1999-11-03November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on November 3, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, 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, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 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. Board Service Recognition. On behalf of the
citizens and local government staff of Albemarle County, Mr. Tucker recognized
Mr. Walter F. Perkins for 12 years service as a Board member. He read from
the plaque ~I would like'to recognize Walter Fo Perkins for his outstanding
efforts in serving on the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for the past
twelve years, a truly significant and impressive milestone. We are most
grateful for the time, energy and dedication you have committed to insuring
the efficient and effective operation of county government. Your tireless
devotion to the well-being of our community truly has made our county a better
place to live and work." Similar plaques were presented to Ms. Charlotte Y.
Humphris for 10 years service as a Board member and to Mr. David P. Bowerman
for 10 years service as a Board member.
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 6.1 through 6.8, and to accept the
remaining items on the consent agenda as information. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Item 6.1. Proclamation proclaiming November 8, 1999, as World Town
Planning Day. Mr. Martin read the following proclamation and commended the
County's Planning staff for their work.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, November 8th, 1999, is the 50th Anniversary of
WORLD TOWN PLANNING DAY; and
WHEREAS, November 8th of each year has been celebrated as
World Town Planning Day in many countries since its inception in
1949; and
WHEREAS, The American Institute of Certified Planners
(AICP) acting for the 11,000 members of the planning profession
in America, a component of the 30,000-member American Planning
Association, endorses World Town Planning Day as an opportunity
to highlight the contributions sound planning makes to the
quality of our settlements and environment and to celebrate
American accomplishments in making collective decisions
concerning our cities and regions that bring quality and meaning
to our lives; and
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
WHEREAS, the celebration of World Town Planning Day gives
us the opportunity to publicly recognize the participation and
dedication of the members of planning commissions and other
citizen planners who have contributed their time and expertise
to the improvement of the County of Albemarle, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, we recognize the many valuable contributions made
by professional community and regional planners of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, and extend our heartfelt thanks for the
continued commitment to public service;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, CHARLES S. MARTIN, Chairman, on behalf
of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, do
hereby designate November 8th, 1999, as COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL
PLANNING DAY in the County of Albemarle, in conjunction with the
worldwide celebration of WORLD TOWN PLANNING DAY.
Item 6.2. Commission on Children and Families - Reappointment of
Members and Amendment of Agreement Establishing the Commission.
It was noted in the staff's report that recently the Department of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ) notified the Commission on Children and Families that
funding under the Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act would be
withheld unless the Commission changed the manner in which it makes its
appointments. Specifically, DJJ has established regulations which provide
that '~No title, position or agency shall be appointed .... "and '~Board members
shall be appointed for a term of no less than three years and not more than
five years .... " Unless the Board of Supervisors takes action to reappoint
its Commission members by name (as opposed to appointment by position), and to
specify specific terms of appointment for each appointee, DJJ will withhold
state funding from the County to operate the Commission. There are no
budgetary impacts if the Board agrees to these proposed changes. If the Board
declines to accept the changes required by DJJ, the Commission will lose
approximately $55,000 ($27,500 County share) in operational revenues. Staff
recommended that the Board approve the required changes. It also sent to the
Board a list of the persons proposed to be reappointed along with a copy of
the proposed revision~of the original agreement establishing the Commission.
City Council approved the requested change at its meeting on October 4.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following
Amendment of Agreement Establishing the Commission on Children and Families,
and approved of the reappointments listed below:
AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
This 3rd day of November, 1999, the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council have entered
into an agreement to amend and modify their previous agreement
forming the Commission on Children and Families.
WHEREAS, the parties mutually desire to amend and modify
their previous agreement forming the Commission on Children and
Families (hereinafter, "Original Agreement");
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises
set forth herein, the parties do hereby agree as follows:
1)
With respect to the STRUCTURE OF THE COMMISSION, the City
and the County agree that:
a)
The Commission shall consist of seventeen voting
members. A majority of the board shall be citizen~
who are not employed by government or servic~
agencies and who are not elected ~overnment
officials. Nine of the votinq members shall be
citizen representatives ("Citizen Members"): four
appointed by the County, four appointed by the City,
and one jointly appointed private service provider.
Of the nine citizen members, at least one appointee
from each jurisdiction must be a parent, and
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
least one appointee from each jurisdiction must be a
youth under the age of eighteen years at the tim~
his or her appointment takes effect. Scvcn mc~,~crs
....... public ~ .... ~ .........................
.................. rcprcscnt ........... ~. ~
.......... = on .................... Eight of the voting
me.ers shall be as follows ("Agency Me. ers"): the
Superintendent of the Charlottesville City School
division; the Superintendent of the Albemarle County
School division; the Director of the Charlottesvill.
Department of Social Services; the Director of the
Albemarle County Department of Social Services; tha
Director of the Sixteenth District Court Services
Unit; the Director of the Thomas Jefferson Health
District; the Director of Region Ten Community
Services Board; and, a representative of tha
University of Virginia. In addition to th~
seventeen voting members, the Commission shall
include three non-voting members, an Albemarle
Assistant County Executive; a Charlottesvill~
Assistant City Manager; and the President of the
United Way - Thomas Jefferson Area.
b)
............................................... appointed
..... =~ .................. ~ Terms of Appointment.
Each voting Citizen Member of the Commission shall
be appointed for a term that shall expire three
years from the first day of July of the year of
appointment, except the youth citizen me, ers shall
be appointed for a term that shall expire one year
from the first day of July of the year o~
appointment. With the exception of the privatm
service provider representative, each voting citize~
member shall be eligible for reappointment to on~
additional term of the same length as the initial
appointment. The private service provider shall not
be eligible for reappointment to a second term.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, an~ votin~ citize~
member, including the private service provider, who
is initially appointed to fill a vacancy, may serv~
an additional successive term. Appointments shall
be staggered, for continuity. Each voting Agency
Member of the Commission shall be appointed for a
term that will expire five years from the first day
of July of the year of appointment. Each voting
Agency Member shall be eligible for reappointm~nt to
one or more successive terms.
Manner of Appointments. Each appointment, whether
for voting or non-voting positions, shall be made by
having the City Council and/or County Board of
Supervisors (as may be applicable) name the specific
individual who will serve on the Comm~ssion and by
identifying the date upon which that individual's
appointed term will expire. No title, position or
agency shall be appointed to the Commission.
Other Terms. Other than those amended and modified as
provided herein above, all other terms and conditions of
the parties' Original Agreement shall remain in full force
in effect.
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Following is the list of County appointments which was also
ratified:
COUNTY APPOINTMENTS
Original Appointment
Name of Appointee Appointment Appointee to Represent Expires
Meredith Strohm Gunter 03-04-98 Citizen Member 06-30-2001
Larry Miller 03-04-98 Citizen Member 06-30-2000
Sterling Robinson 07-01-99 Citizen Member 06-30-2002
Bryson Grover 01-02-99 Citizen Youth Member 01-31-2000
Jeffrey Sobel 03-18-98 Joint City/County Private 06-30-2001
Service Provider
Martha Carroll 11-03-99 16th District Court 06-30-2004
Service Unit
Dr. Kevin Castner 11-03-99 Superintendent, Albemarle 06-30-2004
Public Schools
Dr. Susan McLeod 11-03-99 Director, Thomas Jefferson 06-30-2004
Health District
James Peterson 11-03-99 Director, Region Ten 06-30-2004
Community Services Board
Katherine Ralston 11-03-99 Director, Albemarle Social 06-30-2004
Services Department
Martha Snell 11-03-99 University of Virginia 06-30-2003
Roxanne White 11-03-99 County Executive 06-30-2004
Cathy Train 11-03-99 Thomas Jefferson Area 06-30-2004
United Way
Item 6.3. Resolution to accept Peter Jefferson Parkway in Peter
Jefferson Place Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the following
Resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street in Peter Jefferson Place Subdivision
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October
14, 1999, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on
plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements
of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board
of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to add Peter Jefferson Parkway in Peter Jefferson
Place Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form
SR-5(A) dated October 14, 1999, to the secondary system of state
highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear
and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution
be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1) Peter Jefferson Parkway from the intersection of
Route 250 (Station 10+00) to Station 19+35, as shown on
plat recorded 9/28/99 iN the office of the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1861, page
82, with a variable (>100) right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.17 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.17 mile.
Item 6.4. Resolution to accept roads in Foxcroft Subdivision, Phase 2,
into the State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the following
Resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Foxcroft Subdivision described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5{A) dated October 27, 1999,
fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet
the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board
of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to add the roads in Foxcroft Subdivision as
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October
27, 1999, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
§33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision
Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear
and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution
be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Foxvale Lane from the intersection of Foxchase Ridge and
Foxcrest Way (Station 16+50) to Station 20+30, as shown on
plat recorded 12/16/97 in the office of the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1662, pages
352-355, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length
of 0.069 mile.
2)
Running Fox Lane from the~intersection of Foxvale Lane
(Station 10+00) to the end of the cul-de-sac (Station
15+91.97}, as shown on plat recorded 12/16/97 in the
office of the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County
in Deed Book 1662, pages 352-355, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.112 mile.
3)
Running Fox Court from the intersection of Foxvale Lane
(Station 10+00) to the end of the cul-de-sac (Station
11+71.60), as shown on plat recorded 12/16/97 in the
office of the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County
in Deed Book 1662, pages 352-355, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.033 mile.
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Total Mileage - 0.214 mile.
Item 6.5. Resolution to accept roads in Redfields Subdivision, Phase
IA, lB, 2A, 2B, 2C and 3A, into the State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the following
Resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Redfields Subdivision, Phases lA,
lB, 2A, 2B, 2C and 3A, described on the attached Additions Form
SR-5(A) dated October 11, 1999, fully incorporated herein by
reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident 'Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet
the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board
of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to add the roads in Redfields Subdivision, Phases
lA, lB, 2A, 2B, 2C and 3A, as described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 11, 1999, to the secondary
system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear
and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution
be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Redfields Road from the intersection of Sunset
Avenue (Station 6+62.78) to the intersection of Swan
Ridge Road and Devon Court (Station 31+00}, as shown
on plat recorded 4/29/91 in the office of the Clerk
of circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
1150, pages 734-744; and plat recorded 10/4/96 in
Deed Book 1568, pages 218-227, with a 60-foot
right-of-way width, .for a length of 0.462 mile.
