No. 29. At 5:50 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned by the Chairman.