1999-02-030002 Y3
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
February 3, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 9:07 a.m.); Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris;
Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.; Mr. Charles S. Martin; Mr. Walter F. Perkins; and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney,
Mr. Larry W. Davis; and County Planner, Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation: Annual Innovation Award by the Chesapeake Bay Local
Government Advisory Committee.
Mr. Martin read the award which stated that Mr. Jack Kelsey, Mr. Dave Hirschman,
Mr. Greg Kamptner, and Mr. Bill Mawyer were being recognized for their outstanding accomplishments
that led to the County receiving the Annual Innovation Award by the Chesapeake Bay Local Government
Advisory Committee. Albemarle County is one of only six communities out of 1,650 in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed area to receive the Community Innovation Award. The award recognizes the County for
the Comprehensive Water Protection Ordinance, which the Board adopted in February, 1998.
According to Mr. Tony Redman, Executive Director of the Chesapeake Bay Local Government
Advisory Committee, the County's Water Protection Ordinance was singled out for a Community
Innovation Award based on three criteria. Committee members found the project to be innovative, they
found the concept to be transferable to other communities, and they determined that the implementation of
the project has been successful and its impact meaningful.
The Water Protection Ordinance was developed during a three-year process which brought
together County staff, developers, design consultants, environmental groups and citizens. The ordinance
development group's goal was to bring all aspects of County water management efforts together into one
program governing erosion and sediment control, water quantity and quality control, and stream buffers.
Since its adoption last year, the Ordinance has been implemented for all development proposals.
Mr. Redman said the Ordinance has had a positive impact by protecting the stream quality in the
developing areas of the County, by addressing both runoff quality and stream channel erosion caused by
new construction and expansion projects. By protecting Albemarle streams and rivers, the Ordinance also
contributes to the ultimate protection of the Chesapeake Bay itself.
Mr. Mawyer said Mr. David Hirschman did most of the work of drafting the Ordinance, and that it is
an indication of the County's commitment to environmental protection. Mr. Martin said this is one of the
better things the County has done over the past several years.
Mr. Tucker introduced Mr. Steve Bowler as the County's new Watershed Manager. He will be
working in the Engineering Department, and with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent agenda.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve items 6.1 through
6.9 and to accept the remaining item for information. Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Item No. 6.1. Appropriation: Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund, $3,000.00 (Form #98050).
The executive summary states that the Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund was created in
September 1994, through a joint agreement between the County of Albemarle, the Charlottesville Housing
Foundation, and the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, as a means of providing financial
000274
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
assistance for housing projects "which benefit Iow and moderate income households". The agreement
states that "only projects within Albemarle County shall be eligible for such assistance"...and that
"assistance shall be in the form of loans, grants and equity contribution to qualifying projects...." The
agreement further states that "all Program Income from the Crozet Crossing project shall be deposited in
this Trust Fund." Through compounded interest and a resale, the balance as of December 28, 1998 is
approximately $26,300.
An unnamed Crozet Crossing family is presently facing foreclosure on their home as a result of
the loss of one income and ongoing medical bills. Following extended meetings with the County's
Comprehensive Housing Counselor, the family has established a workable budget, and has paid a total of
$2,236 in past and current monthly mortgage payments. They still owe a remainder of $3,000 to the
lender to avoid foreclosure on their Crozet Crossing home.
The Office of Housing requests a short-term loan from the Crozet Crossing Loan Fund to pay the
remaining $3,000 on behalf of the family. The Crozet Crossing Trust Fund Board of Trustees approved
using the Loan Fund monies for this purpose; however, to actually disperse the funds requires an
appropriation by the Board of Supervisors.
Housing staff believe prospects for repayment by the family to the Trust Fund are good. Since the
date of original default in June, when the family member lost her job due to medical reasons, she has
since secured full-time employment. The family is currently enrolled as clients of the Consumer Credit
Counseling Service (CCCS) of Virginia, Inc., for help in further reducing their debt burden. The family is
also scheduled to receive a lump sum disbursement through an upcoming settlement of a family estate,
anticipated by the estate lawyer to occur on or about the last day of September, 2000, which can be
pledged as collateral and guarantee of the proposed $3,000 note.
In keeping with the tenets of the Crozet Crossing Operating Agreement, that "no funds shall be
expended unless appropriated by the Board of Supervisors," and in acknowledgment of the County's
interest in encouraging and/or assisting home ownership among individuals of Iow- to moderate-income,
the Office of Housing recommends approval of a short-term loan to this Crozet Crossing family as
conditioned below:
Short-term loan from the Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund in the amount of $3,000, Amortiza-
tion at the rate of two percent over a period of ten years, with a balloon payment on or before
December 31, 2000.
By the above-shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 98/99
NUMBER: 98050
FUND: Crozet Crossings
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR HOME LOAN.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY
1 8515 81030 900000
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
LOAN $3,000.00
TOTAL $3,000.00
REVENUE
2 8515 51000 510100
DESCRIPTION
FUND BALANCE
AMOUNT
$3,000.00
TOTAL $3,000.00
Item No. 6.2. Appropriation: School Division, $10,478.72 (Form #98051).
The executive summary states that, at its meeting on December 14, 1998, the School Board
approved several appropriations. They include:
Appropriation of $200.00 for Albemarle County Schools. Nations Bank made a donation in the
amount of $200.00 to help defray the cost of the expenses incurred for the Fall Professional
Development Day held for teachers on October 9, 1998.
Appropriation of $7,500.00 for V. L. Murray Elementary School. V.L. Murray Elementary School
received a donation from V. L. Murray PTO in the amount of $2,500.00 and an anonymous
donation in the amount of $5,000.00. These donations will be used to help with the cost of the art
consultant and for the Fine Arts Program at the school.
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Appropriation of $1,000.00. Albemarle County Schools received a donation from Sprint for the
Monticello High School dedication. This donation will be used to help defray the costs for this
event.
Appropriation of $5,500.00 from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation. J.T. Henley Middle School
received a grant in the amount of $5,500.00 from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation. This grant
will provide Henley students with an interdisciplinary arts program. This will include three artists in
residency, which the entire school will participate in.
Reduction of appropriation of $24,678.72 for Regional Adult Education Specialist Grant. The
public School systems in Planning District 10, which consist of the Counties of Albemarle,
Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson and the City of Charlottesville, have entered into an
agreement to receive ancillary services for the adult education program within their localities.
Albemarle County Schools has served as the Administrative/Fiscal agency for these services. As
of October 1, 1998, these services were transferred to the Charlottesville City Schools. The funds
have been budgeted as part of the FY 98/99 Budget. All funds expended prior to October will be
reimbursed to the school system. Expenses and revenues for this grant should be reduced to
reflect only those expenses and revenues handled by Albemarle County. Overall the remaining
expenses and revenues of this fund are $7,693.28 to cover operations prior to
October 1.
Transfer of $5,000.00 from the School Board Reserve. The School Board approved the transfer
of $5,000.00 to help defray the cost of the Monticello High School Dedication.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations as detailed on Appropria-
tion #98051.
By the above-shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 98/99
NUMBER: 98051
FUND: Education
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS DONATIONS, GRANTS AND BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
1 2114 61311 580500 STAFF DEVELOPMENT $ 200100
1 2215 61101 580000 MISC. EXPENSE 7,500.00
2430 62150 580000 MISC. EXPENSE 1,000.00
1 3104 60252 312500 PROF. SERVICES 5,500.00
I 3132 63323 111400 SALARIES (14,765.75)
1 3132 63323 210000 FICA (1,142.51)
1 3132 63323 221000 VRS (2,880.00)
1 3132 63323 231000 HEALTH INS. (1,320.30)
1 3132 63323 232000 DENTAL INS. (39.62)
1 3132 63323 520000 COMMUNICATIONS (700.00)
1 3132 63323 520100 POSTAL SERVICES (800.00)
1 3132 63323 550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE (697.94)
1 3132 63323 550400 TRAVEL-EDUCATION (884.98)
1 3132 63323 580500 STAFF DEVELOPMENT (100.00)
1 3132 63323 601200 BOOKS/SUBSCRIPTIONS (60.00)
1 3132 63323 601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES (287.62)
1 3132 63323 601700 COPY SUPPLIES (1,000.00)
1 2430 62150 580000 MISC. EXPENSE 5,000.00
1 2410 60100 999981 BOARD RESERVE (5,000.00)
TOTAL ($10,478.72)
REVENUE
2 2000 18100 181109
2 2000 18100 181109
2 2000 18100 181109
2 3104 18000 181221
2 3132 24000 240252
DESCRIPTION
DONATION
DONATION
DONATION
FREDERICK UPTON GRANT
REGIONAL ADULT ED. GRANT
AMOUNT
$200.00
7,500.00
1,000.00
5,500.00
(24,678.72)
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
TOTAL ($10,478.72)
00027(;
Item No. 6.3. Appropriation: Community Services Act (CSA), $1,102,323 (Form #98052).
The executive summary states that the CSA Committee of the Commission on Children and
Families (CCF) requests supplemental funding for the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) Programs for
FY 1999. The total supplemental request is $1,733,949, of which 45 percent is local match, or $780,277.
Of the required supplemental local match, $161,735 is requested from the School Division to pay for
special education Costs associated with CSA children, and the remaining amount of $618,542 from
General Government Funds. Of the $618,542, the CCF had budgeted a reserve of $211,451, bringing
down the total local request to $407,092. In FY 1998, the County was required to pay an additional
$424,835 to fund the additional local required match for CSA services. That FY 1998 supplemental
appropriation was approved last June.
The CSA, implemented in 1995, is the primary funding source for at-risk children and families that
enter the foster care, residential special education or juvenile court systems. The fund is managed by the
CCF (formerly the Community Policy and Management Team or CPMT), comprised of the directors of
Social Services, Community Services Board, Department of Health, Court Services and Special
Education, along with specifically appointed community representatives. Children and families served with
these funds are mandated by the Code and include: 1) children placed for purposes of special education,
2) disabled children placed by local social services or the court in private residential facilities, and whose
Individual Education Program (IEP) indicates such schooling is appropriate and needed, 3) foster care
children and, 4) children and families served to prevent foster care placement. Additionally, certain groups
of children and families are considered targeted groups and include: 1) children placed by a juvenile and
domestic relations district court and, 2) children committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice and
placed in a private or locally-operated public facility or nonresidential program. These children are not
considered mandated, but could easily become mandated, if they are not served.
Although increases continue in special education, preventive foster care, and court-placed
children, the primary reason for the current supplemental ,request is the continued rise in foster care.
The CCF has taken several measures over the past few years to curtail spending in the program.
However, the driving forces behind the current increases are: 1) the number of children entering foster
care, 2) the severity of emotional and behavioral problems of the children, and 3) an increase in the
number of youth ages 13 and over requiring specialized care. Trends affecting the increasing costs
include the following: 21 children have been taken into care since July, 1998; of these, 12 represent five
sibling groups requiring specialized placement in order to enable the children to remain together.
Staff anticipates five more children who are currently supervised and placed by the Court Services
Unit in residential facilities will come into foster care because the CSA fund has run out of non-mandated
money. The only way for these children to continue to be served is to place them in foster care. The
percentage of cases requiring specialized care has grown steadily since 1994, costing the system an
average of $40,000 per year per child (an increase of $10,000 per year over 1997-98). Temporary care
for seriously emotionally disturbed children with a history of aggressiveness, chronic runaway behavior,
and/or suicidal behavior, can cost as much as $400 per day (up from $300 per day in FY 1997-98) to
maintain them in a secure setting in order to stabilize them enough to transition to a less restrictive and
less costly setting.
Increased costs are the result of vendor increased cost of doing business, There are often few
placement choices for many of these children, particularly for emergency care for aggressive behavior,
sexual offenders, or combined handicapping conditions of seriously emotionally disturbed and cognitively
impaired youth. There is an increase in the number of children coming from homes of parents with
addiction problems, or where the children have been prenatally exposed and/or negativity impacted by
substance abuse prior to removal. There is an increase in the number of foster care children that had
been served by public institutions in the past, had been funded through Medicaid, or had been incarcer-
ated, prior to the stringent criteria being applied now. For example, Medicaid criteria for acute psychiatric
care has narrowed so that children that once were able to be placed at DeJarnette Hospital for a longer
period of time are now only able to obtain a few days of care at the same facility - if they can get in at all.
They are discharged with continued acute needs as defined by the court or the community and must be
placed in some form of out of home setting, which usually ends up being foster care. There are increases
in the number of children requiring day treatment services that cannot be addressed in the public school
setting, children with autism being served in the community, and children requiring residential special
education services. In FY 1998, 39 children were placed in public or private residential or day treatment
programs (14 of which were foster care). Thus far in FY 1999, 39 children are also placed in these types
of facilities, with 14 of those 39 being in foster care.
The CCF believes the following factors contribute to the increases: 1) an increasing urbanized
population, 2) increase in overall population, and 3) a shift in family preservation efforts to shorter time
frames before removal. Other factors may include changes in the poverty population and fewer options
for local placements resulting in higher cost placements outside the community.
0OO 77
February 3, 1999 (Regu{ar Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
The CCF has implemented several cost control measures that are working well, but cannot be
effective in keeping costs down at the same time that there are dramatic increases in the numbers of
children being ordered into care either through court intervention, child protective service intervention
(which is often synonymous with court intervention), or through special education. Additionally, market
increases in vendor services impact the cost of caring for these children.
The CSA Committee instituted several policies in an attempt to control costs. All foster care
cases are referred to the state Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) for establishment of
support. Currently these cases represent 65 percent of the caseload. In FY 1998, DCSE collected
$10,430 in support. Since July 1998 they have collected $9,200, a 176 percent increase over this time
last year. Although the average collection is small ($200 to $300 monthly average) compared to the cost
of care, it still helps to defray the total cost of the child's care. All parents in non-foster care cases are
expected to contribute to the cost of care for their children. VVhile most parents are unable to contribute
significantly to the cost of services, it is policy that all should contribute based on ability to pay, however
limited. The pursuit of alternative funding sources is aggressively pursued. Federal IV-E foster care funds
pay for room, board and clothing for 55% of the current foster care caseload (down from 75 percent in FY
1998); Medicaid, private insurance, and SSI defray the costs of medical and psychological care in most
cases, depending on the vendor, and Juvenile Crime Control funding is used to the extent possible for
children served through the court services unit. The CCF has developed automated financial reports,
which enable it and its workgroups to track and analyze expenditures. Last year the CCF finalized a new
vendor contract with tighter specifications for fiscal accountability and reporting on services provided. The
CCF has developed a Utilization Review process (required by the General Assembly) that will review
cases on a severity scale to determine whether services are appropriate for the children.