2)
Hayrake Lane from the intersection of Redfields Road
(Station 10+00) to the end of the cul-de-sac
(Station 19+09.4), as shown on plat recorded 4/29/91
in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1150, pages 734-744,
with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.172 mile.
3)
Fieldhaven Drive from the intersection of Hayrake
Lane (Station 10+00) to the end of the cul-de-sac
(Station 14+53.25), as shown on plat recorded
4/29/91 in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1150, pages
734-744, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.086 mile.
4)
Fieldstone Road from the intersection of Redfields
Road (Station 10+00) to the end of the cul-de-sac
(Station 22+28.00), as shown on plat recorded
5/22/92 in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1226, pages
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
643-646; and plat recorded 10/27/94 in Deed Book
1437, pages 697-700, with a 60-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.233 mile.
5)
6)
Grayson Lane from the intersection of Fieldstone
Road (Station 10+00) to the end of the cul-de-sac
(Station 15+69.42), as shown on plat recorded
5/22/92 in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1226 pages
643-646, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.108 mile.
Rockledge Drive from the intersection of Fieldstone
Road (Station 10+00) to the end of the cul-de-sac
(Station 16+13.71), as shown on plat recorded
5/22/92 in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1226, pages
643-646, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.116 mile.
7)
Morningside Lane from the intersection of Fieldstone
Road (Station 10+00) to the end of the cul-de-sac
(Station 14+17.60), as shown on plat recorded
5/22/92 in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1226, pages
643-646, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.079 mile.
8)
9)
Wintergreen Lane from the intersection of Fieldstone
Road (Station 10+00) to the end of the cul-de-sac
(Station 20+57.58), as shown on plat recorded
10/27/94 in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1437 pages
697-700, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.200 mile.
Laurel Glen from the intersection of Fieldstone Road
(Station 10+00) to the end of the cul-de-sac
(Station 13+84.27), as shown on plat recorded
3/15/95 in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1459 pages
179-183, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.073 mile.
lO)
Kelsey Drive from the intersection of Fieldstone
Road (Station 10+00) to the end of the cul-de-sac
(Station 15+69.54), as shown on plat recorded
3/15/95 in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1459, pages
179-183, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.108 mile.
ii)
12)
Devon Spring Court from the intersection of
Redfields Road (Station 10+00) to the end of the
cul-de-sac (Station 15+87.75), as shown on plat
recorded 10/4/96 in the office of the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1568,
pages 218-227, with a 50-foot right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.111 mile.
Swan Ridge Road from the intersection of Redfields
Road (Station 10+00) to the intersection of Sunset
Avenue (Station 25+91.61), as shown on plat recorded
10/4/96 in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1568, pages
218-227, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.491 mile.
13)
Wood Duck Lane from the intersection of Swan Ridge
Road (Station 10+00) to the intersection of Swan
Ridge Road (Station 22+53), as shown on plat
recorded 10/27/94 in the office of the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1437,
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
pages 697-700, with a 50-foot right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.237 mile.
Total Mileage - 2.476 mile.
Item 6.6. Appropriation: Education, $567,915.18 (Form #99039).
It was noted in the staff's report that the following sums of money had
been received for various functions, and need to be appropriated as detailed:
DONATIONS:
Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $750.00 from
R. Hilton Patterson. This donation is to be used for Field Hockey.
Henley Middle School received donations from the Henley Middle School
Parent Teacher Support Organization in the amount of $2500.00. These
donations will be used for salaries for their At-Risk Program and their
Library Night.
CARL D. PERKINS VOCATIONAL FUND:
Final figures for Carl D. Perkins Vocational funds have recently been
made available to localities. Federal funding cuts were anticipated during
the preparation of the FY 1999-00 budget. However, rather than being reduced,
funding was increased by $16,041.00 over the prior's year level. In addition
to the increased funding, the Carl Perkins Vocational Grant for FY 1998-99 was
not fully expended and has a fund balance of $7249.47. These funds will be
used for stipends and staff/curriculum development.
INJURY PREVENTION PROJECT GRA/qT:
At the April 12, 1999, meeting, the School Board accepted funds for the
Injury Prevention Project Grant from the Virginia Department of Education's
Secondary Services Unit, for the Driver Education Program at Monticello High
School. Since these funds were not expended in the 1998-99 fiscal year, it is
requested that the grant funds be reappropriated for the 1999-00 fiscal year.
These funds will be used to purchase traffic safety instructional resources
for Monticello High School's Driver Education Program.
CHILD HEALTH IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE GRANT:
Martha Jefferson Health Services (MJHS) awarded Murray Elementary School
a grant to fund the Child Health Improvement Initiative Grant for Preschool.
A preschool teacher at Murray Elementary School will coordinate the program of
learning about healthy food choices.
GRANT:
Title IV of the Safe and Drug Free School and Communities Act of 1994
provides funding to local school divisions for operating substance abuse
programs to students. The Albemarle County program provides funding to 1) the
Albemarle County Police Department for the purpose of providing student
instruction for substance abuse prevention (DARE Program and School Resource
Officers), and 2) the Region 10 Community Services Board for the purpose of
providing assistance to students. There is a fund balance retained by the
State of $7920.71 from the 1998-99 fiscal year grant budget to appropriate.
This money will be used as a partial payment to Region Ten Community Services
Board to counsel students referred by the guidance departments for conflict
resolution, anger management and drug prevention groups. Also the funds will
help to pay for the examination and analysis of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey
to be administered through the Health and Physical Education classes.
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAM:
The Albemarle County Schools Child Nutrition Program is a
self-sustaining fund that operates from the fees generated by the sale of
school lunches and Federal funding for the National School Lunch and Breakfast
Program. Sales for this program have been increasing quickly. In FY 1998-99,
both the expenses and the revenues for this program exceeded the appropriated,
b~dgeted amounts. Preliminary revenue estimates for FY 1998-99 exceeded
expenses by more than $100,000.00. The Board of Supervisors is requested to
appropriate funds for the Child Nutrition Program in the amount of
$225,454.00.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION:
The Department of Community Education provides a wide range of programs
and services to the general student population and to the general public as
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
well. The department includes the Extended Day Enrichment Programs (EDEP),
OPEN DOORS continuing education courses, Driver's Education programs at
Albemarle, Western Albemarle and Monticello High Schools, and the Virginia
Motorcycle Safety Program. The Department of Community Education was funded
in the school budget for the 1998-1999 fiscal year in the amount of
$1,450,708. Expenditures exceeded appropriated funds by $305,000. This
request represents revenues collected beyond the appropriated budget, expected
collections of past due accounts and appropriation of the available fund
balance.
Staff recommended that the Board approve the appropriations totaling
$567,915.18 as detailed on Appropriation #99039.
(Ms. Humphris said when she read the material for the part of this
agenda item pertaining to Community Education, she became confused and posed
several questions to Mr. Tucker, who referred them to the School Division.
Mr. Zimmerman gave her a thorough explanation of the report. She would like
to bring it up later this morning during the School Board's Report instead of
now. She does not want to pull the item, only discuss it. [Note: Ms.
Humphris informed the Clerk later that she had discussed this item with School
officials outside of the meeting.])
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of
Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-2000
NUMBER: 99039
FUND: SCHOOL/VARIOUS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE CODE
2304 61105 601300
2252 61101 160300
3207 61190 160300
3207 61190 210000
3207 61190 580500
3300 61238 601300
3104 60216 601300
3107 61101 312700
3000 60209 600200
3000 60216 600200
3000 60252 600200
3000 60253 600200
3000 60302 600200
3300 60201 119400
3300 60203 119400
3300 60204 119400
3300 60205 159400
3300 60206 580000
3300 60209 119400
3300 60211 159400
3300 60212 119400
3300 60215 119400
3300 60216 312700
3300 60253 119400
3300 61235 331500
3300 61238 132100
3300 63300 115000
3300 63300 119400
3300 63300 271000
3300 63300 800300
3300 61237 312700
3300 60301 132000
3300 60201 231000
3300 60201 312700
3300 60203 159400
3300 60204 119401
3300 60204 159400
3300 60204 231000
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
MONTICELLO ED/REC SUPPLIES $750.00
HENLEY STIPENDS-STAFF CURR DEV 2,500.00
CARL PERKINS GR STIPENDS-STAFF CURR DEV 7,000.00
FICA
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
INJ!3RY PREVENTION ED/REC SUPPLIES
MJHS CHILD HEALTH ED/REC SUPPLIES
DRUG FREE SCHOOLS PROF SVC CONSULTANT
CHILD 5IUTRITION PROG FOOD SUPPLIES
FOOD SUPPLIES
FOOD SUPPLIES
FOOD SUPPLIES
FOOD SUPPLIES
COMMI/NITY EDUC SALARIES-TEACHER
SALARIES-TEACHER
SALARIES-TEACHER
SUB WAGES-ASEP
MISC EXPENSES
SALARIES-TEACHER
SUB WAGES-ASEP
SALARIES-TEACHER
SALARIES-TEACHER
PROF SER CONSULTANTS
SALARIES-TEACHER
R&M EQUIP-VEHICLES
PT WAGES-TEACHER
SALARIES-OFC CLERICAL
SALARIES-TEACHER
SELF INSURED
COMM EQUIPMENT
PROF SER CONSULTANTS
PT WAGES-PROF INST
HEALTH INS
PROF SER CONSULTANTS
SUB WAGES-ASEP
SALARIES-TEACHER AIDES
SUB WAGES-ASEP
HEALTH INS
TOTAL
535.50
15 754.97
2 000.00
1 000.00
7 920.71
20 000.00
30 718.00
67 211.00
46 484.00
61 041.00
16 503.30
9 748 30
10 359 98
17 673 84
8 242 84
12 067 00
10,219 14
11 432.25
15 092.24
26 238.50
8 172.50
11 186.47
14 759.94
27 807.70
38 620.64
20 000.00
11 640.00
2 658 25
1 842 78
3232 78
2 027 53
6,398 61
5,503 43
6,512 87
7,059 11
$567,915 18
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION
2 3207 33000 330107
2 3207 51000 510100
2 3300 24000 240305
2 3104 18000 181234
2 3107 24000 240500
2 3000 33000 330004
2 3000 60209 161204
2 3000 60216 161204
2 3300 16000 161201
2 3300 16000 161209
2 3300 16000 161229
2 3300 16000 161240
2 3300 16000 161250
2 3300 16000 161251
2 3300 16000 161254
2 3300 19000 190800
2 3300 24000 240770
2 3300 24000 240771
2 3300 33000 330610
2 3300 60206 161201
2 3300 60210 161201
2 3300 60216 161201
2 3300 60301 161201
CARL PERKINS
APPR FUND BALANCE
INJURy PREV GR3kNT
MJHS CHILD HEALTH GRA/qT
GRANT REV-STATE
FED LUNCH PGM
SCH CAFETERIA SALES
SCH CAFETERIA SALES
TUITION-PRIV SOURCES
DRIV ED-MOTORCYCLE
TUITION PRIOR YEAR
ASEP-SPANISH CLASS
ASEP REG FEES
MIDDLE SCH ASEP TUITION
DRIVER ED FEES MONTICELLO
INS RECOVERIES
DMV VA RIDER TRAIN PGM
STATE REIMB-DRIVER ED
US DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
TUITION-PRIV SOURCES
TUITION-PRIV SOURCES
TUITION-PRIV SOURCES
TUITION-PRIV SOURCES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$750.00
2,500.00
16,041.00
7,249.47
2,000 00
1,000 00
7,920 71
78,245 00
37,369 00
109,840 00
(3,418.57)
19 225.00
33 561.16
3 896.00
36 061.34
33 852.84
14 426.50
6 300.00
3 871.00
22 .400.00
13 944.77
12 .280.42
4 714.20
25 618 . 00
78 .267.34
$567 915.18
Item 6.7. Appropriation: Education, $105,696.60 (Form #99040).
It was noted in the staff's report that the following sums of money had
been received for various functions, and need to be appropriated as detailed:
SPECIAL EDUCATION LOCAL IMPROVEMENT GRA~T:
Albemarle County Public School's Special Education Department has
received a Special Education Local Improvement Grant (SLIVER) from the
Virginia Department of Education in the amount of $23,217.00. Sliver funds
will allow Special Education teachers to be involved in the LANGUAGE! Program.
This staff development program is the first step in a system wide attempt to
implement an effective intervention strategy targeting special education and
at-risk youth in the school system, ranging from.beginning decoding skills to
the study of vocabulary development, spelling, grammar, literature and
composition. Participants will receive all the necessary materials to
implement the LANGUAGE! Program in their classrooms.
TRAFFIC SAFETY RESOURCE GRA/~T:
Albemarle County Public Schools have received a Traffic Safety Resource
Grant award from the Virginia Department of Education's Secondary Services
Unit for Western Albemarle High School's Driver Education Program in the
amount of $1000.00. These funds will be used to purchase traffic safety
instructional resources for Western Albemarle High School's Driver Education
Program.
GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA GRA/qT:
Albemarle County Public Schools have received two grant awards from the
Goals 2000: Educate America Grant. The first is Classroom Computers and
Related Technology in the amount of $47,197.92 and the second is Pre and/or
Inservice Training in the amount of $981.80. This funding is to be used for
the purchase of new networked classroom multimedia computers and inservice
training of staff and teachers in support of efforts to improve education in
the school division through provision of computers and related technology.
ARTISTS IN EDUCATION RESIDENCY GRA/~T:
Two Albemarle County Public Schools have received Artists in Education
Residency Grants (AIERES) from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. Stony
Point Elementary School has received $2370.00 for a project entitled African
Culture: Connections to America's Past, Present and Future; and Jack Jouett
Middle School received $1682.66 for a project entitled History of Printmaking.
The AIERES grant will enhance existing arts by integrating the musical arts,
visual arts and academic curricula.
GRA~T FROM THE FREDERICK S. UPTON FOUI~-DATION:
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Henley Middle School has received a grant award from the Frederick S.
Upton Foundation in the amount of $6500.00. This grant will fund three
artists in residence: Sculptor, Storyteller, and Educational Drama
Consultant. The project will involve interactive activities to include hands
on learning experience for students with performing, visual and musical arts.
MISCELLANEOUS DONATIONS/PROJECTS:
Murray Elementary School has received donations in the amount of
$145.00. Laura and Barton Weis donated $20.00, David and Kelly Haslup donated
$100.00, and Michael Santulli donated $25.00. These donations will be used to
purchase miscellaneous supplies for the school.
Western Albemarle High School received a donation from the Pilot Club of
Albemarle/Charlottesville Virginia District in the amount of $100.00. The
funds will be used for the Books-on-Tap program offered through the special
education department.
Since 1992, the GE Foundation and The Elfun Society has partnered with
Albemarle County Schools in a Math and Science Mentoring Program. This
project is on-going and has a fund balance of $20,920.86. These funds will be
used to continue the educational partnership, involving not only educators and
students, but also parents, GE volunteer scientists, and other science mentors
in the community to increase opportunities for students who have a high level
of interest in math and science.
The Albemarle Education Association and Barnes and Noble sponsored a
Bookblast in March, 1999. This was a one-day event where individuals
purchased books and Barnes and Noble donated a percentage of sales. As a
result of this event, Barnes and Noble has made a donation of $1580.36 to be
distributed equally among each school library.
Staff recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the
appropriations as detailed in Appropriation #99040.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of
Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99040
FUND: SCHOOL/VARIOUS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE CODE
3211 61102 160300
3211 61102 210000
3211 61102 580500
3305 61236 601300
3135 60605 580500
3135 60605 800100
3104 60211 312500
3104 60253 312500
3104 60252 312500
2215 61411 580000
2302 61102 601300
3204 61311 601300
3206 61311 601300
2201 61101 601300
2202 61101 601300
2203 61101 601300
2204 61101 601300
2205 61101 601300
2206 61101 601300
2207 61101 601300
2209 61101 601300
2210 61101 601300
2211 61101 601300
2212 61101 601300
2213 61101 601300
2214 61101 601300
2215 61101 601300
2216 61101 601300
DESCRIPTION
SPEC ED-SLIVER STIPENDS-CURR DEV
FICA
ST~FF DEV
TRAFFIC SAFETY INST/REC MATERIALS
GOALS 2000 STAFF DEV
MACH/EQUIPMENT
ARTISTS IN EDUC PROF SVC CONSULT
PROF SVC CONSULTANT
UPTON FOUNDATION PROF SVC-CONSULT
MURRAY ELEM MISCELLANEOUS EXP
PILOT CLUE INST/REC MATERIALS
GE/ELFUN SOCIETY INST/REC MATERIALS 4,132
INST/REC MATERIALS 16,788
BARNES & NOBLE INST/REC MATERIALS 65
AMOUNT
$7,758.00
643.00
14,816.00
1,000.00
981.80
47,197.92
2,370.00
1,682.66
6,500.00
145 00
100 00
O2
84
85
INST/REC MATERIALS
INST/REC MATERIALS
INST/REC MATERIALS
INST/REC MATERIALS
INST/REC MATERIALS
INST/REC MATERIALS
INST
INST
INST
INST
INST
INST
INST
INST
/REC MATERIALS
/REC MATERIALS
/REC MATERIALS
/REC MATERIALS
/REC MATERIALS
/REC MATERIALS
/REC MATERIALS
/REC MATERIALS
65 85
65 85
65 85
65 85
65 85
65 85
65.85
65.85
65.85
65.85
65.85
65.85
65.85
65.85
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
1 2251 61101 601300
1 2252 61101 601300
1 2253 61101 601300
1 2254 61101 601300
1 2255 61101 601300
1 2301 61101 601300
1 2302 61101 601300
1 2303 61101 601300
1 2304 61101 601300
INST/REC MATERIALS
INST/REC MATERIALS
INST/REC MATERIALS
INST/REC MATERIALS
INST/REC MATERIALS
INST/REC MATERIALS
INST/REC MATERIALS
INST/REC MATERIALS
INST/REC MATERIALS
TOTAL
REVENUE CODE
2 3211 24000 240357
2 3305 24000 240771
2 3135 24000 240324
2 3104 24000 240355
2 3104 24000 240356
2 3104 18000 181221
2 2000 18100 181109
2 2000 18100 181109
2 3204 51000 510100
2 3206 51000 510100
2 2000 18100 181109
DESCRIPTION
SLIVER GRANT
TRAFFIC SAFETY GRAi~T
GOALS 2000
AIERES-STONY POINT
AIERES-JOUETT
UPTON FOUNDATION
DONATION
DONATION
GE ELFUN SOCIETY
GE FOUNDATION
DONATION
TOTAL
65.85
65.85
65.85
65 85
65 85
65 85
65 85
65 81
65 85
$105,695 6O
AMOUNT
$23,217 00
1,000 00
48,179 72
2,370 00
1,682 66
6,500 00
145 00
100 00
4,132.02
16,788.84
1,580.36
$105,695.60
Item 6.8. Appropriation: Earlysville Meadows Subdivision, Summer Lane,
$10,410.57 (Form #99041).
It was noted in the staff's report that in October, 1992, the County
cashed a road/subdivision bond in the amount of $8000.00 for completion of
Summer Lane in Earlysville Meadows Subdivision (AKA Keatsway). This bond was
cashed since the developer failed to complete his obligations and the Letter
of Credit securing the bond was expiring.
The Department of Engineering & Public Works has been unsuccessful in
having the developer complete the work required to have Summer Lane accepted
into the State Secondary Road System. Therefore, the Department intends to
hire a contractor to complete the work necessary for acceptance of the road
into the State Secondary Road System. This request is to appropriate $8000.00
in bond proceeds, plus accrued interest, into an expenditure account to fund
completion of the road work. Staff recommended approval of Appropriation
~99041 in the amount of $10,410.57.
(Mr. Martin asked the name of the developer of this subdivision. Mr.
Bill Mawyer responded that it is Mr. Richard Waldon, Sequoia Development. Mr.
Martin said he wanted to know the name in case this comes back to the Board
again. Ms. Humphris felt it would be good to include the developer's name in
the executive summary in the future.
Mr. Mawyer said the Department is making a concerted effort to get all
the old road and erosion control projects on which the County has been holding
bonds for a number of years, completed, either by the developer/builder or the
County using that bond.