Staff provided a list of the high cost foster care placements made by the Department of Social
Services, the School Division and the Court Services Unit this year. The behavioral and emotional
problems faced by these children are significant. Low-cost foster homes cannot be utilized as placements
for children with these types of needs, especially in the initial phase of their care. Additionally, lower-cost
home-based services are not available to assist with these children at this level of need. However, staff
anticipates the expanded use of Title IV-E federal funds to pay for some services for many of these
children as of January 1999, since 69 percent of the current foster care children who are in therapeutic
foster care are IV-E eligible. This change has been factored into the current supplemental request.
A JLARC study last year resulted in the General Assembly passing a bill that allows for the use of
Medicaid to pay for therapeutic foster care beginning in January 1999. However, DMAS did not finalize
the rules regarding rates and eligibility criteria timely and now federal approval has been delayed. Staff
anticipates the startup to take place in April 1999.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #98052 in the amount of $1,102,323, $695,232 in
State funds, and $407,091 in local dollars from the General Fund balance. A request will go to the School
Board on February 22, 1999, to approve the $161,735 transfer from the School Fund to the CSA fund for
the Special Education costs. If approved, the Board will be asked to approve the transfer appropriation in
March.
By the above-shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 98/99
NUMBER: 98052
FUND: CSA
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
SERVICES ACT.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR FY 1998/99 COMPREHENSIVE
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY
1 1551 53120 581101
1 1551 53120 581102
1 1551 53120 581201
1 1551 53120 581202
1 1551 53120 581203
1 1551 53120 581301
1 1551 53120 581501
DESCRIPTION
THERAP FC IV-E
THERAP FC OTHER
FAMILY FC IV-E
FAMILY FC-OTHER
FAM. FSTR CARE MAINT PAYMENT
FC PREVENTION
FC PREVENTION
AMOUNT
$45O,OOO.O0
500,000.00
13,661.00
50,000.00
13,662.00
35,000.00
40,000.00
TOTAL
$1,102,323.00
REVENUE
2 1551 24000 240609
2 1551 51000 512016
DESCRIPTION
STATE COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES
TRANSFER FROM GIF
AMOUNT
$695,232.OO
407,091.00
TOTAL
$1,102,323.00
TRANSFERS
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
1 1000 53013 571205
2 1000 51000 510100
SOCIAL SERVICES-TRS. TO CSA
FIG BALANCE
407,091.00
407,091.00
OOO2,73
Item No. 6.4. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1998.
The executive summary states that the FY 1997/98 audit field work and audit testing was
completed by Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, the County's external auditors.
The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was submitted to the Government Finance
Officers Association (GFOA) for the Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting. This award has been
received by the County for the last three years, and is coveted by localities throughout the United States
and Canada. Staff anticipates approval, and expects to receive notification within six months.
General Fund FY 1997/98 revenues were $113,525 less than budgeted, and expenditures were
$1,239,390 less than budgeted, resulting in an excess of revenues over expenditures of $1,125,865.
$817,444 of this amount was reappropriated in FY 1998/99 for uncompleted projects from FY 1997/98.
Due to reporting requirements which require that school activities be shown as a component unit
of local government, it is difficult to compare the audit amounts to the County's actual records. A number
of Federal Programs and self-sustaining activities are combined in the audit for reporting purposes. The
fund balance for the School Fund increased by $986,940 in FY 1997/98, primarily due to expenditures
being less than budgeted.
The Combined Balance Sheet in the Financial Section of the report details the assets, liabilities,
and fund balances for various funds as of June 30, 1998. The schedule below is intended to reconcile
these fund balances to those used in the monthly reports presented.
Fund Balances
General Capital - School Fund Capital - School
Fund General
$16,205,621 $ 7,354,752 $ 158,730,370
(141,733,371)
Per audit 06/30/98 ( 2,666,847)
Jail Reserve Fund (300,000)
Capital Projects (10,590,699) $10,590,699
Fire Service Fund (2,000,000)
Cafeteria Fund (643,044)
Storm Water Fund (927,985)
Combined Funds (378,117) 28,115
Inventory (51,806) (222,668)
Sales Tax Reserve (804,673) (586,978)
PREP Advance 107,953
Reserves - VDOT (500,000)
- Waldorf ( 2,500)
Adjusted Balances $14,874,757 $ 4,126,767 $ 1,908,646 $10,698,652
Staff recommends acceptance of the FY 1997/98 annual report.
By the above shown vote, the Board accepted the FY 1997198 annual report,
Item No. 6.5. FY 1999/2000 Revenue Projections Update.
The executive summary states that FY 1999/00 revenues, projected in October, 1998 at
$104,483,515, have been revised to $105,780,235, an increase of $1,296,720. Local tax revenues
increase overall by $960,185, the majority of which are general property tax revenues. General property
tax revenues were revised upwards by $947,085, and consist of an additional $671,800 in real estate tax
revenues, $100,200 in personal property tax revenues, and other miscellaneous increases. (The
increased real estate tax revenues reflect the impact of a 3.5 percent reassessment increase, over the
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) OO0~ #9
(Page 7)
preliminary 2.5 percent reassessment estimate used in October.) Other significant changes in local tax
revenues include a $163,000 increase in meals tax revenues, reflecting current activity and better
compliance, and a $373,600 decrease in sales tax receipts (attributed to the rapid growth of taxable sales
in the outlying localities). Other local revenues are projected to decline $143,925 from the October
estimates, reflecting a $239,500 decline in interest income (due to a change in the way interest income is
allocated among County funds), offset by small increases in permit and fee revenues, fines, charges for
service, and miscellaneous revenues. Finally, State and Federal revenues increase by $467,960,
reflecting a projected increase in social services revenues of $468,000, based on current year receipts.
Increases are summarized as follows. At this time, the revised revenue projections do not include
any additional state revenues proposed by Governor Gilmore to fully fund general government's 599
allocation or sheriff's deputy pay increases. These revenues, which could total $952,610, would provide
additional revenues for local government should they be approved by the General Assembly. Based upon
the normal allocation of local tax revenues, the School Division would receive an additional $536,907 in
local tax revenues for FY00 (60 percent), leaving $375,938 (40 percent) for General Government.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 1999/00 revised revenue projections and the allocation of
the additional local tax revenues between the School Division and General Government.
By the above shown vote, the Board approved the FY 1999100 revised revenue projections
and the allocation of the additional local tax revenues between the School Division and General
Government.
Item No. 6.6. Amendments to Albemarle County Personnel Policy, Section P-03, Employee
Grievances.
§ 15.2-1506 requires the Board to maintain a grievance procedure for its employees that affords
an immediate and fair method for the resolution of disputes which may arise in the workplace. The current
grievance procedure is set forth in § P-03 of the Albemarle County Personnel Policy. Currently, the
grievance procedure does not specify who is responsible for administration of grievances, nor does it
adequately address procedural matters relating to grievance hearings. In addition, current policy provides
for two separate reviews by the County Executive's Office, a practice which experience has proven to be
duplicative and unnecessary from both a management and employee perspective.
§ P-03 has been completely revised to address these issues. Major changes proposed are as
follows:
The Human Resources Department will serve as the impartial administrator of the policy.
Time frames for filing and appealing grievances have been modified and made consistent
at each stage. Specifically, the grievance must be filed within 20 calendar days after the
occurrence or event giving rise to the grievance, and the employee's supervisor must
respond within five calendar days. Current policy contains a mixture of calendar and
working days and has proven to be confusing for both sides.
The two levels of review in the County Executive's Office (currently, Steps 3 and 4) have
been combined into one (Step 3), giving the County Executive or his designee the
authority to review the grievance and meet with the employee. Current language giving
the employee the right to have legal counsel or other representative(s) and witnesses
present at this level has been retained.
The composition of the grievance panel has been modified to require that all three panel
members be employed by the County on a full-time basis in good standing. Experience
has shown that current policy has led to inordinate delays and inability to agree on the
third panel member, who must be chosen by agreement between the County and the
employee.
Procedures regarding conduct of the grievance hearing, including the order of presenta-
tion of evidence and related issues, have been specifically addressed and clarified.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed amendments to the County Personnel
Policy, to be effective upon passage.
Ms. Thomas said this appeared to be a large revision, and asked if there should be a public
hearing. Mr. Tucker said personnel policies are simply adopted by the Board, and do not require a public
hearing. He said changes were made to align the policy with state procedures and to streamline the
process.
Mr. Perkins asked if the policy has to be approved by the School Board. Mr. Davis said the
School Board has its own grievance process. Both the Employee Advisory Committee and Human
Resources Department have reviewed the policy and find it in order.
0007-,$0
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
By the above shown vote, the Board adopt the proposed amendments to the County
Personnel Policy, to be effective upon passage. The revised grievance procedure is as follows:
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
I. Objective
The purpose of the Albemarle County Grievance Procedure is to afford an immediate and impartial
method for the resolution of disputes that may arise between the County government and employees in
County service.
II. Coverage of Grievance Procedure
A. This procedure applies to all non-probationary employees in permanent full-time and
permanent part-time positions in:
1. Albemarle County;
2. the Department of Social Services of Albemarle County, in accordance with
Virginia Code § 15.2-1507(A)(4); and
3. the Charlottesville-Albemarle-University of Virginia Emergency Communications
Center.
B. This procedure shall not apply to the following employees:
1. Appointees of the Board of Supervisors;
2. Officials and employees who by law serve at the will or pleasure of the Board of
Supervisors or the County Executive;
3. Deputies and Assistants to the County Executive;
4. Department and agency heads;
5. Employees whose terms of employment are limited by law;
6. Employees in temporary, on-call or seasonal positions;
7. Probationary employees;
8. Any law enforcement officer whose grievance is subject to the provisions of
Virginia Code § 2.1-116.1 et seq. and who has elected to proceed pursuant to
those provisions in the resolution of his of her grievance; or
9. Any other employee who elects to proceed pursuant to any other existing proce-
dure in the resolution of his of her grievance.
C. The County Executive or his designee shall determine the officers and employees
excluded from the grievance procedure, pursuant to section II(B) above, and shall be
responsible for maintaining an up-to-date list of the affected positions (See Appendix 'P-
03-A, Positions Not Covered by the Grievance Procedure).
III. Definitions
County Attorney shall mean either the County Attorney or his designee.
County Executive shall mean either the County Executive or his designee.
Grievance shall mean a complaint or dispute by an employee eligible to use this procedure
relating to his or her employment, including but not limited to:
(a) disciplinary actions, including dismissals, demotions and suspensions, provided that
dismissals shall be grievable whenever resulting from formal discipline or unsatisfactory
job performance;
(b) the application of personnel policies, procedures, rules and regulations;
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
(c)
(d)
0002
acts of retaliation as the result of using the grievance procedure or of participation in the
grievance of another Albemarle County employee;
acts of retaliation because the employee has complied with any law of the United States
or of the Commonwealth, has reported any violation of such law to a governmental
authority, has sought any change in law before the Congress of the United States or the
General Assembly, or has reported an incidence of fraud, abuse, or gross mismanage-
ment; and
(e) complaints of discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, political affiliation, age,
disability, national origin or sex.
Grievant shall mean an eligible employee who has filed a complaint under this procedure.
Human Resources Director shall mean either the Human Resources Director or his designee.
Management shall mean the Board of Supervisors and its designees who establish policy for
Albemarle County.
IV. Management Responsibilities
Management retains the exclusive right to manage the affairs and operations of County govern-
ment. Accordingly, the following complaints are nongrievable:
(a) establishment and revision of wages or salaries, position classification or general benefits;
(b)
work activity accepted by the employee as a condition of employment or work activity
which may reasonably be expected to be a part of the job content;
(c)
the contents of ordinances, statutes or established personnel policies, procedures, rules
and regulations;
(d)
failure to promote except where the employee can show that established promotional
policies or procedures were not followed or applied fairly;
(e)
the methods, means and personnel by which or by whom work activities are to be carried
out;
(f)
termination, layoff, demotion or suspension from duties because of lack of work, reduction
in work force, or job abolition, except where such action affects an employee who has
been reinstated within the previous six months as the result of the final determination of a
grievance;
(g)
the hiring, promotion, transfer, assignment and retention of employees within the County;
and
(h) the relief of employees from duties of the County in emergencies.
In any grievance brought under the exception to § IV(f) above, the County's action shall be upheld
upon a showing by the County that: (I) there was a valid business reason for the action, and (ii) the
employee was notified of the reason in writing prior to the effective date of the action.
V. Human Resources Department Responsibilities
The County Human Resources Department shall serve as an impartial administrator of this
process. Upon the filing of a grievance, the Human Resources Department shall do the following:
(a) open a file and assign a number to the grievance;
(b) ensure that all parties are aware of the process;
(c)
(d)
monitor procedures and time frames;
notify either party of noncompliance;
(e) be informed of the status of the grievance by both parties at each step;
(f) maintain appropriate documentation; and
(g) perform ail other responsibilities as specified in this Procedure.
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
VI. Grievance Procedure Generally
A. For purposes of this procedure, "days" shall be defined as calendar days and time periods
shall begin to run on the day following that on which any action is taken or report rendered, without regard
to weekends or County-observed holidays. If a time period specified in this procedure ends on a weekend
or holiday, the last day of the time period shall be the end of the first business day following the weekend
or holiday. For example, a written grievance under Step 1 must be presented to the grievant's immediate
supervisor within five (5) days of the supervisor's verbal reply to the informal grievance. The five (5) days
shall begin to run on the day after receipt of the supervisor's verbal reply and shall terminate on the fifth
day following. If the fifth day is a weekend or holiday, the time period shall terminate at the end of the next
full business day.
B. Time limits established under this procedure are intended to be strictly construed and
enforced. However, in the interests of fairness, such time limits may be extended if both parties agree to
such extensions in writing.
C. All stages of this procedure beyond Step 1 shall be reduced to writing on forms supplied
by the Human Resources Department. At Step 3 and above, the grievant may, at his option, choose to
have a representative of his choice, including legal counsel. If the grievant is represented by legal counsel
or other person(s), the County likewise has the option of being represented by legal counsel, provided that
a person may not serve as both a witness and a representative at any Step under this procedure.
D. The grievant shall bear any and all costs involved in employing representation and
preparing his case at all steps of this procedure, including but not limited to attorneys' fees and expenses
and any costs of judicial filings or appeals.
E. After the initial filing of a written grievance, failure of either party to comply with all
substantial procedural requirements of this procedure, without just cause, shall result in a decision in favor
of the other party on any grievable issue, provided that the noncomplying party fails to correct the
noncompliance within five (5) days of receipt of written notification by the other party of the compliance
violation. However, the right of the grievant to correct compliance violations shall not apply to any
determinations under Steps 1 through 3, or to grievability determinations, provided that the grievant has
previously received written notice of the applicable deadlines for appealing such determinations at the time
the determination was rendered but has failed to respond in a timely fashion.
F. The County Executive may require a clear written explanation of the basis for any
requests for just cause extensions or exceptions, and shall determine all compliance issues. Such
determinations by the County Executive are subject to appeal by the grievant by filing a petition with the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty (30) days of the compliance determination. The grievant
shall be solely responsible for filing such petition.