Mr. Perkins said he remembers there were a number of these things a
number of years ago, and the county has gone to great lengths to get these
things straightened out. Particularly, making sure the bond is large enough
to cover the work. Mr. Mawyer said staff is not sure the bond on this road
will cover the work. .
Mr. Bowerman asked how often the bond is reviewed. Mr. Mawyer said that
is an annual review. The department goes to lengths to get the developer's to
do the work. That is one reason why this one has been languishing since
1992.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of
Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NI3MBER: 99041
FUND: GENERAL
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13 )
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COMPLETION OF SUMMER LANE WITH BOND
PROCEEDS
EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION
1 1000 41000 950109 ENGINEERING EARLYSVILLE MEADOWS
REVENTJE CODE
2 1000 19000 199900
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
OTHER RECOVERED COST
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$10,410.57
$10,410.57
AMOUNT
$10,410.57
$10,410.57
Item 6.9. FY 1999-2000 Revised and FY 2000-2001 Estimated General Fund
Revenues, was received for information.
It was noted in the staff's report that the November revenue estimate
for the current and next fiscal years is the first step in the annual budget
process for both the operating and capital budgets. Revised revenue
projections are provided by the Department of Finance in late October after
the second cycle property tax bills have been processed.
The revised projections for FY 1999-2000 exceed the appropriated budget
by $2,050,963, 1.9 percent. The excess revenues are due to increased real
estate, personal property, sales and use, business license, lodging and meals
taxes, offset by decreases in other local revenues, State and Federal taxes.
The decrease in other local revenue reflects reductions in interest income,
.due to lower cash balances and an accounting adjustment that allocates these
revenues to the proper funds. Reduced State and Federal revenues reflect the
fact that Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) funds now
will be collected by the City, as well as lower than anticipated as reported
by the Department of Social Services.
The estimated revenues for FY 2000-01 exceed the current year budget by
$6,673,270, 6.2 percent. Real estate tax represents 46 percent of the
increase due to an anticipated seven percent reassessment increase and
approximately $100,000,000 in new construction. Based on October tax bills,
personal property tax revenues increase 11.8 percent ($2.4 million) over the
FY 1999-2000 adopted budget. Additional revenues also are expected from sales
and use, business license, lodging and meals taxes. The decline in other
local revenue reflects the aforementioned reduction in interest income, as
well as a decrease in E-911 reimbursements for one-time planning costs funded
in FY 2000. Projected State and Federal revenues reflect the aforementioned
loss of VJCCCA revenues, as well as revenues as reported by the Department of
Social Services. The Social Services projections may be revised upward as
more accurate revenue data is received from the State.
The report was presented for the Board's information only and did not
require any action.
Item 6.10. Letter dated October 14, 1999, from Ms. Louise Finger,
Environmental Engineer, Department of Environmental Quality, to the Honorable
Charles Martin, Chairman, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0025518,
Moores Creek Regional Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), was received as
information.
Item 6.11. Copy Of Planning Commission minutes for October 5, 1999, was
received for information.
Item 6.12. Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1999,
was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: February 22 (A), March 5,
March 26 (A), June 4 and October 28 (A), 1997; and March 17 (A), September 8
and September 15, 1999.
Ms. Thomas had read March 5, 1997, and made the following minute book
correction: (page 40, fourth paragraph, fourth sentence should read: "...
1988 local taxes at 24 percent, 1998 at 32 percent; .... "
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Marshall had read September 8, 1999, and found them to be in order.
Ms. Humphris had read February 22 (A), March 26 (A) and October 28,
1997, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Martin had read March 17 (A), 1999, and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve
the minutes as read, with one minute book correction. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Transportation Matters.
Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer, provided an update on outstanding
issues. She reported that Ms. Thomas had requested, on behalf of a
constituent, that VDOT look into the signing at the Barracks Road/Route 250
Bypass intersection for left turns in the westbound direction, and also for
street lights. Review of that intersection indicated that many of the signs
are dull and faded and need upgrading. The Department has scheduled
replacement and upgrading of several signs. From a cost standpoint, that
should mitigate the situation. Street lighting requests must come through the
County's Engineering Department. XrDOT feels new signs will make a big
difference.
Ms. Tucker said there was another issue regarding the relocation of a
stop bar at the Bellair/Route 250 Business intersection. That stop bar will
be adjusted and moved back slightly to enhance sight distance coming out of
Canterbury Road.
Ms. Tucker said Mr. Perkins requested that VDOT meet with County staff
to discuss the Routes 240/250. connector road. That meeting has been scheduled
for next Wednesday to discuss funding of such a road. She will advise the
Board of the results of that discussion.
Ms. Tucker said Ms. Humphris made a request regarding pedestrian
crossings and sidewalk connections (going from asphalt to a concrete sidewalk)
along Georgetown Road and Hydraulic Road. Her office is reviewing that
request now. The signal at Hydraulic/Georgetown Roads was the old span-wire
system and all signal systems are being upgraded to mast arms. At the same
time that is done, pedestrian crossing buttons are installed, so VDOT will
follow through with the appropriate crosswalks and check the sidewalk system
to make sure those are in place.
Mr. Perkins said he had discussed a situation with some plans on Dicker-
son Road, and the muddy condition of the road several Sundays ago. He had
received many irate calls about the condition of the road. He said the road
is less than one-quarter of mile off of Route 29 North on the way to Parham
United Methodist Church. He would like for VDOT to look at the possibility of
'paving that section of road. Dickerson Road is already listed in the Six-Year
Road Plan. He thinks there is already enough road width so it would require
little work to get that portion paved. The Church lot is used as a park and
ride lot, and there are a lot of activities on the site. He thinks this
paving would be beneficial. Ms. Tucker said her office will soon be having a
final meeting with County staff concerning the revised Six-Year Plan before
presenting it to the Planning Commission. This request can be discussed at
that time. Mr. Perkins asked when the Board's public hearing will be held
concerning this plan. Mr. Tucker said it has not been scheduled.
Ms. Thomas said she got a phone call about the intersection of Routes
240 and Route 810 in Crozet where the Dairy Queen and gasoline station are
going to be located. They questioned whether there should be a stop light at
that intersection because of increasing traffic. Ms. Tucker said several
months ago her office was requested to review that intersection for a signal.
They conducted a formal signal analysis, and the intersection does not meet
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
any warrants at this time. If the new development should warrant a signal or
change conditions, VDOT would'probably find a way to put a signal at that
intersection, hopefully, with developer participation.
Ms. Thomas mentioned Wyant Lane, and said there are people present this
morning who are interested in this project. She said it takes at least
fifteen years to get a project through the Six-Year Road Plan. Wyant Lane is
a road where the rights-of-way have been dedicated for a long time. Now,
there are people in the neighborhood who do not want the road paved.
Petitions have been circulating, and they are not all comparable in wording,
so some people have signed both petitions. She has gotten letters from people
saying they have changed their mind. Ms. Thomas said her only interest in
this matter is to do what is best for that community. Wyant Lane is different
from other projects in the Six-Year Plan because it is a dead-end road.
Paving it will not help with any other circulation patterns in the County.
Ms. Thomas said she wants all the people to know what they will get from
this project. She and Ms. Tucker have walked the entire length in both
directions. It is a road' that has a certain number of landowners and then
there are other people who rent, other people who live just off the road who
are not landowners. She does not want to '~drag" the other Board members into
a controversy that is rightly in her district, but she thinks that whatever is
done for this project will be regarded as a precedent. She said all know that
Catterton Lane was a hot issue the last time the Six-Year Plan was updated.
Ms. Tucker said since construction on the Six-Year Plan is moving so slowly,
she is concerned that this type of issue may arise many more times in the
future.
Mr. Bowerman Said there is a road in his district, Wakefield Road, a
private road, and there is interest in having it taken into the State
Secondary System (there may be funds available for this purpose). The
subdivision was developed many years ago and the rights-of-way dedicated, but
there is no road, no maintenance, nothing. Not everybody is going to be happy
with the improvements, but something has to be done. People living along the
road have different ideas about what needs to happen, but there are
constraints on the design if they want it taken into the System. These types
of issues have been around for years, and there are similar issues in every
district. This one came to light because of the E-911 system when it could
not be found on any of the maps.
Mr. Martin asked if the issue Ms. Thomas is bringing to the Board is the
simple fact that right-of-way has been donated in the past for the road to be
paved, and now there are new people living in the area who do not want the
road paved and who want to take back the right-of-way. The question is how
does the Board proceed on those types of issues realizing a precedent could be
set. Ms. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Marshall said he believes that health and safety of the individuals
who live on that road are the major issue. He does still have concerns about
individual property rights, and he believes those people should have a say in
the project. He thinks that eliminates setting a precedent. If the
individuals in the area do not want the project and it does not create a
health and safety issue, then the wishes of the individuals should be
respected. On the other hand, if a health and safety issue is involved, then
that must be considered first.
Mr. Martin said there is also a planning situation. If the Board allows
a situation where a project was voted on and agreed to six years ago, and then
someone new moves into the community and wants something different, in order
for the Board to consider that wish the Board will need some refined rules and
regulations. He thinks a large percentage would need to agree to the change,
and there should be some cutoff in terms of the timeframe. The project should
not be canceled in the last year before construction.
Ms. Thomas said it would be impossible for this community to have 100
percent in favor of anything. She has told the people that it will take a
significant number to change because she said this project has been in the
plans for a long number of years. She suggested as a way to avoid this in the
future is to have the Planning-staff do something a year before the project
gets to the planning stages by VDOT so the neighborhood has an opportunity to
verify the project.
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Martin said he would suggest that the procedure not be changed. If
he had lived on the road for thirty years, and fifteen years ago he walked the
road and talked to all of the neighbors, got neighbors to sign a petition,
went to VDOT, got people to donate the right-of-way, and then three years
before the process begins new people in the neighborhood come in and want to
change the project, he would not be happy.
Ms. Thomas said that is why she thinks it should take far more than 50
percent of the people to stop the process. However, some people who gave the
rights-of-way are now concerned about removal of trees along the roadway, and
wish they had not given the right-of-way. Mr. Perkins said he thinks VDOT
needs to work on their standards. To have a 22-foot road with six-foot
shoulders and ditches, is the shocking thing to people. He thinks the road
design should fit the needs now, and not project the need way into the future.
He said that is the situation on many roads. The road design should be less,
!instead of more.
Ms. Thomas asked if the project were put off for another five years, is
there any hope that the design standards would be changed. Is there any
movement in VDOT to have rural roads paved to fit their surroundings?
Ms. Tucker said she is not aware of any revisions to the Pave-In-Place
legislation. This started as a pilot program and is something that the County
can continue to use. Unfortunately, it does not fit with many roads in Albe-
marle County because of the grading involved. Even if it did fit, it is a
misnomer because it is not truly pave-in-place. When VDOT improves roads it
has to provide for the minimum standard of a two-lane road which is 18 feet.
In many cases, they add a 20-foot pavement. To build a road without shoulders
and ditches is like building a house without gutters and drains around the
foundation. That is the integrity part of the project. There is also the
safety part which would be leaving fixed objects along the road in the form of
trees. Their standard has always been to remove those fixed objects.
Mr. Perkins said there are different road standards. What VDOT did with
Tabor Street was not the original design. VDOT built a lesser road there than
was to be built originally. There needs to be some flexibility. He
understands the need for drainage, etc. He does not believe VDOT needs a 50-
foot right-of-way. Forty feet is plenty where there is not much cut and fill.
Ms. Tucker agreed.
Mr. Bowerman said he believes this Residency Office and Ms. Tucker have
been receptive to working with the community. But, there are situations that
exist, for example, Garth Road, where there are trees at the pavement edge,
and that is not a safe situation, but how far off the edge is safe? When
those factors are considered, plus the speed limit, a reasonable look at the
road can allow for flexibility.
Mr. Martin asked the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Marshall said he does
not think the Board "should force anything down the people's throat" if they
don't want it. He feels strongly about individual property rights. But,
there should be a large majority voting against the project. If two-thirds of
the people do not want the road paved, then he would not have it paved.
Ms. Thomas said she wanted the Board member's input because she wanted
to be sure she was not doing anything that the other Board members would not
agree with.
Ms. Humphris said the crux of the problem is with the VDOT standards.
She does not think people care if a road is dirt or paved as long as there is
consideration for the environment and the visual aspects. It is a "let the
buyer beware" because the attorney for the person buying the land should know
there is an~easement on the land. The person who is a newcomer should know
there is a pending project. She thinks the Board should leave the policy in
place and put its efforts into pushing VDOT toward an understanding of the
need for changes in their policy about how these roads need to be constructed.
The more the Board sets new policies, the more difficult it will be to apply
them to each individual situation.
Ms. Thomas asked if it would be possible to have Wyant Lane be an 18-
foot road as opposed to a 20-foot road. Ms. Tucker said it is a possibility,
but it would not make a big difference regarding the number of trees which
could be saved. Impacts to the root systems of some of the trees which are
just outside of the limits, would be minimized. The real issue that impacts
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
trees is the grading involved on that road, tying in steep slopes with cut
sections.
Mr. Martin said the Board needs to do one of two things. First would be
to keep the policy the way it is. There needs to be a consensus. If the
Board decides to change the policy, then it will have to be put off for
further study. He then asked each Board member to state whether the Board
should keep the existing policy, or make a change.
Mr. Perkins said he think the policy should stay as it is unless it goes
to two-thirds. Mr. Martin said that means Mr. Perkins is willing to look at a
change.
Mr. Marshall said he thinks the Board needs to consider a change because
nothing is set in stone. Mr. Perkins said in determining whether there are
two-thirds in favor will put an extra effort on the County to get that
information.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks there should be some escape valve. She is
comfortable with two-thirds, but she thinks the County would be foolish to
pave roads where three-quarters of the people on that road did not want the
road paved, and there was no broader community interest in having the road
wider. The policy has been to pave as few rural roads as possible for growth
management reasons.
Ms. Humphris agreed with Ms. Thomas. The Board needs to ask staff for
some examples with criteria that could be applied to see if it is workable and
will not burden staff and the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board has in place a policy concerning how to get
a road into the System; there could be a simple modification of that policy
for this use.
Mr. Martin said there is a consensus to look at the possibility of doing
things differently.
Mr. Davis said the policy change would have to be coordinated with the
Six-Year Road Plan approval process. What is being discussed is an advisory
process that would enable the Board to prioritize roads each year because
these roads only get constructed if they are listed on the Six-Year Plan. The
Board has the ability each year to change that plan in conjunction with VDOT.
The Board needs to make this process a part of the Six-Year Plan public
hearing process.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board should agree to the two-thirds. Mr.
Martin said he does not want to agree to anything at this point. It is
obvious that all the Board members want a higher number.
Ms. Tucker said VDOT depends a lot on the property owner's interest in
obtaining right-of-way for gravel road improvements. Often the property
owners are the ones who spearhead getting the right-of-way donations. If they
know that there is a chance that many years in the future new residents could
come in and overturn their efforts, they may not be as eager to take on that
task. There is only a minimum amount VDOT has to spend on gravel road
improvements each year.
Ms. Thomas said she was at a meeting last week where a study done by the
Tree Farms of America pointed out how valuable trees are to property values,
and tree-lined roads are very valuable to the properties along them. She
suggested that VDOT think about what effect a change might have on getting the
rights-ofrway for that program.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that a memorandum dated October 19, 1999, has
been received from Meredith Richards, Chair, Charlottesville-Albemarle
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) concerning the proposed extension of
Hillsdale Drive (also referred to as the Seminole Square/Pepsi Place connector
road). This project has been discussed for a long number of years and has
actually been a part of the County's Capital Improvements Program for a number
of years. The County's part of the project is only about five percent of the
total distance of the road; the majority of the project lies in the City. The
County has been waiting for the City to decide how much money they are willing
Noven~er 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
to put into their Urban Program. In order for the project to occur, it will
take a financial commitment by City Council.
Mr. Bowerman said City Council originally blocked the project. Mr.
Cilimberg said he is only speaking of the funding aspects. The Board can
still decide if the project should be funded from State Secondary Road funds
instead of through the County's CIP. At this point, there is no estimate of
the cost for the road because no location, or design has been picked.
Mr. Bowerman said there are property owners in the area who are willing
to cooperate with the project, there is interest on the part of the City, the
road would provide access to a City shopping center which would generate taxes
for them, and the road could take up to 6000 cars per day off of Route 29
North; all of the ingredients seem to make the project a logical one to
pursue. Mr. Cilimberg said the memorandum points out that there has been no
commitment to the project by the City.
Mr. Martin suggested that the Board send a letter to Ms. Richards
stating that it is 100 percent in favor of the project, and always have been.
Ms. Humphris said there is a request at the end of the memorandum for an
engineering and environmental study for the connector, that it be a high
priority in local FY 2001 transportation programs. She asked how this would
work. Who does the study, and is the project in both the City and County
budgets? Mr. Cilimberg said the project would need to be in the plans of both
the City and the County for funding. No matter what the source of funding is,
a local match will be required.
Mr. Bowerman said this project would create an impact on Hillsdale Drive
so any planning for it should consider the Hillsdale/Greenbrier intersection
with the part of Hillsdale that goes past the Senior Center. That
intersection will continue to play a large role in citizen involvement in that
dense community that is being developed. It should all be part of a plan for
getting traffic to Hydraulic Road. Mr. Cilimberg said that is the concept
that was looked at in the early 90's. A lot of development has occurred since
that time which keeps this road from being a "straight shot" through the area.
One thing staff has not looked at is a connection from Seminole Square
Shopping Center to Hydraulic Road. At one time, it was suggested that the
road connect to Michie Drive in the City. Now, there may be other options for
a connection near the K-Mart.
Ms. Thomas asked if the study of the drainage/stormwater systems is all
in the City. Mr. Cilimberg said someone from the Engineering Department would
need to discuss this question. Mr. Tucker said the County's portion of this
whole project is very small. How it is ultimately divided, he cannot say at
this time. On the water quality issues, the Water Resources person will be
involved.
Ms. Humphris said it seems that the City has done a lot of talking about
a regional road network. This project would be a major contribution to a
true, regional transportation system.
Ms. Thomas said another thing that has helped was having the curvy
section of Rio Road closed during the recent construction project. At least
one City Councillor had to use Hillsdale Drive a lot during the past Summer.
She said she did not even know it existed before that time, so the side
effects of the Rio project was good.
It was decided that staff should discuss this project with VDOT during
their meeting on Friday, November 5, and it will then be discussed by the
Board at a later date.
Agenda Item No. 9. Department of Engineering and Public Works,
Presentation by.
Mr. Martin acknowledged Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering. Mr.
Mawyer made a slide presentation of the programs and projects the department
manages. He said that in 1996 the Engineering/Public Works Department merged
with the Staff Services Department. It provides engineering services, site
development review, public works functions, capital projects management for
both Local Government and the School Division and the local Jail Authority,
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission, etc. There are a variety of
positions in the department including, custodians, maintenance mechanics,
printing equipment operators, erosion control inspectors, construction
inspectors, clerical support, biologists, planners, architects and engineers.
He has a staff of 40 permanent positions, plus two full-time temporary
positions. The department budget is about $2.5 million. He said that 40
percent of the employees are college graduates and 75 percent of those
employees have a Master's degree.
Mr. Mawyer said there are four divisions in the organizational structure
of the department. Ms. Pam Shifflett, who has worked for the County 21 years,
manages Support Staff which includes clerical support, budget administration
for both the operating and the CIP budgets, contract management and the bond
program. Mr. Jack Kelsey is Chief of Engineering, Mr. Steve Hark is the
Senior Project Manager, and Mr. Joe Letteri is Chief of Public Works. He said
these gentlemen would make a brief presentation concerning their divisions.
Mr. Kelsey said he is in charge of the Engineering Division which
currently has 12 staff members and next week there will be one additional
engineer joining the staff. That will make a staff of five engineers, two
biologists for water resources management, an erosion control officer, a plan
reviewer, and three inspectors. There are five programs: technical
assistance (used by a lot of other departments), development plan compliance,
water resources protection, stormwater improvement programs, and working with
the public answering concerns or giving advise. These are not independent
programs, all being interrelated. They do master planning of County
facilities for both General Government and the School Division. They help
with the development of ordinances and provide input to the Comprehensive
Plan.