VII. Grievability
A. Decisions regarding grievability, including the question of access to this procedure, shall
be made by the County Executive. Grievability decisions shall be made at the request of the grievant or
his department head or immediate supervisor within ten (10) days of such request. A copy of the County
Executive's decision concerning grievability shall be sent to the grievant, to the department head and/or
immediate supervisor and to the Human Resources Director.
B. Decisions by the County Executive that an issue or complaint is not grievable may be
appealed by the grievant to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County for a hearing de novo on the issue of ·
grievability as provided in Virginia Code § 15.2-1507(A)(9). Proceedings for the review of the County
Executive's decision regarding grievability shall be instituted by filing a notice of appeal with the County
Executive within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of the decision and giving a copy thereof to all other
parties. Within ten (10) days thereafter, the County Executive shall transmit to the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County a copy of his decision, a copy of the notice of appeal, and any exhibits that
may have been provided in connection with the resolution of the issue of grievability. A list of the evidence
furnished to the court shall also be furnished to the grievant.
C. The failure of the County Executive to transmit the record shall not prejudice the rights of
the grievant. If the County Executive fails to transmit the record within the time required, the Circuit Court,
on motion of the grievant, may issue a writ of certiorari requiring the County Executive to transmit the
record on or before a certain date.
D. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of such records by the clerk, the Circuit Court, sitting
without a jury, shall hear the appeal on the record transmitted by the County Executive and such
additional evidence as may be necessary to resolve any controversy as to the correctness of the record.
The Court, in its discretion, may receive such other evidence as the ends of justice require. The Court
may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the County Executive. The decision of the Court shall be
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) OOO '~3
(Page 11)
rendered no later than the fifteenth (15th) day from the date of the conclusion of the hearing. The decision
of the Court is final and is not appealable.
E. The issue of grievability may be raised at any step of the Grievance Procedure prior to the
panel hearing provided in Section XII of this procedure, or it shall be waived by all parties. Once raised,
the issue shall be resolved before further processing of the complaint. A request that grievability be
determined shall toll the time limits under this procedure. Time limits shall begin to run again the day after
the decision on grievability is made by the County Executive or the Circuit Court.
F. The classification of a complaint as nongrievable by either the County Executive or the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County shall not be construed to restrict any employee's right to seek, or
management's right to provide, customary administrative review of complaints outside the Scope of the
Grievance Procedure.
VIII. Consolidation of Grievances
If more than one grievance is filed arising from the same factual circumstances, the County
Executive may, at any time prior to a panel hearing, consolidate those grievances for joint processing,
including grievability determinations. If consolidation occurs, all time limits set forth in this procedure shall
thereafter be calculated from the date of the last filed grievance. Once consolidated, the grievances shall
all be processed as a single matter pursuant to this procedure.
IX. Step 1 Procedure: Immediate Supervisor Level
A. No later than twenty (20) days after the occurrence or condition giving rise to the
grievance, the employee affected shall identify the grievance verbally to his immediate supervisor. Within
five (5) days of such identification, the immediate supervisor shall give his response to the employee with
respect to the particular grievance. The failure of an employee to identify the grievance within the time
specified above shall constitute a forfeiture and a waiver of any rights to proceed further and shall
terminate the grievance.
B. If a satisfactory resolution is not reached by this informal process, the employee shall
notify the Human Resources Department of the intent to file a grievance and shall obtain a copy of
Grievance Form A (See Appendix to the Grievance Procedure). The employee shall reduce the grievance
to writing on Grievance Form A, identifying specifically and in detail the nature of the grievance and the
requested remedy. Should he prevail in the grievance, an employee is entitled only to the relief specifi-
cally requested (see also Section XV for discussion of Grievance Panel decisions). Such written
grievance shall be presented to the immediate supervisor within five (5) days of the supervisor's verbal
reply to the oral grievance. The supervisor shall then reply in writing to this written grievance within five
(5) days of receiving it.
C. If the employee's supervisor is also his department/agency head, he shall pass by Step 2
of this procedure and proceed immediately to Step 3. If the employee's supervisor is the County
Executive, he shall pass by Step 3 and proceed immediately to Step 4.
X. Step 2 Procedure: Department/Agency Head
If a satisfactory resolution is not reached at the conclusion of Step 1 as outlined above in Section
IX, the grievant shall have the right to appeal as follows. Within five (5) days following receipt of the Step
I(B) written reply, the grievant shall notify his department/agency head and the Human Resources
Department in writing on Grievance Form A that resolution has not occurred and shall supply the reasons
why the grievant believes that resolution has not occurred. The department/agency head shall schedule
and hold a meeting with the grievant to review the grievance within five (5) days of receipt of such
submission, or on such other date as the parties may mutually agree. The only persons who may be
present at this meeting are the grievant and the department/agency head. The meeting may be adjourned
to another time or place by agreement of the parties. A written reply to the grievance shall be provided to
the employee and the Human Resources Department within five (5) days after the meeting.
XI. Step 3 Procedure: County Executive Level
A. If a satisfactory resolution is not reached at the termination of Step 2 as outlined above in
Section X, the grievant shall notify the Human Resources Department, indicate on Grievance Form A that
resolution has not occurred and submit the grievance to the Deputy County Executive within five (5) days
following receipt of the Step 2 reply. The County Executive or his designee shall schedule and hold a
meeting with the grievant to review the grievance within ten (10) days of receipt of such submission, or on
such other date as the parties may mutually agree.
B. The grievant may have legal representation or another representative present at the Step
3 meeting. If the grievant is represented by legal counsel or another representative, the County Executive
000234
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
may also have legal counsel or another representative present. The grievant shall inform the County in
writing of the name of his legal counsel or other representative at least two (2) days prior to the Step 3
meeting. Either party may call appropriate witnesses, who shall be present only while actually providing
testimony. The County Executive or designee shall, in his sole discretion, determine whether the
testimony of witnesses is relevant or, if witnesses have testified, whether additional testimony by other
witnesses is necessary.
C. A written reply to the grievance shall be provided to the grievant and the Human
Resources Department within five (5) days after the Step 3 meeting, or on such other date as the parties
may mutually agree.
XII. Step 4 Procedure: Grievance Panel
A. If a satisfactory resolution is not reached at the termination of Step 3 as outlined above in
Section XI, the grievant shall notify the Human Resources Department, indicate on Grievance Form A that
resolution has not occurred and request a hearing before a Grievance Panel ("Panel"). The request shall
be submitted to the Human Resources Director within five (5) days following receipt of the Step 3 reply.
B. An impartial Grievance Panel shall be constituted and selected for each grievance
hearing. The Human Resources Director shall arrange for the Panel selection. If the Human Resource
Director is a party to the grievance, the request form shall be submitted to the County Executive, who shall
make the necessary arrangements.
XIII. Composition of the Grievance Panel
A. The Panel shall be composed of three (3) members who are County employees (except
as provided under paragraphs C or D of this section) and who shall be chosen in the following manner:
one member shall be appointed by the grievant, one member shall be appointed by the County Executive
and a third member shall be selected by the first two Panel members. All Panel members must be
employed on a full-time basis in good standing by the County at the time of selection and hearing. To
ensure an objective, impartial Panel, no persons having direct involvement with the grievance being heard
by the Panel, or with the complaint or dispute giving rise to the grievance, shall serve on the Panel.
Managers who are in a direct line of supervision of a grievant, persons residing in the same household as
the grievant and the following relatives of a participant in the grievance process or a participant's spouse
are prohibited from serving as panel members: spouse, parent, child, descendants of a child, sibling,
niece, nephew and first cousin.
B. Both the grievant and the County Executive shall make their appointments to the Panel
within five (5) days after the request for a panel hearing is filed. The Human Resources Director shall be
notified of the appointments on Grievance Form B (See Appendix 8-B Grievance Form). The two panel
members chosen by the grievant and County Executive shall select the third panel member within ten (10)
days after the request for a panel hearing is filed and shall notify the Human Resources Director of their
selection. Unless it is necessary to involve the Circuit Court in the selection of the third member, a
complete panel shall be selected within ten (10) days after the request for a panel hearing is filed.
C. In all cases where the first two members cannot reach an agreement as to the third
member within ten (10) days, the Human Resources Director, after confirming such fact, shall immediately
notify the County Attorney's Office, who shall request the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County to appoint the third member pursuant to the selection procedures outlined in paragraph A of this
section. Such third panel member appointed by the Court must be employed on a full-time basis in good
standing by the County at the time of appointment and hearing, unless the County and the grievant
mutually agree in advance to permit the selection of a non-County employee as the third panel member.
In the event that the third member selected by the Court is a non-County employee, the County and
grievant shall share equally in the costs and expenses, if any, of such third panel member.
D. The County, at its sole option, may use an administrative hearing officer in employee
termination or retaliation cases. When the County elects to use an administrative hearing officer as the
third panel member in an employee termination or retaliation case, the administrative hearing officer shall
be appointed by the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court. The appointment shall be made from the
list of administrative hearing officers maintained by the Executive Secretary pursuant to Va. Code §
9-6.14:14.1. If the County elects to use an administrative hearing officer, it shall bear the expense of such
officer's services.
E. In all cases, the third member shall serve as chairperson of the panel. The chairperson
shall set the time for the hearing and notify the Human Resources Director, who shall in turn notify the
grievant, County Executive and County Attorney. The grievant and the County Executive shall each be
responsible for arranging the presence of their respective witnesses. The hearing shall be held as soon
as possible after the date of the original request for a hearing, allowing sufficient time for access to
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
records as specified in paragraph F below.
his choice present at the Panel hearing.
0002 .
Either party may have an attorney or other representative of
F. The Human Resources Director shall provide the Panel with copies of the grievance
record prior to the hearing, and provide the grievant with a list of documents furnished to the Panel. At
least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, the grievant and his attorney or other representative shall be
allowed access to and copies of all relevant documents intended by the County to be used in the hearing.
At least five (5) days prior to the hearing, the grievant and the County shall exchange lists of witnesses
and exhibits to be called or introduced at the proceeding.
XIV. Conduct of Grievance Panel Hearing
A. The Panel is constituted solely for the purpose of determining whether a grievance filed
by an employee is substantiated and what remedy, if any, should be provided. The Panel may not
formulate or change County policy, rules or procedures. The Panel shall determine whether the grievant
has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the action complained of was without cause,
or done in violation of a law, rule, regulation or other policy. The Panel shall not otherwise substitute its
judgment for that of management.
B. The Panel shall conduct the hearing as follows:
At the request of either party, the hearing shall be private and limited to the
grievant, the Panel members, the legal counsel or other representative of the
grievant and the County, appropriate witnesses as they testify, and any court
reporters or other official recorders of the hearing. At the request of either party,
witnesses shall be separated from the hearing room and allowed to be present
only during the time that they actually testify.
The Panel shall consider the grievance without regard to any proposed disposi-
tion (including offers of settlement) by any lower authority, unless the grievant and
the County Executive shall agree in writing that the issue(s) shall be so limited. In
all other cases, the Panel shall consider the matter as if presented to it in the first
instance.
The Panel may at any time ask the parties or their representatives for statements
clarifying the issues involved in the grievance.
Exhibits, when offered by the grievant or the County, may be received as evi-
dence by the Panel, and when so received shall be marked and made a part of
the record.
°
Both parties shall have the right to make opening statements, starting with the
grievant. After opening statements, the order of the hearing shall be as follows:
the grievant shall proceed first, and shall bear the ultimate burden of persuasion.
At the conclusion of the grievant's evidence, the County shall have the opportu-
nity to present its evidence. At the conclusion of the County's presentation, the
Chairperson shall specifically inquire of all parties whether they have any further
evidence to offer or witnesses to be heard. Upon receiving a negative response,
the Chairperson shall permit the parties to summarize their cases (beginning with
the grievant) and shall then declare the hearing closed.
o
Both parties have the right to offer evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and
shall produce such additional evidence as the Panel deems necessary for
understanding and ruling upon the dispute. There shall be no formal rules of
evidence at the hearing; however, the Panel shall have the right to determine the
relevancy of any evidence offered. All evidence shall be taken in the presence of
the Panel and the parties, except by mutual consent of the parties.
The hearing may be reopened by the Panel on its own motion or upon application
of either party for good cause shown at any time before a final decision is made.
Upon the request of the Panel, the County or the grievant, the Human Resources
Director shall insure that a verbatim record of the hearing is made and retained in
his custody for not less than 12 months. The record may be in writing or by a
taped recording. The party requesting the record shall bear the costs of prepara-
tion and transcription, including any costs associated with attendance of a court
reporter. If both the grievant and the County request such a record, they shall
share equally in all costs incurred.
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) O(}O~3(~
(Page 14)
9. The Human Resources Director or his designee may be called upon by the Panel
or either party as a witness at any time to provide specific policy interpretation or
clarification of applicable County policy and these procedures.
10.
In any matters not covered by this section, the Panel shall determine the applica-
ble procedures to be followed.
XV. Decision of Grievance Panel Hearinq
A. The decision of the Panel shall be filed in writing by the Chairperson with the County
Executive and the grievant no later than twenty (20) days after the completion of the hearing. The
decision shall summarize the grievance and the evidence, shall make specific findings of fact, and shall
state in full the reasons for the decision, and the remedy (if any) to be granted. Decisions shall be made
by majority vote of the entire Panel. The decision of the Panel shall be final and binding and shall be
consistent with law and written policy.
B. The question of whether the relief granted by the Panel is consistent with written policy
shall be determined by the County Executive, or his designee, unless such person has a direct personal
involvement with the event or events giving rise to the grievance, in which case the decision shall be made
by the Commonwealth's Attorney of Albemarle County. The County Executive or Commonwealth's
Attorney shall request the Panel to reconsider any decision which in his judgment is inconsistent with the
laws or written policy applicable to grievance resolution. He shall not disturb any decision consistent with
the laws or written policy.
C. If the Panel determines that the grievant prevails on any grievable complaint or dispute, it
may remedy that complaint or dispute by ordering that the grievant be reinstated to a former position;
awarding back pay; or ordering expungement of information contained in the grievant's personnel file(s)
maintained by the County Human Resources Department or individual department; or rendering opinions
specifying the application or interpretation of County personnel policies and procedures as they may relate
to the specific facts of the grievance. The grievant shall not, however, be entitled to any relief that he has
not specifically requested in the original written grievance form, unless the parties have mutually agreed
otherwise as to alternative relief.
D. If, in response to a grievable complaint or dispute, the Panel finds that a department head
or other County official failed to follow established procedures governing promotion, demotion, transfer,
hiring or layoff, the Panel shall remand the grievance back to the department head or official with
instructions that the actions taken be rescinded, and proper procedures be followed for the matter at
issue. In connection with such remand, the Panel may make appropriate provisional orders concerning
the case.
XVI. Implementation of Grievance Panel Decision
A. The County Executive shall implement any remedy that may be ordered by the Panel,
provided that such remedy is consistent with applicable law and County personnel policies. If the County
Executive determines that the Panel decision is not consistent with applicable law or County personnel
policies, the following steps shall be taken:
the County Executive shall inform the Panel and the grievant of his determination
within ten (10) days of his receipt of the Panel--s written decision; and
2. the County Executive shall not implement the decision of the Panel.