The division works with the County's Transportation Planner and the
Highway Department on transportation planning. Most of their time is consumed
by development plan review (all subdivision plans, site plans, erosion and
sediment control plans, stormwater management plans). There is also
inspection enforcement for erosion control, including road construction, to be
sure they comply with all standards. Water Resources Protection includes all
lands in the watershed areas in both the development areas and the rural
areas, including stream restoration projects and education projects. The
County has a stormwater improvement program with a lot of projects being
identified in the 1984 Urban Drainage Report. Some of those specific projects
were identified, designed and funded by the County. There is also a
stormwater corrections program where it was felt it was the public's
responsibility to make the improvements. There is a regional stormwater
management program where the department has made an effort to design
modifications to provide additional detention or water quality, or both, and
then have those facilities turned over to the County. The Rio Hills Basin and
the Branchlands wetlands are a couple of the facilities which have been turned
over to the County. They are now finalizing the design of the Birnam Wood
Basin. He then mentioned some of the functions for which the inspectors are
responsible, and said that the plan reviewer often takes questions from the
public concerning plans.
Mr. Steve Hart, Senior Project Manager for Construction/Improvement
Capital Improvement Group, said he would discuss the CIP. They monitor
construction, insure quality, monitor construction budget schedules and
provide customer service to each construction project in progress. There are
three employees who manage between five and ten projects at any one time.
There are also two inspectors who supplement construction management. He then
explained in detail the duties of the employees in this department. He said
they are present to facilitate the whole process and mediate if necessary. At
the end of the project they are involved in project close-out to be sure all
final documentation is provided and the customer "gets what he has paid for".
He then listed projects on which the department has worked.
Mr. Joe Letteri said the Public Works Division provides management for
building maintenance, custodial services, recycling, E-911 signs, street
lighting, the internal mail system, the pool car fleet, operation of the Copy
Center and the stock room. He said the building maintenance program oversees
the operation and repair of HVAC systems and other essential systems in the
County Office Building and the Court Square complex. They maintain the nine-
car pool fleet for County staff use, and coordinate and monitor office
renovations within the buildings. The Copy Center provides copying and
finishing services to County and School personnel at rates which are often
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
less than commercial copying businesses, and it is conveniently located in the
County Office Building. The Copy Center staff also operates the Stock Room ~
and is responsible for receipt of most merchandise shipped to the County
Office Building. They provide back-up support for mail services. Custodial
Services is responsible for the housekeeping of office space. They provide
building security for after-hours and weekend events. They remove recyclable
materials from the building to the recycling area at the back of the building.
As to Recycling and Solid Waste programs, Paul Muhlberger is the
Environmental Programs Coordinator. He is responsible for management of the
County's Blue Bag recycling program. He is responsible for implementing the
County's Bulky Waste Drop-Off days. He manages the post-closure activities at
the Keene Landfill and assists the Zoning Department with illegal dumping
complaints. The Public Facilities Maintenance Program responds to citizen
requests for street lights. It also inventories, maintains and inspects
permanent stormwater facilities. It manages the landscaping, maintenance
contracts for the Entrance Corridor medians such as mowing, trash removal and
tree care. Finally, the Public Works Division manages the E-911 signs
program, being responsible for installation and repair of E-911 signs
throughout the County.
Mr. Mawyer said this shows that the Engineering Department takes care of
a diverse number of programs, and he then offered to answer questions.
(Note: Since the meeting was running behind schedule, the Board skipped
to the public hearing scheduled as Agenda Item No. 12.)
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing to amend Section 15-1101 of the
County Code to include antique motor vehicles in the category of personal
property exempt from taxation. (Notice of this public hearing was published
in the Daily Progress on October 18 and October 25, 1999.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the purpose of the public hearing (please see
minutes of October 6, 1999).
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Perkins asked the definition of ~antique motor vehicle." He said
there are a lot of what are called "street rods" and wondered if they are
included in the definition. Mr. Tucker said it is defined in the Code of
Virginia Section 46.2-100.
Mr. Marshall said he owns one of these cars and wonders if he still has
to buy an automobile decal even if he does not pay taxes on the car. Mr.
Davis said that is another issue staff will be bringing back for discussion.
The Code allows the County to charge for a decal no more than what the State
charges for a license plate. The license plate for an antique vehicle is only
$7.00 so staff will have to bring back another amendment for that issue. Mr.
Perkins said antique tags are only for taking the vehicle to a car show, the
car can't be used for general transportation.
Mr. Marshall said he still wants to know if he has to have a County
sticker for his car. Mr. Davis said that is an issue which staff will bring
back to the Board for discussion. The Finance Department is trying to decide
if the new fee will be $7.00 or if the sticker will be free. Mr. Tucker said
this should be ready to discuss at the December meeting.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms.
Humphris, to Adopt an Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 15, Taxation,
Article XI, Personal Property-In General, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Section 15-1101, Exemption of certain
personal property from taxation (ordinance set out in full below), effective
January 1, 2000.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
ORDINANCE NO. 99-15 (1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE XI,
PERSONAL PROPERTY--IN GENERAL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 15, Taxation, Article XI, Personal Property--In
General, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 15-1101,
Exemption of certain personal property from taxation, as follows:
Sec. 15-1101 Exemption of certain personal property from taxation.
The following household and personal effects are hereby exempted
from taxation:
A. Bicycles.
B. Household and kitchen furniture, including gold and silver
plates, plated ware, watches and clocks, sewing machines, refrigerators,
automatic refrigerating machinery of any type, vacuum cleaners and all
other household machinery, books, firearms and weapons of all kinds.
C. Pianos, organs, phonographs and record players and records to
be used therewith and all other musical instruments of whatever kind and
all radio and television instruments and equipment.
Oil paintings, pictures, statuary, curios, articles of virtue
and works of art.
Diamonds, cameos or other precious stones and all precious
metals used as ornaments or jewelry.
F. Sporting and photographic equipment.
G. Clothing and objects of apparel.
H. Antique motor vehicles as defined in Va. Code § 46.2-100 that
are not used for general transportation purposes.
I. Ail other tangible personal property used by an individual or
a family or household incident to maintaining an abode.
The classification set forth above shall apply only to such property
owned and used by an individual or by a family or household incident to
maintaining an abode.
(Code 1967, § 9-1; Code 1988, § 8-1; Ord. of 2-5-92; Code 1988, § 8-67;
Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 15(1), 11-3-99)
State law reference--Provisions authorizing county to exempt certain
personal property from taxation, Va. Code, § 58.1-3504.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2000.
(NOT DOCKETED: At this time, Mr. Martin recognized Mr. Ken Boyd, School
Board member elect from the Rivanna District, and Mr. Lindsay Dottier, Board
of Supervisors member elect from the Scottsville District, who were in the
audience observing this meeting.
(Note: The Board recessed at 10:36 a.m. and reconvened at 10:50 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Presentation from the Strategic Planning Work Group
of the Task Force on Teen Pregnancy Prevention.
Mr. Jack Marshall said he was present to represent the Strategic
Planning Work Group composed of over 30 volunteer specialists in teen
pregnancy and STD's. Over the past two years they have put together the most
comprehensive analysis of the teen pregnancy and STD situation ever compiled
in the community. Some have suggested that the report can be a model for the
State and even national communities. The Work Group is here today to note
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
some of its findings and recommendations in the Plan which was distributed to
the Board members about three weeks ago.
Mr. Marshall said he would like to answer six questions. First, why
should anyone care about teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases
especially when for the last six years teen pregnancy rates have been on the
decline? The answer is that birth rates are dropping, but the STD rate is
rising.~ Albemarle's rates are still high, even though lower than the City's
rates, and over one-third of the teen pregnancies ended in abortion. Babies
born of teen mothers have a higher probability of physical, social and
psychological problems. Finally, if not looking at the human costs, the
dollar costs are tremendous. Based on national data, each teen pregnancy
costs the taxpayers approximately $37,000 per birth. That does not include
the cost to the mother or the mother's family and does not take into account
the greater cost of sexually transmitted disease.
The second question is, what should the strategic goals be? Evidence
indicates that a lot of the kids are sexually active. In a study done in
Virginia a few years ago, one-half of the ninth and tenth graders (both boys
and girls) said they had been sexually active, and 70 percent of eleventh and
twelfth graders reported being sexually active. The positive side of this
pattern is that most youth before age 17 are not sexually active, and that
suggests a strategic goal for the community. The main thrust of any program
should be to keep those kids abstinent. Kids who are not sexually active must
be provided clear support for their decision to remain abstinent, along with
knowledge and skills needed to maintain that stance. Of the 15 to 19 years
old, more than one-half are sexually active. Those kids must be insured that
they have worthwhile life options, help them recognize that a pregnancy or a
STD may interfere with achieving personal goals and provide access to
information and reproductive services so they can have the means to avoid
unwanted pregnancies and STD's. Some of those teens are already pregnant and
they need special support to make appropriate decisions about the outcome of
their pregnancy; continue in school, comply with prenatal health care
guidelines, prepare for parenting an infant, and deal with other decisions in
a life already complicated by an early pregnancy. For teen parents, support
and counseling must also be provided. Before their first sexual experience,
all youth should be equipped with the capacity to make responsible decisions
about reproductive health and behavior. They should be provided with age-
appropriate knowledge and skills to avoid STD's and unintended pregnancies.
The third question is, '~what are we doing now in the community to help
kids avoid unwanted pregnancies?" First, there are good clinical services.
There is the Thomas Jefferson Health Department, the Teen Health Center on the
Corner linked with the University, the UVA Student Health Center and Planned
Parenthood of the Blue Ridge. Secondly, there are good programs aimed at
youth. Some programs are aimed at all youth, such as the Family Life
education programs in the schools. There are youth serving organizations
which provide opportunities for kids to keep busy after schools. Third, there
are programs aimed at high-risk kids. For example, Camp Horizon and Beating
the Odds at MACAA, and Teensight and Reach at FOCUS, are first-rate programs
which are succeeding. There are elements in place for a first-rate prevention
effort.
The forth question is, ~what is not being done?" The problem with the
current efforts is that there is not enough of the right stuff taking place.
This does not advocate radical change, only beefing up what is being done, and
making small adjustments. For example, not enough parents are talking to
their children about sexuality. Most don't have the skills, or even the
knowledge to talk with their kids. As a community, the people are not good at
providing useful, relevant knowledge about teen pregnancy and STD prevention.
When teens are educated, it is in the way of knowledge and not skills. This
is what the Family Life education program does. It gives information about
reproductive plumbing, but it does not help them learn the refusal skills.
How do these kids resist peer pressure? They are not encouraged to role play
enough. This report is based on the growing amount of national evaluation
data about programs that work and programs that don't work. Also, there are
good clinical facilities in the community, but the kids don't know about them.
There are good programs for high-risk kids but there is no continuum of
services. It will cost money to expand the good programs which are already in
place. Coordination of programs is needed. The good programs are working in
isolation. The Work Group feels a person is needed to serve as coordinator.
They are now seeking private sector money to support such a coordinator for
three years. At the end of two years, the position will be evaluated to see
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
if it is working, and the Group may then ask the Board for funds. He said
that Martha Jefferson Hospital has volunteered to serve as the host and is
willing to put in $10,000 worth of backstopping, and they have another $10,000
toward this position. He said the University of Virginia has also been
cooperative in helping get out this report.
The fifth question is "what specific recommendations do we propose?" He
said there are over 50 specific recommendations in the report with suggestions
as to who should assume responsibility for implementing them. A few of the
major recommendations are: 1) the Commission on Children and Families should
establish a citizens advisory board who will take over and serve to refine the
recommendations and help them get implemented; 2) they suggest that a
coordinator position be established; 3) urging that good programs for high-
risk kids be expanded; 4) there should be more volunteer programs; 5) like to
see the Family Life education programs be revisited with more skill-building
with skills training built in, and more support and training for the teachers;
6) consider peer education (have kids trained to work with other kids); 7) see
all youth-serving groups, and parents groups, devoting more attention to this
issue; and 8) urge evaluation and research be done so there is a better handle
on the problems.
The sixth question is "why aren't we already doing it?" Part of it is
because there have not been clearly articulated goals. Secondly, the fear of
criticism has caused paralysis. These are not radical suggestions~ but are
mainstream. They advocate that opt-out provisions be included in almost all
programs so programs which are not wanted are not inflicted on the child or
the child's parents. While adults are squabbling, children are pregnant and
getting STD's. Because of this, programs are not being funded as they should
be funded. This Work Group is not saying these are the only programs, lots of
other things are also important, but attention must be given to this problem.
Mr. Marshall said it is hoped that the Board will help lead the
community toward bolder steps in dealing with teen pregnancy.
Mr. Martin asked if the Board members would like to comment.
Mr. Forrest Marshall said he would like to have a number of these
reports so he can give them to other members of the State Health Board which
is involved in this issue. He asked if this Work Group has coordinated
anything with the local Health Department. Mr. Jack Marshall said Dr. Susan
McLeod is a member of the Work Group and most of the sections on sexually
transmitted diseases were written by she and members of her staff. Mr.
Forrest Marshall said the State has a certain amount of funds budgeted for
this program. He wonders if this group could help coordinate some local funds
to go with those funds to achieve a common goal.
Mr. Martin said there are a certain number of State prevention grants
still in existence at this time.
Ms. Thomas said there is a notation in the report saying that "one-half
of all the teens in the community who get pregnant have been pregnant once
before." She said that a long-time ago there was a group in the Towers Office
Building which ran a program to try and keep girls from getting pregnant a
second time. Mr. Jack Marshall said that is Teensight and it has had
extraordinary success.
Mr. Forrest Marshall said the issue of abortion is a difficult one for
him, and he understands the need for sex education. There is a need for the
schools to show these children how to prevent getting pregnant, and not just
teach where reproductive organs are.
Ms. Thomas said she is impressed with how research-based this report is.
She knows how difficult it is to get real research in social areas.
Ms. Humphris said the fact that the recommendations are doable impresses
her. Mr. Jack Marshall said he had never worked with a committee that was
more productive. Mr. Bowerman said there is a lot of balance in the report
because it recognizes the sensitivity with some families, but also recognizes
the need for education. Mr. Jack Marshall said they tried to be sensitive to
the schools and recognize the SOLs and accreditation issues.
Mr. Martin thanked Mr. Marshall for the report. He said the report is
set up to go through a good process and probably come back to the Board during
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
budget hearings when the Board can actually do something.
report that will ~walk away."
It is not just a
Agenda Item No. 11. School Board Report. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Baker to
come forward and make his report.
Mr. John Baker, Chairman of the School Board, said the Superintendent
presented to the School Board on October 25 his Progress Report for 1998-99.
Copies are available, and it may also be obtained on the Internet. The report
has unique features and gives a more accurate report of each school than in
the past. The School Board met with area legislators on October 8 and had an
excellent dialogue concerning English, K-12, foreign languages and math.
Copies of the presentations are available in the School Board Clerk's Office.
Next, on October 20, 1999, the new Ivy Creek School was dedicated. He
expressed thanks to those members of the Board who attended, and Mr. Tucker.
He said the opening of this facility represents a significant milestone in the
educational alternatives for Albemarle County students.
On October 27, Albemarle County School representatives met with the
Albemarle Board of Supervisors and the County Executive at a Chamber of
Commerce meeting. The Chamber is anxious for the School Board to become a
member of the organization. The School Board will discuss the idea at its
next meeting. A discussion of the Composite Index, the SOLs, Charter Schools
and the School Budget Cycle was also a part of that meeting.
Tonight, the Superintendent will hold the last of his Roundtable
discussions for the present calendar cycle. These discussions started about
five years ago. The Superintendent goes to the individual schools as part of
the budget development cycle. Attendance at these meetings has not worked out
aS hoped. Each year, there are fewer people attending.
The newly-elected School Board members have been invited to a special
orientation by the current School Board. The Virginia School Boards
Association will also host these people at the State conference from November
17 through November 19. In addition, the Assistant Superintendent for Support
will take these new members out to the individual buildings and support
facilities for meetings with staff.
Mr. Baker said that on October 11, the School Board presented a
Certificate of Appreciation to each of the principals in recognition of their
excellent contributions to the education of the children. This is an idea
that was begun by the Governor.
Mr. Baker said there will be no surprises in the School Board's
legislative agenda. Their program will be presented to this Board for
comments and then presented to the legislators.
The Computers4Kids program has been successful in receiving a grant in
the amount of $349,000 from the Department of Commerce. Part of that
successful came about because the Board of Supervisors allowed the School
Board to take $7000 of public money and use it as seed money to get the
program started. This has provided a computer to 53 children who could not
have had a computer in the past. The grant requires that the School Board
provide 100 computers per month for three years. Although the amount of the
grant seems large, it will take a lot of money to meet the terms of that
grant. The Computers4Kids Advisory Board is going to ask that one member of
the Board of Supervisors serve as an Advisory Board member. He encourages the
Board to favorably consider that program.
Mr. Baker said in reference to the budget, the School Board has five
public discussions scheduled and then five work sessions. He invited
Supervisor members to attend, and said the School Board would favorably
receive any suggestions Supervisor members might give.
On October 25, staff presented a report for the establishment of an
alternative education program for the School Division. It is a goal of the
Superintendent and School Board for this year to develop an institute, or
alternative learning setting for students who are primarily disruptive.
The staff presented a proposal to the School Board to extend the school
year for grades K-8 in the Southern Feeder Pattern. There have been a lot of
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
comments on this particular issue. He said that after looking at the SOLs, it
was a proposal to address some of the identified needs. Nothing of this
nature would be implemented before having a full public discussion and having
all alternatives considered.
Mr. Marshall asked if he could comment. He thinks there are
alternatives, and is glad this is just being discussed. He does not want to
penalize the children who have summer jobs, even teachers who have summer
jobs. He does agree that the County needs to spend additional funds to help
the at-risk children, but he wants to be sure it is done in a way that the
Southern part of the County is not discriminated against. Mr. Baker said it
may be a matter of discrimination to designate where help is needed. For the
past two summers, the School Board discriminated against Yancey Elementary by
having a free Summer School program that included a full day care program,
transportation, food and computer classes. Mr. Marshall said that was just
helping people who need help. He agrees with that program. Mr. Baker said
the idea behind this new program is to provide help for those people who need
help. Mr. Martin said the Board will have ample time to discuss that proposal
during budget work sessions. Mr. Marshall said he will not be a member of
this Board when that discussion occurs so he wants to make himself clear now.
Mr. Baker said the last item has to do with the Progress Report that he
mentioned earlier. It is a comprehensive array of data and a wide variety of
indicators. Comparisons were made to other groups where possible. The
profiles in this report are unique to Albemarle County Schools. Of all the
reports made in the Commonwealth, VPI gave Albemarle a special award for
content and organization, and for the achievements represented in that report.
He then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Martin asked if any Board members had a comment. Mr. Marshall
mentioned that Mr. Baker is retiring. He said he had served with Mr. Baker as
a member of the School Board many years ago, and Mr. Baker will be greatly
missed. Mr. Martin agreed with Mr. Marshall's comments.
Agenda Item No. 13. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's
(TJPDC) Draft Legislative Packet, Presentation of.
Mr. Tucker summarized the staff's report. He said the TJPDC works with
the County and other Planning District members each year to develop a
legislative program for the next year's General Assembly Session. A draft of
the 2000 TJPDC Legislative Program is before the Board for approval. The
draft program follows the same format as in prior years with ten broad
categories of general policy and legislative requests followed by a section
highlighting some of the most important issues. The County's recommendation
to the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) are included within these ten
sections. The approved TJPDC Legislative Program will be sent to the local
legislators prior to this Board's meeting with them on December 1, 1999.
In addition to the items identified in the TJPDC package, staff and the
Board has identified five other items for inclusion in the package:
(i)
Include Albemarle County in the "Photo-red" traffic light program.
The program would allow Albemarle County to establish "photo-red"
traffic light signal enforcement programs.
(2)
(3)
The County supports and endorses the provision of passenger rail
service from the Washington, D.C. and Richmond, Virginia, areas to
Bristol, Virginia, with links to communities along the way.
As a cost reduction strategy for localities, Albemarle supports
the expanded operation and enhancement of early intervention and
prevention programs that make a difference in children's lives,
such as the Child Health Partnership and Healthy Families.
Albemarle also supports the renewal of the Comprehensive Services
Act Trust Fund dollars that support early intervention and
prevention projects in Virginia.
(4)
Albemarle supports the State's joint juvenile detention
committee's recommendation to increase the per bed reimbursement
rate for construction of juvenile detention facilities.