B. Either party may petition the Albemarle County Circuit Court for an order requiring
implementation of the Panel decision. The review of the Circuit Court shall be limited to the question of
whether the panel's decision is consistent with provisions of law and written policy.
Item No. 6.7. Request to proceed with installation of Pedestrian/Security Lighting along Hydraulic
Road, Commonwealth Drive and Whitewood Road (Capital Improvement Projects).
The executive summary states that the subject lighting projects are part of the Capital Improve-
ment Program previously proposed by staff and approved by the Board. They are recommended to
address the increasing need for pedestrian/security lighting in a densely populated area of the County.
Funds are budgeted for the installation and operation of these lighting projects.
The following Capital Improvement Projects are proposed: Hydraulic Road to Turtle Creek
Entrance, Inglewood Road to Georgetown Road, Georgetown Road to main entrance of Albemarle High
School, main entrance of Albemarle High School to Whitewood Road, walkway bordering the Whitewood
Road trail, and the intersection at hydraulic Road and Earlysville Road.
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
The affected property owners were invited to an information session held at Jack Jouett Middle
School on December 10,1998. Approximately 15 people attended that public meeting, which provided
information describing the number of lights, lumens, and location of the lighting projects. All light fixtures
to be installed will be fully shielded in compliance with the Lighting Ordinance. There were no objections
to the lighting projects from those attending this meeting.
Staff recommends the lighting projects proceed into construction this Spring.
By the above shown vote, the Board approved the lighting projects as listed and to
proceed into construction this Spring.
Item No. 6.8. ZTA-98-08. Tower Fees (Planning Commission's recommendation on proposal to
increase fees for review of personal wireless service facilities).
The executive summary states that the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
January 12, 1999, reviewed staff's proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance in order to amend the fee
collected to cover the cost of reviewing applications for special use permits for personal wireless service
facilities and the cost of associated advertising. At that time, the Commission recommended that the
Board of Supervisors defer action on this Zoning Text Amendment until the Board adopts a wireless
telecommunications policy. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation and presents
the recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board at this time for review.
Staff recommends that the Board concur with the Planning Commission and defer action on the
Zoning Text Amendment until such time as the Board adopts a wireless telecommunications policy. Policy
recommendations are expected in late Spring.
Ms. Thomas said the Planning Commission rejected the Board's idea of having a tier fee
schedule. She said she wonders what recourse the Board has when faced with an application which
requires technical assistance. Mr. Bowerman said the Board can defer any decision until it gets needed
information. Mr. Davis said the Commission suggested waiting until the Kreines & Kreines study was
further along to make a better determination about the fees. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission did not
know enough about the subject at this point. He said at the previous evening's Commission meeting there
was a towers request, and the Commission questioned whether it could ask Kreines & Kreines about the
application. He said staff will do so before the application reaches the Board.
Staff provided a request for approval of basic standards for submitals, which was endorsed by the
Commission. Mr. Tucker said Kreines & Kreines has a different approach as to how to address the towers
issues. It makes sense not to adopt a fee schedule at this point because it might have to be adjusted
later.
It was the consensus of the Board to defer a decision on a fee schedule for towers until
such time as the Board adopts a wireless telecommunications policy, and to endorse staff's
recommend policy for submittal standards for personal wireless service facilities with changes.
Staff's recommended policies are contained in Attachment A of the staff report titled "Minimum Submittal
Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities" (on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of
the record). Changes are as follow:
Delete references to tiers under title;
Change (13) to state, "provide a certified statement from a licensed engineer/surveyor indicating
the height of the tallest tree within 20 feet of the proposed facility"; and
Change (14) to state, "The following information shall be provided...".
Item No. 6.9. SP-98-61. Triton Communications (deferred to February 10, 1999).
At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred SP-98-61 until February 10, 1999.
Item No. 6.10. Monthly Bond and Program Report for Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road
Apts) for the month of December, 1998, was received for information.
000 3 $
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Item No. 6.11. Letter dated January 20, 1999, from Mr. Jay Roberts, Environmental Engineer
Senior, to the Honorable Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., re: Permit Modification Request for VWPP No. 97-1961,
North Fork Research Park, Albemarle County, was received for information.
"The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has received a request to modify a
Virginia Water Protection Permit (VWPP) for a project in your locality. The applicant is
University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation. The applicant is requesting that DEQ
revise the wetland mitigation schedule requirements contained in the existing VWPP
which was originally issued on April 27, 1998. The permittee has not requested a revision
of any other aspect of previously authorized activities which include construction of ten
road crossings of streams, one stream channel realignment for road construction, four
storm water management ponds, and expansion of one existing pond for aesthetic
purposes to serve north Fork Research Park located in Albemarle County, Virginia. This
letter is being sent for your information as required by Section 62.1-44.15:4.D of the Code
of Virginia.
DEQ will review the permit modification request and will propose to draft a modified
VWPP for the proposed impacts to State waters. A public notice will appear in the Daily
Progress announcing our intention to issue the modified permit and inviting public
comment on the content of the permit within approximately 60 days of your receipt of this
letter. This public comment period will run for 30 days from the date the notice first
appears in the newspaper. In the meantime, the public is welcome to review the permit
application at our office during normal business hours.
Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions about this notification."
Ms. Humphris said when getting such a letter, the Board needs more information about
exactly what is being requested. Mr. Tucker said normally this falls under Mr. Hirschman's
review; Mr. Hirschman researches the matter and replies to the permit. He said Mr. Hirschman
could report to the Board before making such a response, if that was the Board's wish.
Mr. Martin said it would have been good for staff to provide comments. Mr. Tucker said
Mr. Hirschman does not have the information yet, and is researching the matter. He will advise
the Board when there is something to report.
Item No. 6.12. Letter dated December 1, 1998, from Ms. Ruth DePiro, President, Our Lady of
Peace, to the Honorable Charles S. Martin, re: agreement regarding assisted living care, was received for
information.
Item No. 6.13. Monthly update on the FY 1998/99 Project Schedule for the Department of
Engineering & Public Works as of January 26, 1999, was received for information.
Mr. Martin noted that Wilton Farm Apartments' sidewalks are scheduled to be completed in 2000.
Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering, said staff has investigated that request, which will cost $400,000
to complete. The County does not have money for this project in the Sidewalk Fund. Planning staff has
requested that TEA-21 funds be used to fund the project. The project remains on the list, but has been
pushed out for one year in hopes that TEA-21 funds will be provided.
Ms. Humphris said there is a request in the in Six-Year Primary Plan to widen Route 20 North; she
requested additional information. Mr. Cilimberg said this project is only in the suggestion stage.
Ms. Humphris asked whether this project, if put into the Six-Year Plan, would be combined with the
sidewalk project. Mr. Cilimberg said if the widening of Route 20 is years down the road, the County may
want to proceed with sidewalks in another fashion. Mr. Mawyer said staff had hoped the project could be
completed for $100,000, but found that a large amount of grading will be required, so the cost escalated.
Item No. 6.14. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for January 5 and January 12, 1999,
were received for information.
Item No. 6.15. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service
Authority for November 19, 1998, was received for information.
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Item No. 6.16. Letter dated January 28, 1999, from Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Highway
Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, re: transportation matters discussed at previous Board meetings, was
received for information.
"We offer the following comments regarding transportation matters that were discussed at
previous Board meetings.
The deed for dedication of right of way along Grassmere Road (Route
679) has been forwarded to Westvaco for signature.
Broad Axe Road (Route 682) has been posted for a 35 mph speed limit.
(I have contacted Mr. Mart Sataro and advised him of outcome.)
We have scheduled brush cutting along Broad Axe Road (Route 682)
and will advise the Board when this is complete.
We are working with the County Police to consider camera surveillance at
major intersections for purposes of traffic control and enforcement. I will
keep the Board apprised of this potential pilot program.
We are developing signage to alert large trucks not to use Route 637
from 1-64 to route 250. These signs should be installed within the next 3
to 4 weeks.
The Gateway Program never "got off the ground" and is no longer in use.
Similar projects are now eligible for ISTEA funds.
Information regarding the Department's Y2K efforts on signalization has
been forwarded electronically to Mr. Robert tucker. Test plans are used
for each piece of equipment. Manufacturer's certification indicating that
products are compliant are also being inventoried. Official recordS are
being kept in our Central Office in Richmond.
The study for a multi-STOP at Grassmere Road (Route 679) and
Morgantown Road (Route 738) should be completed within the next
month. I will advise the Board when the study is complete.
The annual Primary Preallocation Hearing is scheduled for Monday,
March 15, 1999, at 9 a.m. in Culpeper."
Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: March 18(A), 1996; December 3, 1997;
March 18, August 5, October 7, October 21 and December 2, 1998.
Mr. Perkins read the minutes of December 3, 1997 and approved them as read; Mr. Martin read
the minutes of October 7, 1998 and approved them as read; Mr. Bowerman read the minutes of
October 21, 1998 and approved them as read; and Mr. Marshall read the minutes of December 2, 1998
and approved them as read.
Ms. Humphris made the motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the minutes of
October 7, 1998, October 21, 1998, and December 2, 1998, as read. Roll was called and the motion
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8a. Transportation Matters. Discussion: Albemarle County Six Year Primary
Road Improvement Plan - Statement for 1999 Primary Road Plan Preallocation Public Hearing in
Culpeper.
Mr. Cilimberg said the public hearing will be held March 15, 1999, when the Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDOT) will conduct its annual pre-allocation hearing in Culpeper for improvements to
the interstate and primary system for the Culpeper District. All roads with route numbers below 600 are
primary roads (i.e., Route 29, Route 250).
000290
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
The Six-Year Primary Road Plan process differs from the Secondary Road Plan process in that a
specific amount of funds are set aside for secondary road projects in the County, whereas funds for
primary road projects are allocated for each construction district, and all primary road projects proposed
within all localities of the district compete for those funds. The Culpeper District includes Albemarle,
Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Madison, Orange and Rappahannock Counties.
The purpose of this review process by the Board of Supervisors is to recommend which County
projects to include in the Primary Plan for the District. The County has suggested improvement priorities
for the primary system for the Culpeper District. This draft is based on the County's 1998 priority list with
modifications proposed by staff. Changes proposed by staff include: 1) general update of status of
previously prioritized projects, 2) the addition of the widening of Route 20 North from north of Route 250
East to the Elks Drive/Fontana Drive intersection as an STP project; and, 3) adding the completion of the
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation trail as an Enhancement project.
Staff can modify the draft based On the Board's comments and provide a final draft for review and
approval at a future Board meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if the following project list represented the Board's wishes.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1999 SPRING
PRE-ALLOCATION MEETING FOR THE INTERSTATE, PRIMARY, AND URBAN SYSTEMS, AND FOR
MASS TRANSIT
RECOMMENDED ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITIES
The following addresses Albemarle County's priorities for each allocation of the Intermodal
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and each sub-allocation of the Surface Transportation Program
(STP) funds.
Surface Transportation Propram (STP)
Standard Projects:
The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds not set aside. The County
supports these projects as referenced.
1)
Undertake those Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) projects eligible for the
primary program in sequence as called for in the February 2, 1992 joint resolution
between the City, County and University and agreed to by VDOT. In addition to Route 29
improvements already underway, construct Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250
Bypass to Route 29 North. The Parkway is the County's next highest priority project, and
is of the utmost importance in order to maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29
and to improve the overall roadway system serving the urbanizing area north of the City.
The first phase of this project from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in
the County's secondary program. In an effort to further this project, the County is also
receiving funding within its Secondary Priority Plan for planning and design of the
Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29 North. County staff is working
closely with VDOT staff to get the design process underway. However, it is not possible
to construct this project within a reasonable time frame solely with secondary funding due
to the cost and dramatic impact it will have on the timing for completion of other important
secondary projects. The County believes the Parkway will meet the criteria for inclusion in
the primary system. With the Commonwealth Transportation Board's decision to
eliminate the Route 29 interchanges, the County believes primary funds should be
redirected to the Parkway and wants to work with VDOT staff to evaluate construction of
subsequent phases as a primary road, provided it will accelerate the Parkway's comple-
tion. VDOT is urged to investigate all possible funding sources to achieve the quickest
construction of this vitally important roadway. Other projects listed in CATS in the
northern study area also should be actively pursued and completed. These projects
include the Airport Road improvements and the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Connector. Road. The
County also supports any initiatives to re-open consideration of the Route 29 inter-
changes at Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Rio Road, possibly under modified
design concepts.
0002.,9
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
2)
The County is closely following the Route 29 Corridor Study. The Route 29 North
Corridor Study recommendations were forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation
Board two years ago with the County's endorsement. The recommendations emphasized
use of an access management approach in lieu of a limited access road design. The
County feels these recommendations should be the basis in developing plans for the third
phase of the Route 29 widening project from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the
Airport/Proffit Road intersection. County staff comments on the preliminary plans for this
section of road have consistently supported this approach in lieu of a limited access
design. The Route 29 South Corridor Study continues. The County appreciates efforts
that have been made in this process to receive public input, including an early December
public hearing in Albemarle County. The County continues to hope that the study will be
truly multi-modal in scope and give particular consideration to the benefits of rail service
to the corridor.
3)
The County supports the "Bristol Rail Passenger Study" and recommends that it be
seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the issues and recommenda-
tions identified in the Route 29 North Corridor Study and being considered in the Route 29
South Corridor Study.
4)
Undertake the widening of Route 20 south from 1-64 to Mill Creek Drive that serves the
traffic from Monticello High School. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into
these improvements.
5)
Undertake road projects parallel to the Route 29 North Corridor that will relieve traffic on
Route 29.
6)
Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into all parallel street improvements
associated with the Route 29 from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport
Rd./Proffit Rd.
7)
Widen Route 250 west from Emmet Street to the Route 29~250 Bypass. This section is
covered by a joint design study by the City, County and University of Virginia and was
recognized for improvement in the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study. The joint study
should be used as a guide in developing the widening plans. The remaining portion of
Rt.. 250 West to Yancey Mills (the 1-64/route 250 interchange) is now under study by
VDOT with a local advisory committee to determine long term needs for this road. VDOT
will also conduct a similar study of Rt... 250 East from Free Bridge to the Fluvanna County
line. The County supports and appreciates this effort and encourages continued public
participation and consideration of recommendations.
8)
Finish the VDOT corridor study of Route 240 in Crozet and improve Route 240 in accord
with County recommendations regarding this study.
9)
Undertake imProvements of Fontaine Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to the improve-
ments along the frontage of the University Real Estate Foundation development. The
County supports the recommendations identified by the Fontaine Avenue Task Force.
10)
Undertake improvements to the Bellair/Route 250 intersection as generally proposed at
the VDOT Location and Design Public Hearing.
Undertake the widening of Route 20 North from north of route 250 East to Elks
Drive./Fontana Drive. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improve-
ments.
Safety Improvements:
Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this 10% set-aside. They are, in priority order:
1)
Construct pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County's Urban
Neighborhoods. Absent the incorporation of such road walkways into full road widen-
ing/improvement projects, the following road sections are priorities for pedestrian
walkways: 1) Route 20 north from Route 250 to Wilton Farm Apartments and Darden
Towe Park; 2) Route 20 south from the City line to the new Route 20/742 connector road;
3) along Route 250 east in the Pantops area as an extension to existing sidewalks; and,
4) along Route 250 west from City to Bypass (as part of the overall improvements to this
O00Z.gZ
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
road). Of these, the walkways along Route 20 north are the most important improvement.
Pedestrian travel along this road has increased significantly with the development of the
Wilton Farm Apartments. Residents have raised concerns with the safety of walking along
this segment of road as currently constructed.
2)
Installation of traffic signals at Route 22 and Route 250 and the 1-64 interchange at Fifth
Street.
3)
Improvements to Route 250 west along the business corridor in Ivy (from just east of the
intersection of Route 637 to just west of the intersection of Route 678) to address existing
and short-term traffic circulation problems, including access to developed properties in
this area. The Route 250 West Corridor Study currently underway should address these
safety improvements.
4) Improvements to the RoUte 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad tracks in Crozet.
5) Functional plans for Route 20 North and South for alignment improvements.
6)
Functional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22
and 231. The County remains concerned with overall public safety as it relates to traffic
created by large trucks along these road segments, and encourages all appropriate
measures are considered to ensure that trucks travel safely along these roadways in the
future. Restriction of through truck traffic is still considered the most effective measure by
the County.
Enhancement Projects:
Several projects appear to be eligible for enhancement funds. They are, in priority order:
1)
Construction of pedestrian walkways in development areas under a comprehensive
program of eligible projects.
2)
Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Route 20, Route 29 and Route 250) and
Airport Road connecting Route 29 and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport - landscaping,
signage, placement of overhead utilities underground, etc.
3)
Completion of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation trail project between the
Monticello Visitors Center and Monticello.
4)
Construction of bikeway facilities as prioritized in the Bicycle Plan for the City of Char-
lottesville and Albemarle County (adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an element of
the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 1991).
5) Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system.
6) Removal of non-conforming billboards.
NatiOnal Highway System (NHS)
The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this area,
excluding the Route 29 Bypass. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has approved the NHS,
which includes the existing Route 29, and the Route 29 Bypass. The County's highest priority project in
the proposed NHS is the completion of the widening of Route 29 North from the South Fork of the Rivanna
River to Airport Road. The County desires to continue active participation in Route 29 Corridor studies,
including the Route 29 Corridor Study south of Charlottesville, which is currently underway. The County
will monitor the progress and recommendations of the Route 29 Corridor Studies, which are part of the
NHS (additional information is provided under Standard Projects #2).
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of non-attainment for ozone or
carbon monoxide.
Mr. Martin said the Board just received this material the previous night, and most members had
not had a chance to read it.
000 93
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Ms. Humphris moved to defer this item to February 10, 1999. The motion was seconded by
Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Thomas said she met with representatives from VDOT and the Virginia Department of Rail
and Public Transportation the previous evening. They advised her that Six-Year Primary Improvement
Plans are treated as road plans. If there are other projects that are alternatives to road, such as
sidewalks, they should be included.
Agenda Item No. 8b. Other Transportation Matters.
Ms. Angela Tucker, VDOT Resident Engineer, said she would respond to Mr. Tucker regarding
Y2K issues and signalization of lights.
Ms. Tucker said she recently met with City officials to provide radio devices mounted to signals
along the Route 29 corridor, so that traffic signals from Barracks Road north run in sequence with the rest
of the Route 29 corridor. This will also occur at the City traffic signal at K-Mart. This will handle the
additional traffic expected from Rio Road during the construction this summer.
Regrading Mr. Martin's question about VDOT surveying on Route 20 South, Ms. Tucker said
VDOT was surveying that roadway as part of a future road widening project.
Mr. Bowerman asked when left-turn signals onto Greenbrier Drive will be activated. Ms. Tucker
said she will follow up, but expects it will happen this spring.
Ms. Humphris said she is happy to see the County being included as part of the pilot program to
address drivers running traffic signals.
Ms. Humphris discussed the following letter the Board received from Mr. J. Q. Crowder, Jr.,
VDOT's Chief Engineer:
"1 am in receipt of your letter dated December 17, 1998 wherein you have requested that
the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) design all future roadway lighting such
that it would meet the provisions of the County of Albemarle's Zoning Ordinance adopted
on August 12, 1998. We will consider the ordinance in our design where that proves to be
within the safety considerations we must employ. However, by the very nature of roadway
lighting, this may prove difficult and not in the motoring public's best interest.
Roadway lighting has an objective that is not imperative to lighting of most any other
nature. It must be designed accounting for the fact that the users of the light will be
moving, oftentimes at high rates of speed, with little or no time to allow the eye to focus or
re-focus to varying light levels. For this reason, it is imperative that the light be uniform
and consistent, and of a fairly high intensity. In fact, roadway lighting is designed more to
be travelway lighting than a lighting of the road surface. Obtaining the desired lighting
effects using a full cutoff luminaire as required by the county's ordinance could and often
would mean several issues of importance to us would be violated.
First, a full cutoff design involves the use of what is typically referred to as 'cobra head'
fixtures positioned over the edge of the travel lane. By virtue of its positioning, the pole
supporting it must be set close to the travelway in a much more hazardous location for
errant vehicles.
Secondly, this positioning of the luminaire also means that the simplest of maintenance
operations, e.g. re-lamping, requires that a lane closure be established which creates
congestion and hazards to motorists. In addition, the lane closures can be very costly and
in many cases would cost more than the repairs.
000294
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
A third significant issue is the full cutoff luminade designs now available do not broadcast
light as far as the drop refractor designs available. To use cutoff fixtures exclusively for all
types of highways would mean additional fixtures and supports, thus, having a negative
cost advantage. Even more than that, because of the limited broadcast of the light, the
potential roadside obstacle problem is heightened as more fixtures are added to compen-
sate. The limited broadcast of light found in cutoff luminaries could also lead to the need
to install fixtures and supports in the median on larger highways, thus compounding both
the obstacle and lane closure issues described before.
Obviously, the lower the operating speed of a roadway and the more compact the cross-
section design, the more suited cutoff luminaries are for roadway (travelway) lighting use;
as these two features directly relate to and amplify the concerns I have expressed.
It is because of these expressed concerns that I must respond to your letter stating only
that VDOT will consider the county's ordinance where feasible. Due consideration to
motorists' safety and cost effectiveness will be used as our key design principles and may
result in roadway lighting being provided that will not comply with the county ordinance.
Further, the Department intends to take full advantage of emerging technology that might
be in line with your ordinance and still account for our needs, as it becomes available to
the general public.
I thank you for bringing this ordinance to my attention, and for your understanding of our
position."
Ms. Humphris said this is another situation where VDOT applies guidelines, regardless of
circumstances. The County wants to light sidewalks for the safety of pedestrians; it is not only
interested in what is good for automobiles. She wished the Zoning Ordinance could be applied.
There also needs to be a clearly written policy. The County's lighting efforts are excellent, but it
was a tough battle to get suitable lighting without installing huge lights. Ms. Thomas said lights
have to be particularly bright on roadways, but this affects drivers by blinding them.
Mr. Citimberg said this year the County had to scale back a project that focused on
pedestrians and sidewalks. This project lies in VDOT's right of way, so the County had to get their
approval. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Marshall and he have asked for lighting in a variety of locations.
Ms. Humphris asked that the Board be kept apprised of the situation. The Clerk was
asked to forward a copy of Mr. Browder's letter to Ms. Tucker.
Mr. Perkins asked VDOT to check the passing lane on Route 743 at Sunny Boy Gardens. The
location appears to be dangerous, and passing should not be permitted if it is unsafe.
Mr. Perkins asked for an update on the truss bridge at Advance Mill. Ms. Tucker said she recently
met with the District Bridge Engineer and County Planning and Engineering staff on this matter. She will
forward minutes of that meeting to Planning and Engineering, who will then report to the Board.
Recommendations include maintenance, long-term replacement, and new construction.
Mr. Perkins asked whether the Pave in Place Program could be used in the Grassmere area.
Ms. Tucker said that road project will involve grading. VDOT has easements. The Pave in Place applies
when VDOT has to work within a 30-foot easement; therefore VDOT does not need to meet Pave in Place
criteria to upgrade the road to an 18-foot pavement. Mr. Perkins said the number of dwellings in the area
will not increase, so there is no need to build a super highway. Ms. Tucker said VDOT will minimize the
scope of the project as much as possible to keep costs down. However, during construction, VDOT
needs easements and rights of way to lay slopes back.
Mr. Marshall said he has been meeting with the Esmont community. Residents want to reduce
the speed limit on Porter's Road from 35 mph to 25 mph. This is a heavily populated road with lots of
people walking alongside it. He added that VDOT will have to install sidewalks there eventually.
Mr. Marshall said people were asking about surveying Route 20 between Route 53 and Mill Creek
Road for Monticello High School. He asked when the land will be purchased. Ms. Tucker said VDOT will
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
first develop 70 percent complete plans to take to a public hearing. They will then alert the public and
work with them to alleviate their concerns while completing the plans. Once plans are approved for right-
of-way acquisition, VDOT will meet with public. This will all take at least two years. She added that she is
willing to speak with concerned property owners now, if necessary. Mr. Marshall asked that VDOT work
on the east side of Route 20 so as not to impact the area much.
Ms. Thomas said Batesville residents read an article about Scottsville requesting TEA-21 funds
for underground utilities, and want to know what process they should follow to do the same. Ms. Tucker
said she attended the public hearing for the Scottsville TEA-21 grant request. The new administrator
attended a meeting in Culpeper to walk people through the TEA-21 application process. She will check to
see if the process applies to the communities and will report back to the Board. VDOT looks for a formal
commitment on behalf of the community, so Scottsville shared their financial status, showing money set
aside in capital improvement monies to match the grant. Mr. Cilimberg said there would need to be a 20
percent match, and someone would have' to figure out where that money would come from, as the
community and the County would be co-applicants. He added that the community would be able to submit
an application next January.
Mr. Bowerman said curb and gutters are in place on the western portion of Rio Road, and he
wanted to know when fencing will be installed in front of the trailer park. Ms. Tucker said the property
owner is responsible for putting up the fencing. Mr. Bowerman said VDOT and the Building Code and
Zoning Service Department need to coordinate this activity. Some banks are laid back and seeded; some
have simply been laid back. Ms. Tucker said the area between the SPCA and Centel will be laid back;
what is in place is temporarily installed for erosion purposes.
Mr. Bowerman asked who is responsible for snow removal during construction. Ms. Tucker said
VDOT is responsible. Mr. Bowerman said VDOT must have overlooked the connection between people's
entrances. Ms. Tucker said she would alert VDOT to make sure this does not happen again.
At this time, Mr. Martin welcomed students from Mr. Ernie Reed's Living Education Center for
Ecology and Arts class who were visiting.
Agenda Item No. 9. Minimum in-stream flow at Moorman's River, Presentation by Donna Bennett.
Mr. Robert D. Giles, who lives near the Moorman's River, asked for help in finding a solution to a
common problem. He said the Moorman's is a scenic river that is dry five to seven months per year. He
asked the Board to support his proposition, action plan, and implementation plan, which he believes set
forth a positive "win-win" solution. The same amount of water can be processed and sold as happens
now. There is a simple, Iow-cost, non-technical solution which does not require conservation, to protect
water customers, and no regulator requirements would need to be met. He said there would be a
tremendous public relations benefit to both the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) and the
County. The RWSA is opposed to any change in the way they do business. He said this does not come
within RWSA's authority or jurisdiction, so it has to come from the Board and City Council. The Board has
a legal responsibility to protect the river, as it is authorized as a scenic river. Someone should examine
the statute to see where responsibilities lie. There needs to be some minimal level of in-stream flow, and,
if everyone agrees, the Board should direct the RWSA to work with him to find a solution.
Mr. Jim Bennett thanked the Board, especially Mr. Perkins, for their interest. The drought in the
upper portion of the Moorman's is the worst in seven years, having lasted seven months. The County
recently received an award for protecting water resources, so this is a timely matter. Federal and state
law have recognized the balance between instream (ecology) and offstream (human) uses. Cyclical
drought in the upper portion is not a natural phenomenon. He has pictures that show normal summer and
fall flow in the lower section. He proposed that flow be provided in the dry months as a portion of what
normally comes in; this could be calculated by flow meters. This would simply follow what nature would
do. There is no need for expensive in-stream flow. He referred to a graph that showed that if nothing had
changed and rain had not come, the voluntary water conservation water limit would have been crossed at
Christmas time. Mr. Bennett said Mr. Petrini has said the customers are the County and the City; and the
RWSA only has to meet unregulated and questioned demand. Water conservation policies formulated in
1972 are outdated. He asked the Board to communicate its concern to the RWSA and the Municipal
Service Authority to update water conservation policies to be consistent with modern thoughts about
drought management. He said reservoirs were approaching 70 percent capacity, and RWSA recorded the
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
single largest daily water consumption in the County, over 14 million gallons per day. No one was asked
to conserve water. He believed water conservation and regressive pricing should be implemented.
Mr. Ken Lee, Chairman of the Moorman's Scenic River Advisory Board, said he endorses the
proposal, which would balance the needs of the City and the river. He believes citizens will be willing to
go along with some water conservation measures.
Mr. Art Petrini, Executive Director of RWSA, provided a handout that included a graph and two
maps. He said the RWSA Board position was set in September, 1997. It recommended not to release a
minimum instream flow because of the impact on current water production. A recommended policy
decision should be made if the future water supply is increased. After 1997, the RWSA asked him to work
with a private citizen who has contact with the EPA, and who feels he can get the money necessary to
study the Moorman's River. He recommends that if minimum in-stream flow occurs, the County determine
how much water to release. Fishing needs certain flow patterns and depth of water. The County needs to
review the impact downstream. If water is released, someone need to determine how much to release
and what the benefit will be. The only way to do that is to form a study, and he is working with the citizen
in an attempt to get grant monies. His Board asked a water supply consultant to determine the impact on
the future water supply and any impact from minimum in-stream flow.
Mr. Petrini said he is referring to supplying an urban service area that is supplied by Sugar Hollow,
Ragged Mountain, and Rivanna River Reservoirs. Chris Greene Lake can also feed some customers, but
there is a price to pay.
Chart one, graph one, represented 76,000 customers. The graph was made by the consultant
after a study of what the future demand will be, as well as the safe yield (how much water can be supplied
to the City during a drought, on a long period of time). The most recent drought is compared to one that
occurred in the 1980's. The graph showed demand was higher than the available water. Without using
Chris Greene Lake, supply and demand cross in the year 2000. If the lake is drawn down by five feet, it
would cross in the year 2003 or 2004. If the County does not have sufficient safe yield to supply
customers in a drought, anything the Board does to lower the safe yield, such as releasing the minimum
in-stream flow, would not be a responsible decision at this time. When the future water supply is built
through conservation and new reservoirs, there would be adequate water to address this request.
Mr. Petrini said people have said the public will conserve water, and that will solve the problem.
However, he does not think it will. There will be growth, so there will be more customers, and water
demand will increase. Safe yield is going down due to silt filling in at the South Rivanna Reservoir. There
will be a two-million-gallons-per-day difference every six years, so every six years the demand goes up
one-million-gallons-per-day, and the safe yield drops by the same amount.
Graph two showed the rate of drop of the reservoir and usable portion of the reservoir, and how
fast the reservoir system is going down over time. On October 25, it projected demand over the next
several months based on usage figures. Had the drought occurred to the same severity as at that time,
the County would have had voluntary conservation measures in place in December and mandatory
measures in February. A release of minimum in-stream flow takes water out of the reservoir and
decreases water available to customers. If the County releases even a Iow amount, conservation
measures would have to have been in place earlier. A significant minimum in-stream flow would have had
a severe impact on the community, and it is his obligation to supply the water needed.
Mr. Jack Marshall said he is simply defending the Moorman's River. He used to be Chair of the
Moorman's Scenic River Advisory Committee, and understands the need to maintain the environmental
integrity of the river. There is a dilemma. He is speaking not as Chair of the Board, but as one member.
The Board has not yet discussed the new suggestion, so this is not being brought in as a "done deal" to
the Board. Mr. Petrini accurately summarized the data and his Board's position, and said he cannot
assume this risk because of demands for water. Everyone would love to see the water in the river, but
need to determine how to get the water in it. Water conservation is necessary, but not sufficient. The
community should have more effective water conservation methods in place, but that is one element only.
He said there is a need to reduce the risk for dry periods. If the County adopts a minimum in-stream flow,
demand peaks in dry periods, and water is not available, if it is going into the Moorman's River. If the City
and County say they will assume that risk, water can be added to the river.
Mr. Perkins asked about the capacity of all the reservoirs. Mr. Petrini referred him to the graph,
which showed all the reservoirs. It was based on actual gallons of capacity storage. Mr. Perkins said if
water is flowing over the Sugar Hollow Dam, why not pull more from the Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Petrini
said the County has maximized the Rivanna Reservoir's production; they are now at maximum and there
is already a shortage. There will be increased production in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, so more
water will be available, therefore volume will go down slower in the reservoir. Mr. Marshall asked if the
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
treatment plant is causing the problem. If water is going over the Rivanna River dam, it must not be
pulling enough water. Mr. Petrini said again, it is already using the maximum. The additional water that
will come will not make a huge difference, and water will still be flowing over the dam. The additional
water will be used to meet peak summer demand and decrease reliance on the Observatory Water
Treatment Plant.
Mr. Martin said this began as a relatively small agenda item, but there are a lot of important
issues. He suggested the item be rescheduled for next month's day meeting as a work session to give
Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lee time to present their proposal to the RWSA Board, and to give the Board of
Supervisors a chance to present questions to those involved.
Mr. Bowerman said the RWSA Board created the RWSA Citizens Advisory Committee and it's
mission. Both the City and County are represented on the Committee. He wanted to know its role,
because they have come to him to ask what it is. With the addition of a new line from the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir into the system, they are no longer at capacity. This was done in anticipation of
increased South Fork Rivanna Reservoir production. There was a question of storage of potable water.
Mr. Martin wanted to know what criteria generates the need for conservation measures, and
whether the criteria should be changed.
Mr. Marshall said growth impacts this matter too, since wells deplete ground water supply.
(The Board took recessed at 10:30 a.m. and reconvened at 10:38 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Outdoors Foundation, Presentation by Sherry Buttrick.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick said the Outdoors Foundation is a state agency charged with protecting the
natural scenic, scientific, recreational, historic and open space areas of the Commonwealth. This is done
by accepting gifts of conservation easements. She provided a report on the activity of easements from the
Gifted Easement Program, which totaled 20,800 acres under permanent easement at this time. State-
wide there are 125,000 acres under easement. The Outdoors Foundation is the primary holder of
easements, although there are other holders, such as Albemarle's Public Recreational Facilities Authority
and the Department of Historic Resources. Albemarle County has the second highest number of acres,
second only to Fauquier County, which has 34,000 acres under easement. Orange County has 8,500
acres, and Clarke County has 8,200 acres.
These easements generally permit either no subdivision, if the property is under 100 acres, or
subdivision of a density that is no greater than one unit per 100 acres. Easements are not accepted in
growth areas, where the Comprehensive Plan has designated land for growth, and when the County has
determined that open space is not a goal.
In 1998 there were 19 new easements and one amendment in the County. There were just under
3,000 acres added. In 1997 there were 13 new easements, totaling 2,800 acres.
Resources protected by easements during the past year include drinking water supply, 2,100
acres lying within the watershed, and one amendment that adds a riparian buffer on the Moorman's River.
Several easements came in that are within the Southwest Mountains Rural District, and one came in that
protects nationally-registered Sunny Bank House.
The Foundation took in easements on scenic Route 22, Route 250 West, Route 20 South, and on
Sugar Hollow Road.
All easements protect dark skies, in that they severely limit the number of dwellings, and
consequently the amount of outdoor lighting. This spring the Foundation will take up the matter of dark
skies to decide whether or not easements should address it as a scenic or scientific resource.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there are federal tax incentives when easements are accepted by the
Foundation. Ms. Buttrick said there are income tax benefits, because these are usually charitable
contributions. The value of easements is the difference between the unrestricted value of the land and the
land once it has been restricted, which is generally going to be less. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is a
state benefit. Ms. Buttrick said to the extent that your federal liability is lowered, your state liability is also
lowered. A new tax exclusion, the "Farmer Ranch Protection Act", allows a landowner to exclude 40
percent of the value of the land if it is under easement., so that is passed on without taxation. This helps
families that have real estate but are "cash poor".
000298
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Ms. Thomas asked if best management practices are used when an easement is given.
Ms. Buttrick said there is a forestry provision that addresses sound forestry practices to protect water
quality and prevent erosion.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Deer Hunting Enforcement Efforts.
Mr. Tucker said Albemarle County has two full-time game wardens assigned to handle primary
.response to local hunting incidents, and the County Police provides supplementary support when needed.
Both Departments have indicated that it is very difficult to catch many hunting violators due to the
quickness in which violations occur and the large size of the territory that must be covered (740 square
miles).
To better enforce the current County hunting regulations, the Board decided to authorize
additional County resources to supplement the efforts of the game wardens during deer hunting season.
The Sheriff's Office volunteered to provide auxiliary and off-duty deputies to heighten law enforcement
visibility in the field, speed the response of officers to calls, and more proactively patrol hunting areas.
The deputies conducted the majority of their fieldwork during known high incident times -- the start of the
season, holidays and weekends.
Sheriffs deputies responded to 86 calls, checked nearly 200 hunters for compliance with game
laws, and logged over 500 hours in the field. The bulk of the calls the deputies responded to were for
illegal hunting on posted land, road hunting, spotlighting, shots fired, and trespassing. While in the field,
the deputies also responded to non-hunting related issues such as vehicle violations and stranded
motorists. During the same time period, the Police Department responded to 40 hunting-related calls and
issued eight summons (for failure to tag, trespassing and weapon discharge on roadway). This combina-
tion of local enforcement activity freed up the state game wardens to respond to 69 calls and make 63
arrests.
The legal disposition of the various summonses issued will not be available until the applicable
cases work their way through the court system. When that information becomes available, staff will
update the Board. An expanded budget request will be presented to the Board for consideration with the
overall budget in order to establish comparative data against the baseline.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends the process continue in the future and request funds to fund it
in the future.
Mr. Marshall asked how many arrests were made in previous years. Lieutenant Jim Moore, of the
State Game Warden Office, said he did not have the statistics for last year, as he only began collecting it
this year. It was a slow season because the deer were not moving much, plus the weather was hotter
than normal. Calls were approximately 20 percent less than last year. Mr. Marshall asked where people
lived who were arrested. Lt. Moore said two-thirds were Albemarle County residents; there is not a great
influx of people coming into the County.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the game warden officers were able to work more effectively since
deputies were covering calls on weekends and holidays. Lt. Moore said this enabled his officers to take
care of other things, since deputies were handling more of the calls. It is hard for his officers to respond to
calls that do not usually result in arrests. He felt the program was successful.
Mr. Bowerman asked if people are still shooting at deer at night. Lt. Moore said two arrests were
made for people shooting from roadways; other arrests were for trespassing. Some were charged for
other violations, such as taking game from a vehicle. Ms. Humphris asked if locations should be mapped
to see if there are areas that are more susceptible for violations. Lt. Moore said he could do that by
reviewing the 911 reports.
Mr. Martin said as the County puts more resources into this, he hopes someone tracks calls to
show what is being done. He has heard that violators are coming from outside the County. Lt. Moore said
that would be easy to track.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to know the disposition of court cases. A slap on the wrist is not
sufficient. Lt. Moore said he will track the process, but cases take a long time to go through the system.
He will report back to the Board.
000 99
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Commonwealth's Attorney, James Camblos, said a number of the offenses that do not endanger
life or limb are misdemeanors. Spotlighting is the most serious, and gets the most attention in court. This
is a Class Two misdemeanor, punishable by losing a vehicle or firearm. Many fines are payable by mail.
Mr. Martin said trespassing is a Class One misdemeanor. Mr. Camblos said spotlighting gets the attention
of the court, because it can result in the death of innocent people quicker than other offenses. The court
does not take anything lightly, but prepaid fines make it easy for people to simply pay the fines and not
come before the court. Game wardens work well with people who usually do not fight. Lt. Moore said
there is no confiscation of vehicles, but firearms have been forfeited. Mr. Marshall said courts should take
away vehicles. Mr. Bowerman said convicted people would only have to spend a couple of Weekends in
jail.
Mr. Camblos said punishment often depends on a person's police record. A repeat offender will
be handled more extensively. Punishment is a judicial decision of judges independent of the legislative
branch. The Board could talk to judges, but a public relations campaign would have to be in place to
make it effective. The General Assembly makes the laws; the County is limited to those in enforcement.
Mr. Martin asked about ordinances. Mr. Davis said in some cases minimum fines are already set
(example: handicapped parking); otherwise, unless specifically enabled, the County does not have the
authority to determine minimum fines. Mr. Bowerman asked if judges would be offended if the Board
communicated its concern to the judicial branch. Mr. Camblos suggested the Board put money forward to
increase spotlight interdiction. This is a 740-square-mile county, and there are lots of roads, making it
hard to cover rural areas. Spotlighting is committed by people who are not good hunters. Legitimate
hunters might be on posted property or not be carrying their licenses; spotlighting is more likely committed
during both day and night. Ms. Thomas asked if a citizens' group similar to MADD sitting in the courtroom
might have an effect. Mr. Camblos said there have been comments from people who routinely sit in the
courtroom with clipboards, following each case. They are generally ignored by iudges.
Ms. Humphris said the report is excellent, and shows progress needs to be made. The County
needs to minimize the danger to the public. Mr. Bowerman complimented the SherifCs use of deputies
and his administration of the program.
Agenda Item No. 12. Work Session: CPA-98-04, Chapter Two, The Natural Environment of the
Comp Plan (deferred from January 13, 1999).
Ms. Mary Joy Scala said the Board held a work session on January 6, 1999, and a public hearing
on January 13, 1999. Public comments at that hearing were unanimously supportive of Chapter Two.
Staff recommends that adoption of Chapter Two be deferred until March 3, 1999, to give the Board time to
review revisions.
She then provided a handout which included a summary of public comments from the public
hearing (on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record).
Mr. Martin said he thought accepting the document was an endorsement. Mr. Bowerman said he
believed Ms. Scala wanted to know if anyone objected to any of the suggested revisions to Chapter Two.
Mr. Marshall made the following suggestions to the wording on page 65 Benefits of Protecting
Agricultural Forest Resources. He suggested replacing the title with "Importance of Agricultural/Forest...",
making "Extent of Agricultural/Forest" part of that section, and placing the acreage figures in that section
on page 68 under sections on agricultural/forestal districts and easements, since most open space is
agricultural. The Board endorsed the change.
Mr. Martin said he thought the Board had been asked to have a work session at this meeting, but
to postpone any decision until later. Mr. Marshall asked if any Board member disagreed with anything in
the document. Ms. Thomas said there will be a work session on minimum in-stream flow in March, and
the outcome of that work session should be included.
Ms. Thomas agreed with a suggestion to change page 33 to read, "The County should take
leadership on water conservation: add.unequivocal statements; use education and incentives." She
believes school buildings should have up-to-date equipment to make sure they are being environmentally
responsible with water conservation. Ms. Scala said the public suggested a change to page 26 to state
that, even if a decision on minimum-in-stream flow is not clear in a month's time, the statement should still
be included.
000300
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Martin asked if any Board member disagreed with the material. Mr. Bowerman said he would
like to review the Farm Bureau's comments, which are technical in nature, but not major objections. Ms.
Scala said all other comments were summarized.
Ms. Humphris said the process is a problem, and asked staff to bring recommendations to the
Board and to summarize comments. Although this would be a big job, she said only staff can make
recommendations on the public's suggestions. Ms. Thomas said there was nothing Contentious in the
report, except one item on page 69. Staff believed they addressed the issue by stating that agricultural,
forestry, and biological resources are all equally important.
Mr. Tucker said the report reflected staffs recommendations. No one has a handle on minimum
in-stream flow yet. Ms. Humphris said she thought these were just the public's comments; she wants to
know what staff thinks. She would like to see a composite of comments and a recommendation. She also
asked if it is possible for the Board to endorse the public comments.
Mr. Bowerman said he did not think the Board had to agree with all the accords; opinions should
simply be considered. Different groups can then take the accords and work on them voluntarily. This was
not meant to be a regulatory document. Ms. Humphris said the strategy was to review and support as
appropriate the statements of accord. Mr. Martin said it sounded as if the Board was in agreement with
everything except the Moorman's River issues, which must be studied further.
Ms. Thomas said the Board should simply review the material.
Page 94 states, "the County will protect wooded hills where topography makes the area visually
prominent", but Mr. Martin said he did not think the Board can legally do this. Ms. Scala said it would
simply be required when it can be; otherwise, it will just be encouraged. She will add the statement about
topography as a bulleted item. Mr. Davis said the Comprehensive Plan is not regulatory in nature; it is
simply guidance as to how projects will be reviewed.
Agenda Item No. 13. Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC), Interim Report.
Mr. Eric Strucko, Co-Chair of DISC, said the committee is comprised of a wide mix of people with
different interests. The committee came to a consensus and developed a report for presentation to the
Board (on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record). The principles embraced by the
group address the challenge to use public policy with enough vigor to move development into the growth
area, but with enough restraint to avoid damaging market distortions. Neighborhood design that achieves
density of three to six dwelling units is desirable, implementing a growth management policy that
generates demand for homes in the growth area. He said future direction and vigorous policies that
prohibit sprawl into rural areas may be necessary to accomplish comprehensive growth control and
preserve the future of the County. Considering the growth principles is important, because growth
management impacts other public policy. The Board will be faced with tough decisions. He asked the
Board to consider the policies in general, and would like to hear a voice of approval from the Board so the
Committee can go into its second phase to examine changes to the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Kathy Galvin, Co-Chair of DISC, said this has been a team effort. The Comprehensive Plan's
goals are the framework for this document: a) to protect rural areas, b) direct growth into development
areas, as a means of preserving rural areas, as well as improving the efficiency of public service delivery.
The mission of DISC is to create a vision for the built environment. This document lists specific strategies.
She said the master plan is the critical aspect. The master planning process at the development level is to
address and identify the growth needs of that development area. It is also the context in which issues
such as transportation, development, and affordable housing should be discussed and resolved.
DISC agreed to move away from sole dependency on the single-occupancy vehicle. The public
street is a public place and should be designed to facilitate pedestrian activity, not just automobiles. The
heart of the section on development and redevelopment outlines the characteristic features of the place.
The model allows for the flexibility to approach the densities outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. There is
concern about too-high dense growth and how it can be configured to be livable. There may be transitions
in the future, and the model has flexibility.
In the affordable housing section, the neighborhood model helps identify needs and areas to be
preserved. Affordable housing is inherent in the model. It promotes a variety of housing types at a variety
of income levels, and is integral with neighborhood design. Affordable housing should be provided within
the context of the neighborhood and part of the debate of the master planning process. The logistics of
coordinating the efforts of the Housing Committee and DISC strategies have not yet been finalized.
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Ms. Galvin said DISC is operating in a greater policy context. It is obvious that what is done in
developmental areas impacts rural areas, and vice versa. For example, there is a high percentage of
single-family detached homes built in rural areas; this is the highest current market demand. DISC
advocates a mixed housing product. The focus is the development areas, but there has been a lot of
discussion about the consequences to rural areas. Affordable housing deals with the built environment,
and it should incorporate a range of affordability within the development areas.
The next step will be to examine how the County's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances do not
matCh the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the new neighborhood model. DISC will present
recommended changes to the Board, aggressively encouraging redevelopment of existing places to
accommodate residential uses. The consultant has said there is excess land zoned Industrial that could
be rezoned to provide more buildable sites in development areas. There are also greenfill sites not bUilt
on, but they are under 28 acres. DISC is focusing on them now to make it flexible to develop those small
sites in order to enhance the use of developmental areas.
Ms. Humphris said she was in agreement with everything presented, except long-term recom-
mended changes. She also said there are problems with VDOT's street standards. Page seven, items b,
c, and d, deal with the long-term She cannot understand how the County will have a private road system
where neighborhoods and the County both have a hand in road maintenance. A two-tiered road system
is not legally possible. The County has already embarked on establishing a public works department to
maintain public roads, but is not eager to expand it because of the tremendous cost. The County cannot
maintain public roads.
Mr. Bowerman said VDOT maintains that land use decisions are a local matter. They do not
accept the fact that their growth standards dictate land use decisions and are actually driving local land
development. They work against what is outlined by DISC. In the face of having secondary roads
maintained by VDOT, and having private roads that follow VDOT standards, there may have to be
something that is in between, where homeowners associations and the County maintain roads.
Ms. Humphris asked if there is a supposition that taxes would have to be increased. Mr. Bowerman said
there is a problem with VDOT's standards and their impacts on communities. They limit the County's
ability to incorporate some of these suggestions. This needs to be addressed by legislature, as well.
Mr. Marshall said people want snow plowed from roads, but if the roads are not built to state
specifications, VDOT will not do it. Mr. Bowerman said perhaps the neighborhood has to handle that.
VDOT does not currently allow new design concepts which increase density, while making it economically
feasible for developers. Ms. Humphris said the County needs to work with VDOT to develop liveable
standards.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Payne Woodcock said at last night's meeting that land use drove transporta-
tion possibilities and the real future of transportation was in land use. From time to time legislators study
how VDOT does things. The Metropolitan Planning Organization staff says VDOT does not understand
the concept of an urban road. This problem has been created by the annexation moratorium. The County
should take this issue to the legislature.
Mr. Tucker said Henrico and Arlington Counties maintain their own roads under a City Manager
form of government. They receive funding from the state to do so.
Mr. Marshall said water and roads are required when expanding growth areas. The County has
been taking over out-dated water systems, so infill is needed. The County still needs to expand growth
areas, but it must have a plan. The Commission came up with one, but neighborhoods do not want
expansion. Ms. Galvin said DISC is working on a statement that says the County can accommodate
growth before expanding into growth areas.
Mr. Strucko said he understands the Board is considering expansion into growth areas and
wanted someone to study the issue. DISC agrees that expanding growth areas would be a last resort; the
County must first use space inside the growth area. Mr. Marshall said if there is industrial land on which
people have been paying taxes, then it should be used for affordable housing. Mr. Strucko said DISC
believes there should be a variety of housing types that are affordable to people of various levels of
income. He serves on the Housing Committee, which is exploring the idea of looking at an Affordable
Dwelling Unit Ordinance, which would require that all new developments have a certain percentage of
affordable housing units. Mr. Marshall said if the County provides infill, it will not have affordable housing.
Ms. Thomas disagreed.
Ms. Galvin said part of the problem is density, and part is adaptive reuse of property. This is the
remaining part of the charge to DISC-to articulate how that might be accomplished. Today there is a
000302
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
consensus on principles only. She said it is impressive that such a wide array of people came to a
consensus at all. Mr. Strucko said Mr. Marshall stated the debate that has been before DISC. Some
members have brought the issue to bear. If something is made more scare, the price can rise. Apprais-
ers and developers have brought this issue up before. The committee does not have the resources to do
economic analysis that would show what impact would occur to housing prices if the County does not
expand the growth areas or use the land differently.
Mr. Marshall said people should be able to afford to live in the community. He is not worried about
people moving into the community. Mr. Strucko said affordable housing is a prominent issue to DISC.
They have determined what is affordable housing, determined income levels, and addressed how to
provide housing for those persons. Selling prices have to be between $85,000 to $125,000 to reach a
moderate-income population.
Mr. Perkins said the Board should look at the recommended strategies for rural areas, phasing out
development rights, and changing minimum lot size. Mr. Cilimberg said Planning staff is studying rural
area development. They will use information from DISC as they make recommendations. That is where
the work should be done. Mr. Strucko said this has been the source of a lot of debate in DISC. At times,
they do not know what their charge is. They finally agreed they have to address the rural areas, but are
unqualified to discuss rural area policy. Mr. Martin said this section should not even be in the report.
Having the same regulatory requirements for development in rural areas would have a drastic impact on
affordable housing. It is important for DISC to realize this issue came up, and that it will have to be
resolved at the DISC level in order for the report to be viable.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board does not ease the way for density in growth areas, the price of
housing in rural areas will continue to elevate. It has been the community's goal since 1970 to avoid rural
sprawl, but it is taking place. The purpose of avoiding sprawl is not to squeeze people into the urban area;
it is to protect the rural areas, because they benefit everyone, not just the people living in them. Whole
neighborhoods need to have affordable housing in them for people who are in the lower level of income.
Sprawl in the countryside is expensive. Interaction with the transportation system is needed. There must
be density at each end of transportation modes to make them useful.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Martin withheld his personal issues from DISC, and allowed them to
proceed, which should be commended. DISC revolves around the issue Of a develoPment'area initiative.
Through discussion, members determined that rural areas are important. People should be able to have
an affordable home in both rural or urban areas. Mr. Martin said if the rural areas become more
expensive, people are forced into urban areas. He wants to see affordable housing in the growth areas
before it goes into the rural areas. He believes the Board needs to allow DISC to move forward, Mr.
Bowerman said DISC needs to know whether they are on tract. Mr. Marshall said that is why he wonders
if growth areas need to be expanded. He wants to see something that shows affordable housing before
he will support it.
Mr. Bowerman said one factor of a development area initiative is that it is expensive to develop in
the urban area. Economics play a large role in development decisions. When DISC was formed, they
realized that rural areas, and the ability to subdivide and build in them, make them a practical alternative,
instead of doing the same thing in the urban area because there is less regulation. People who chose the
rural area concept buy into the concept of service delivery into the area. The two became linked in DISC.
The Board needs to tell the committee to leave the rural areas alone, and concentrate on just the
development areas and infill, or recognize that there is some connection, and continue a dual-line
approach.
Ms. Galvin said the context of the rural areas will not go away. Development areas are in the
context of a bigger picture. While DISC may not concentrate on rural areas, it has been easy to build in
the rural areas, which is counter to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. DISC states they want to
expedite the process of developing the development areas. The process needs to be streamlined, and
can be creative, inventive and affordable. DISC is now focusing on the tools to enhance the development
of the growth areas, and understands they cannot ignore the relationship between growth and rural areas,
whether the Board agrees or disagrees with the findings.
Mr. Marshall said it is important to note that there is disagreement. DISC needs to discuss the
issues and move forward.
Agenda Item No. 14. Update on Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) (PDRs),
Presentation by Ms. Sherry Buttrick.
000303
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left at 12:15 p.m.)
Ms. Buttrick, Chair of the ACE Committee and the Purchase of Development Rights Committee,
provided an interim report. They are currently gathering public input from interested groups and
community organizations, and informing them of the PDR Program. They have been to about one-half of
the affected groups, and have received few written comments. Citizens for Albemarle did address one
issue and received a resolution of support from the Farm Bureau, as long as taxes are not increased.
Therefore, changes have not be made to the program.
(Mr. Bowerman returned at 12:18.)
The committee received favorable support from some groups, but not all. Many groups are in
conflict with each other. Some say preference should be given to people with financial needs; others want
the program to apply to everyone equally, She suggested holding a public workshop and invite the public
to offer comments. The group has no staff or expertise to know where potential hidden glitches might be.
She suggested the County hire a part-time consultant to examine Phase III of the implementation plan and
do the public consensus building. Everyone who now does this is consolidated in one place, American
Farmland Trust.
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff has been able to be of assistance. Ms. Buttrick said there is no
standing staff person, but they can approach departments as needed. Staff has assisted with specific
problems, but there has not been staff review or comments on the work as a whole. Mr. Tucker said staff
should meet with Ms. Buttrick to examine costs involved. There is no one on staff with this expertise or
time, and the Board should provide someone who can assist her. Mr. Bowerman suggested a plan could
be formulated by Planning staff to work with the group, and the plan could be taken to the public, without
adding staff. Mr. Tucker said staff does not have the time or ability. Someone is going to have to be hired
to proceed, possibly on a part-time basis.
Ms. Humphris said if the County is serious about this matter, it needs to have a qualified person to
provide answers. The County cannot go to the Commission without answers. Ms. Buttrick said she
needs professional assistance to provide a final and detailed report and implementation plan.
Ms. Thomas said it sounds like the committee wants assistance to provide statisticS; that will have
to come from staff. Then a public work session should be held, and assistance must be provided to
develop the permanent plan. Mr. Martin suggested Mr. Tucker and Ms. Buttrick determine what is
needed. Ms. Buttrick said she continues to work with the staff to work on aspects of the program and
statistics. She said there has been a lot of trouble figuring that out on the staff level. She is developing
the fiscal impact with aSsistance from County Executive staff, but needs a consultant to design the final
program and to develop public consensus.
Mr. Martin said the Board is committed to the program. Ms. Buttrick asked if there is any schedule
the Board wants to follow. Mr. Tucker said it will depend on how quickly the program is pulled together.
Ms. Buttrick said the Board needs to appoint a representative of the Piedmont Environmental
Council to the PDR Committee to replace Mr. Timothy Lindstrom. Ms. Thomas moved that
Ms. Babette Thorpe be appointed to replace Mr. Lindstrom on the PDR Committee, with said term to be
effective February 3, 1999. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session: Personnel Matters and Property Acquisition.
At 12:32 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go into Executive Session
pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
Boards and Commissions; under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for environmental
protection purposes; under subsection (3) to consider the use of County property for specific public
purposes; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal issues
concerning two service agreements, a highway project agreement, and pending litigation. Ms. Humphris
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
000304
Agenda Item No. 18. Certify Executive Session.
At 3:15 p.m., motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris,
that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public
business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or
considered in the executive session.
(Note: Ms. Thomas reconvened the Board, as Mr. Martin did not return until 3:20 p.m.
Mr. Marshall did not return following the executive session.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 15. Work Session: FY 1999/2000-FY 2003/2004 Capital Improvements
Program.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said that, at the December CIP work session,
staff presented several funding options to the Board for $22.0 million needed to fund general government
requested projects in the CIP, and $10.5 million needed for the School Division's requested CIP projects.
For the School Division, the Board supported the funding option that freed up $5.6 million dollars in local
transfer funds targeted for repair and replacement projects to be used for additional debt service on the
School Board's requested projects. On December 14, the School Board approved this funding option,
which provides a $61.0 million School CIP for FY 1999/00 - FY 2003/04.
For General Government, the options were: 1) not fund the projects; 2) increase local revenue
resources, to pay-as-you-go on projects; 3) lease purchase general government projects; or 4) pursue a
general obligation bond referendum for needed projects. Staff was to come back to the Board in February
to provide more detail on the unfunded general government projects and associated funding options prior
to a public hearing scheduled for March.
As shown in the material provided to the Board, available revenues are exceeded by $22.0 million
between the requested projects and the funded projects in the FY 1999/00 - 2003/04 CIP. The three
major unfunded projects are the Juvenile Court complex (increased from an estimated $5.0 million County
share to $15 million), the public safety facility, and the urban gymnasium. The other unfunded projects are
mainly in reduced project costs, and only total $836,000, when the three major projects are removed.
The Domestic and Juvenile Relations Court is the major project that exceeds the County's
available revenues, not only because it is an expensive project, but because it is not an optional project.
Although the scope of the project can be modified, the Juvenile Court building is programmed to be
remodeled or replaced soon. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court will receive a third judge in the
next fiscal year, which means that two courtrooms will be running at all times for Charlottesville and
Albemarle. Currently there is only one courtroom. The juvenile holding cells must also be completely
renovated or replaced, if the County is to be in compliance with state requirements. If the County chooses
not to fund the Juvenile Courthouse replacement project, it is likely that it will be ordered by the Court.
The $4.6 million public safety facility is not a mandated project, although it is critical to the
expanding needs of both the police and fire/rescue departments. If the expanding public safety depart-
ments do not relocate to a separate facility, thus freeing up space in the County Office Building, the
County will need to seriously look at renovations or expansion of existing office space for these and other
growing programs and staff. Although a space analysis is underway, it has not been completed at this
time; therefore, no comparative costs can be projected for a new public safety facility versus additional
County Office Building space.
The urban gymnasium is a new project proposed by the Department of Parks and Recreation in
response to the increasing demand for gym space for youth basketball and other evening recreational
programs. At this point, there is no additional available gym space in the urban area from November to
March. However, questions have been raised about this project that are similar to those asked about the
Monticello High School swimming pool, i.e., is it the role of government to provide recreational facilities to
the general public; should this project be funded solely by user fees, i.e. a self-sufficient project; or should
the County pursue some form of public/private partnership to provide the needed recreational space.
Conceding that the Juvenile Court complex must be renovated or replaced, there are three ways
to fund the project. First, the County could raise taxes in FY 2002 and FY 2003 to directly pay for the new
facility. The tax rate increase in both fiscal years would be approximately $0.12 cents. A second option
would be to arrange a lease/purchase agreement, which would cost the County approximately $1.3 million
a year in additional debt service. The additional debt service could be paid by a $0.02 cent tax rate
increase, diminishing to $0.01 in year 20 based on a 3.5 percent annual increase in the tax base. If the
Board does not wish to pursue a lease/purchase option (it is unclear at this time whether lease/purchase
000305
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
can.be an option), the third avenue is a general obligation bond referendum. The annual cost would be
approximately the same as the lease/purchase option at a $0.02 tax rate increase in year one, decreasing
to $0.01 in year 20.
If the County pursues a general obligation bond referendum for the juvenile courthouse, a
referendum would need to be held in November, 2000 in order to begin construction in FY 2002. The
process would require the Board to approve an ordinance in July 2000 requesting the Circuit Court place
the bond referendum on the November ballot. If approved by the voters, it would take approximately one
year to prepare the bond prospectus and sell the bonds, and have the money available for construction in
November, 2001 or FY 2001102. Should the judges wish to fast track this project and begin construction
in early summer of 2001, the County may be forced to pursue some short-term interim borrowing until the
long-term bond financing is secured in November.
Should the Board wish to pursue a bond referendum for the courthouse, and that may be the only
option, if lease/purchase and a direct tax increase are not possible, the County may want to look at other
General Government projects to include in the same bond referendum. The Director of Finance believes
that the expense of a general obligation bond (estimated to cost between $75,0000 and $100,000) should
require a minimum bond amount of $20.0 million. Therefore, if a referendum is held the Board may want
to include other projects they feel strongly about in the bond referendum. Potential projects could include
partially funded CIP projects, e.g. sidewalks, athletic fields, traffic calming, as well as identified future
needs that are not in the proposed CIP, e.g. libraries, urban improvements, PDR. Another possibility is to
include some projects that have already been funded in the CIP, e.g. fire stations, 800 MHZ, which could
free up already committed transfer revenues for other projects or to put towards debt service.
From the above list, the Board may want to decide which projects are important enough to the
public to place on a referendum, with the knowledge that the tax rate would need to be increased to pay
the debt service on the bond proceeds. Even without the unknowns, which may be considerable, a
potential bond referendum could be as high as $25.0 to $30.0 million.
Debt service on a $25.0 million dollar bond over 20 years at six percent interest rate would require
an approximate tax rate increase of $0.035, diminishing to a little less than $0.02 cents by year 20, based
on a 3.5 percent average annual increase in the tax base. Debt service on a $30.0 million dollar bond
would require a $0.04 tax rate increase, diminishing to approximately $0.02 by year 20. For a $25.0
million bond, total obligated debt and debt service would be at the following limits: long-term debt per
capita at $1,158; long-term debt per assessed property values at 1.3 percent; debt service as a percent-
age of general fund revenues at 12.32 percent in FY 2003. For a $30.0 million bond amount, the ratios
would be $1,216 per capita, 1.4 percent of assessed value, and 12.9 percent of revenues.
What becomes evident from the Capital Improvements Program requests over the past several
years, as well as potential projects, such as the libraries, sidewalks, traffic calming, urban improvements
and neighborhood development plans that are not even in the CIP, is that Albemarle County may be
entering a new phase of capital infrastructure needs, all connected to a growing and urbanizing popula-
tion. In the past 15 years, the County has been able to fund the School Division's growth and infrastruc-
ture needs through VPSA bonds. General Government is now faced with similar needs, although an
adequate funding source is not available. The needs are quickly outstripping the annual transfer of
approximately $2.0 million dollars (increases to $3.1 million by FY 2003/04) to the General Government
CIP. Considering a $0.03 to $0.04 cent tax rate increase for general government debt, either through
lease/purchase or bond referendum, the Board needs to recognize that School Division debt currently
uses $0.15 cents of the tax rate, increasing to $0.16 by FY 2005 if all requested school projects are
funded.
Staff has also provided a list of questions from the December work session, a chart showing the
pay out schedule for existing VPSA bonds, and a list of the current outstanding bonds including the
remaining principal and interest and the year of retirement.
Ms. White said after the Board has had a chance to review and discuss the projects and funding
implications laid out above, staff would like the Board's input and consensus on the following questions:
Does the Board want to fund the public safety facility and/or the urban gymnasium? Are
they important enough for the Board to either raise taxes for a pay-as-you-go option or
increase debt service for a bond referendum?
If funding for the Juvenile Court complex is mandated, would the Board favor a
lease/purchase arrangement, if available, or would the Board want to take the decision to
the voters in a general obligation bond referendum?
If the County must go to a referendum for the Juvenile Court project in November 2000,
does the Board want to include other projects in the bond referendum? If yes, what
projects are important enough to take to the voters for a tax rate increase?
The Board asked Ms. White to prepare general obligation bond scenarios and present them to the
Board when available.
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
000,306
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Ms. Thomas said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission asked the Board to adopt a
resolution supporting increased funding for planning district commissions to continue the partnership of
state and local funding of the commissions.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas and seconded by Ms. Humphris to pass the resolution
stating that the County supports increased funding for planning district commissions to continue the
partnership of state and local funding of the commissions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission serves the City of Charlottesville and
the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson;
WHEREAS, the Commission provides a valuable link between state and local government; and
WHEREAS, the budget amendment before the Senate Finance Committee and the House Appropria-
tions Committee will increase the funding for planning districts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle supports increased funding for
planning district commissions to continue the partnership of state and local funding of the commissions.
Mr. Martin said some Board members want to take the Standards of Learning test. The School
Board will need to know who wants to take it, and individuals were advised to talk to the School Board
office.
Agenda Item No. 19. Appointments.
Mr. Bowerman moved that Mr. Charles Trachta be appointed to the Industrial Development
Authority, with said term effective February 3, 1999 and to expire January 20, 2003. Ms. Humphris
moved that Mr. Fred Catlin be appointed to the Route 250 East Study Committee, with said term effective
February 3, 1999 and with no term expiration date. Ms. Thomas seconded the.motions. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Mr. Marshall,
Agenda Item No. 20. Recess and Reconve~e in Room 235.
At 4:05 p.m. the Board reconvened in Room 235.
Agenda Item No. 21. 4:00 P.M. - JOINT MEETING WITH SCHOOL BOARD
A) Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 4:15 by the Board of Supervisors Chair, Mr. Charles Martin,
and Chairman of the School Board, Mr. John Baker. All Board of Supervisors members were present
except Mr. Marshall. Mr. Perkins arrives at 4:40 p.m.
School Board members present: Mr. John E. Baker; Mr. R. Madison Cummings, Jr.;
Mr. Jeffrey D. Joseph; Mr. Stephen H. Koleszar; and Ms. Diantha H. McKeel.
School Board members absent: Ms. Susan C. Gallion and Dr. Charles M. Ward.
Mr. Martin said the Board of Supervisors are proud of the efforts by local School Board members
to make the school system a good one, and presented Mr. Baker a proclamation declaring February, 1999
School Board Appreciation Month.
School Board Appreciation Month
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
O0039'7
WHEREAS,
the Commonwealth of Virginia is proud of its educational system and is apprecia-
rive of the efforts of local school board members to make the Virginia public
school system an excellent place in which to educate its youth; and
WHEREAS,
local school boards have devoted themselves to providing a high quality of
education for all students of the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS,
this year's theme, "School Boards Work!" is a testimony to the importance of
education in all walks of life;
WHEREAS,
the contributions of these men and women should be recognized and appreciated
by all who benefit from our public school system;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charles S. Martin., Chairman on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors do hereby proclaim the month of
February '1999, as School Board Appreciation Month
and call its significance to the attention of all citizens.
B) Discussion: FY 1999/2000 School Board Budget.
Dr. Castner provided an overview of the FY 1999/2000 School Board budget. He said the School
Board is faced with restructuring funds, refocusing issues, and solving problems without money,
particularly those associated with transportation, differentiated funding, and literacy. Their greatest
challenge is to continue to preserve and enhance the quality of education while the community is growing.
Nine schools offer greater than 25 percent free and reduced lunches; six offer meals to more than 30
percent of their students. In at least two elementary schools, the mobility rate is 40 percent, which means
that four out of ten children leave after the first of the year. In one elementary school over 40 languages
are spoken, making diversity prevalent. Four schools have specialized populations in excess of 20
percent. In some schools, such as Cale Elementary, free and reduced lunches have gone up significantly
over the past five years, yet student performance has continued to be good. The building blocks of a
quality school system are dedicated and motivated staff, an environment which encourages learning, and
a supportive community.
He said the continuous division improvement process begins with budget discussions in January;
implementation in March; evaluation in July; Board priorities, mission and goals in October; and mid-year
review in December. It is a cycle which continues throughout the entire year. Focus areas include
meeting the Standards of Accreditation(SOA), equity, supporting employees through fair and reasonable
compensation, and growth. Revenue projections this year are accurate, and $350,000 needs to be
prioritized.
$200,000 has been earmarked for meeting Standards of Learning (SOL). This includes a phase-
in of a Division Literacy Program in all schools, clearly defined benchmarks in the core content areas with
longitudinal assessment, required system-wide student intervention/remediation programs, and a strong
SOL staff development program. Dr. Castner said the schools met 22 out of 28 SOL areas this year,
leaving room for improvement.
Dr. Castner said equity involves: $490,836 would provide 12 positions to fund an equal baseline
before differentiated staffing is provided, as follows (K - 3 = 20.25 to 1, 4 - 5 = 21.25 to 1,6 - 12 = 22.55 to
1); $40,932 for teaching assistant time in elementary schools with fewer than 300 students to allow Media
Centers to be open all day without having to use existing staff to do so; $32,723 for an additional .8
teaching position to staff the Elementary Task Force recommendations in art, music, and physical
education; and $54,192 to fund the second phase of a plan to place health clinicians in all elementary
schools.
Supporting employees through fair and reasonable compensation includes: $2,071,109 to provide
a four-percent salary increase pool; $428,139 to make a required VRS payment; $249,618 to maintain the
current level of health and dental insurance benefits; and $44,469 to fund the second phase of a plan to
address salary compression. Dr. Castner said the competition for getting good teachers is getting
tougher, and the County is having trouble filling some positions. With the proposed structure, the County
will rank third in the area for starting salaries. Recommendations from the consultant include: $458,114
for 11.2 teaching positions (regular education); $163,612 for four special education teaching positions;
$175,000 for meeting the Comprehensive Services Act; $97,127 for seven additional placements at Ivy
Creek School; $76,301 for ESOL services; $80,000 for technology reorganization; $78,866 for CATEC;
$80,000 for high school athletics; and $344,941 for other growth (textbooks, materials, custo-
dial/maintenance).
Mr. Martin asked about the Comprehensive Services Act. He said the Board of Supervisors has
approved increases already this year to fund issues surrounding Social Services and courts. He also
OOO308
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
asked if the $175,000 is local money. Dr. Castner said all the money is local money. The School Division
had to increase the amount requested due to increases being encumbered into the next year. He added
that costs will continue to rise as mandated.
Dr. Castner said new revenues for 1999-2000 are less than last year. There is $4,812,892 in
committed 1999-2000 new revenue, and $77,342,071 in projected 1998-99 revenue. Unfunded initiatives
total $22.2 million. Remaining options include: increasing class size, not having competitive compensa-
tion, and discontinuing the textbook replacement cycle. As the County continues to grow and become a
more diverse population, it wi[[ move forward, but will be a challenge. The budget is merely a revenue and
expenditure plan for supporting the building blocks of equality in the school system. He said the schools
need to provide learning for all, regardless of what it takes.
Dr. Castner mentioned two handouts, including an article from the Washington Post discussing
the SOUs. He mentioned that the Board of Supervisors indicated a desire to take the tests. He
suggested that perhaps the School Board should also take the test.
Ms. Thomas said the variety within the teaching profession might make it easier to fill different
positions. Ms. Diane Ippolito, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, said science, math, technology,
and special education positions are difficult to fill, and the County currently uses Ion§-term substitutes in
some cases. Mr. Frank Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support, said the County is competing with
rest of the state and the region for good candidates, who say the cost of living is higher than other areas
and salaries are lower. Mr. Baker said recruiting should be done on a much broader basis, because other
localities recruit from outside their areas. Competition is nationwide, with many other areas offering
wonderful benefits packages. Dr. Castner said the starting salary in Hanover County is $30,000.
Mr. Perkins asked if there will ever be an increase in pay for teachers in the areas where there are
shortages. Mr. Morgan said that would mean making a value judgement between teachers, which is
difficult. Mr. Perkins said applicants will go where the shortages are. Dr. Castner said the School Division
wi[[ have to examine creative ways to make those decisions. Fortunately, the County has not yet reached
that point.
Mr. Baker said the School Division has explored bonuses for school bus drivers who stay with the
County for more than one year. This is a good investment, considering what the County pays to train the
employees. Mr. Martin asked if drivers get the same insurance benefits as other employees. Mr. Baker
replied affirmatively.
Ms. McKeel said the County has to pull teachers to cover for those classes that do not have
substitute teachers. Dr. Castner said the County pays $52 per day for substitute teachers; neighboring
counties pay $60 per day. Mr. Cummings said huge numbers of teachers are going to retire in the next
few years.
Mr. Koleszar said SOL's indicate the County must do a better job teaching students. The state is
providing more money to do this, but it will require more effort on the part of teachers. Mr. Baker said the
key is the word "all". The County must consider all the students and all the programs. That is why the list
of unfunded priorities is so high.
Dr. Castner said it makes a difference when the County brings in quality people. He thanked
Ms. Ippolito for making a difference in this school system, which has moved forward due to the quality she
brought to the system. Ms. Ippolito said the County is "quality", and that it was a privilege to have worked
here.
C) Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas invited School Board members to attend a meeting on the widening of Route 250
West to be held Thursday, February 11, 1999, from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m., at Murray Elementary School. She
is interested in having School staff and School Board members there to consider alternatives.
Mr. Koleszar added that he would like to take the Standards of Learning test.
00.0309
February 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Date
~nitials
Board
,~h-airman