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
5)
Support the "Five for Five" initiative being considered by VACO
and others. This proposal would return five percent of the net
Virginia individual income taxes collected in each city and county
in Virginia to that locality, and in return, each locality would
reduce its real estate taxes by five percent.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends approval of the Draft 2000 TJPDC
Legislative Program, including the five items noted, with the understanding
that any suggested changes from the Board will be reflected in the final
version of the regional legislative program. He said Mr. Dave Blount,
Legislative Liaison, was present to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said the VACo Finance Steering Committee has some serious
misgivings about the "Five for Five" program. It is a fact that the income
revenues Albemarle County residents send to the State are growing much faster
than any real estate revenues, and those reflect prosperity better than the
real estate tax. For a one year promise to get this project, the real estate
tax bills might have to be cut by as much as five percent. What happens five
years from now when the State is not getting as much money from the income
tax? As the proposal is presently written, the State would tell the
localities to increase their real estate taxes again. That would not be a
popular stance and that is why the VACo committee did not endorse the
proposal. They will be discussing it again this weekend.
Mr. Tucker said staff realizes there are a lot of issues to be worked
out. Some communities might even lose money. Staff was concerned that the
idea might just die and no one would try to work through the issues Ms. Thomas
just mentioned. Ms. Humphris said it just adds to the list of things with no
permanent funding which require the County to do something quid pro quo and
then it leaves the Board as the ~bad guys" when the State reneges. The
Rockbridqe News Gazette had a major editorial about this proposal and they
called it a ~'fiscal snake oil' policy." It obviously does not suit Rockbridge
County and other small counties.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
approve the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's (TJPDC) Draft
Legislative Program recognizing that it still needs to go to other
jurisdictions in Planning District Ten and there might be minor changes, and
to add the five items suggested by staff, with the provision that the Board is
interested in the Five-for-Five Program, but it may need some work.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program
for Albemarle County, Final Report on.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick, Chair of the ACE Committee, was present to offer
the Committee's final report for.Board consideration. They have been working
with staff in the Assessor's Office and the County Attorney's Office to
develop a '~nuts and bolts" methodology for appraising the value of the
conservation easements. They are well along in that process, but it is not
completely finished. The Committee held two landowner meetings. There were
more than 70 participants, many who are rural landowners. The Extension
Service and the Farm Bureau hosted that meeting along with the ACE Committee.
The Extension Agent has reported that there have been many requests to do
follow-ups about the program. The Committee also held a workshop for groups
and organizations. Most of the comments were general in nature and did not
recommend changes in the report.
Ms. Buttrick said they made one clarification in the language for the
word "perpetuity" to say that perpetuity has its limits, and it is outlined in
the statute as to what those limits are. They added a clarification as to the
eligibility of lands for the program. People had asked if the program applied
exclusively to the rural areas. They clarified that the program will be used
primarily in rural areas, but there is an option in the statutes for special
instances within the growth areas where there would be a parcel that is
actually designed by the Comprehensive Plan to remain in green open space.
The Open Space Land Act does not permit the placing of an easement on land
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
that is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for growth, for commercial, for
industrial or high density residential, which would not be consistent in the
local land use plan. The Committee did want to make clear that there might be
a special instance in the growth area where there was a piece of land not
wanted for a park, but which was wanted for some form of green space
protection.
Ms. Buttrick said the Earlysville Residents' League, Monticello, the PEC
and the Historic Preservation Committee, made general supporting comments.
The PEC emphasized, as did the Outdoors Foundation, the importance of the
financial needs criteria. It is extremely important to keep this program from
competing with the already active gift of conservation easement program.
There are 20,000 acres of land under easement with the Outdoors Foundation and
several other entities that were given to the County. (Note: Mr. Martin left
the room at 11:51 a.m.)
Mr. Bowerman asked if land were purchased, if the seller would be paid
and also get a tax break at the same time. Ms. Buttrick said if a bargain
sale takes place. There is a partial gift/partial purchase provision. Mr.
Bowerman said that still competes against the concept. Ms. Buttrick agreed.
Ms. Buttrick said the Farm Bureau was generally supportive, but
commented that agriculture needs to be profitable for open space to continue.
They made one interesting point which is outside of the scope of the
Committee's charge. That was to encourage before the General Assembly a
provision to guarantee land use tax for property that is under easement
whether or not Albemarle County retains even one category of the land use tax.
The Chamber of Commerce raised the question about perpetuity. They also did
not think the funding would be adequate. Ms. Buttrick said she wanted to
mention the Committee's perspective on funding. What it did was to recommend
a level of funding that is meaningful and also not so large in size that it
would necessitate a tax increase. There was no unanimity on the Committee for
a tax increase. It explored various methods for leveraging the money. They
found there was no suitable method at this time. The Committee thinks that
because it will take some time for the program to catch on, the limitation on
funding at $1.0 million will not be a severe problem in the first couple of
years. (Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 11:54 a.m.)
Ms. Buttrick said the Committee does emphasize that the program requires
a long-term commitment. This is not a program that should begin with the idea
of funding it for just a year or so, even at the level suggested. There needs
to be a long-term commitment to creating a reliable program so that farmers
can begin to think of it as an option that is predictable and reliable, and
not likely to come and go from year-to-year. She thanked the Board for giving
the Committee the opportunity to explore and develop this land use tool. The
Committee makes itself available to the Board to assist with work sessions and
do a presentation if the Board schedules a public hearing.
Mr. Martin asked for Board comments. Mr. Marshall said he has a lot of
questions, but does not believe there is time to discuss them today. Mr.
Bowerman said he would like to have a work session with staff before
scheduling a public hearing.
Ms. Humphris said the main criticism she has heard is that the Board did
not appropriate enough money. She has explained that the Board did the best
it could, and the $1.0 million was a gesture to make the statement that the
Board does support such a program.
Mr. Tucker said Planning staff has comments that can be developed.
Other members of staff have also reviewed the report. Staff would like to
hear the Board's comments before developing an ordinance, which would have to
be done to implement the program. He suggested a work session on the concept
at the December day meeting.
Agenda Item No. 15. Membership in Chamber of Commerce, Discussion of.
Mr. Martin said the Board of Supervisors dropped its membership with the
Chamber in the 1970s. Rejoining the Chamber has been mentioned, but he does
not believe the Board has discussed it as a body. He asked for Board
comments.
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Tucker said when the Board dropped its membership, the Chairman of
the Board at that time, Mr. Fisher, felt it was not appropriate for the County
to belong to various groups. Mr. Tucker said he is an ex-officio member. Mr.
Bowerman said he is also a member as an individual business.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks the Board has discussed this at least once
since she has been a Board member. She said the Board members were elected to
represent all of the people in the County and to provide the infrastructure so
that business can be the best it can be. One purpose of the Chamber is to
"maximize their effectiveness by monitoring and proactively influencing local
legislation and other government actions in a way that benefits their
members." That division of labor is as it should be. The Board represents
all the people. The Chamber responds to the needs and wishes of the business
community and then the Chamber lobbies this Board. She thinks it is totally
wrong for the Board to consider joining organizations like the Chamber,
Citizens for Albemarle, PEC, the LOWV, the Sierra Club, or any group that
lobbies the Board. She does not believe there should be any ties between
government and any lobbying entity.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not philosophically have a problem with Ms.
Humphris' comments, but the Chamber was instrumental in helping the Board get
the Meals Tax enacted. Ms. Humphris said that from time to time the
organizations she mentioned have worked to the County's benefit, and given the
Board the benefit of information. She does not think the Board should become
a member of a group just because it does citizenship type work for the County.
Mr. Martin asked Ms. Jane Dittmar from the Chamber to speak. He said he
had placed this item on the agenda for discussion at the request of the
Chamber and would like to hear her comments.
Ms. Dittmar said Mr. Tom Grindy who is a member of the Chamber's
Executive Committee is the one who raised the issue. He is present today
also. She would like to clarify the word "membership". She said there are
private sector members of the Chamber. That is clearly defined as a
relationship between a business organization and the Chamber. She said the
Chamber recognizes that it has responsibilities to the entire community, so
they have a relationship with over 100 non-profit organizations, and also with
all of the public organizations within the area, Federal, State and local,
except for the County and the Albemarle County Schools.
Ms. Dittmar said she would mention the Chamber's relationship with the
City and how it differs from the relationship with the County. She said that
the County, like the City, often calls upon the Chamber for assistance.
Usually, the Chamber says "no" because it has limited resources. The County
does not support Chamber functions financially. The City does that when their
Department of Social Services has a grant to write, and they want the Chamber
to write a piece of it, she spends an inordinate amount of time doing do. The
Chamber works with the City's Transportation Department. The City sends staff
to Leadership Charlottesville each year. When they have a Committee working
on something and they want a sense of what the private sector is thinking
before they pursue the subject further, they ask for specific appointees to
attend those meetings. The City provides a small grant (they don't like to
call it membership). In turn, the Chamber does give them all the benefits of
membership. It is a flat fee that was negotiated before 1960 and it has never
changed over the years.
Ms. Dittmar said when she became President of the Chamber, she asked why
there was no relationship with the County. In the Chamber files there is a
memorandum about the relationship between Gary McGee, who was the Chairman at
the time, and Gerry Fisher. She thinks there was an honest falling out about
economic development at that time. There was a parting of the ways. Now, the
community is looking to a new Century. The Chamber does in fact work for the
County. It worked on the Drought Relief Act and was in touch with Richmond
and Virgil Goode. Mr. Bowerman mentioned the Meals Tax, and the Chamber has
worked with the County on VIEW. Ms. Dittmar said the Chamber is looking at
the Children's Health Insurance Program which will benefit kids in the County.
She said the Chamber is hoping to begin the year 2000 by having the County put
in a small grant in July, and put the past behind everybody.
Mr. Martin asked if Board members had questions.
Mr. Perkins asked if there is a different kind of membership for
government agencies. Ms. Dittmar said ~'yes." They don't negotiate by employee
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
number, but they would sit down with the County Executive and try to figure
out a fair amount. It is not the money, but the relationship the Chamber if
looking for.
Mr. Marshall said he supports the idea. He believes there is a place
for the Chamber to help the County in a lot of ways. The idea of a stipend
instead of a membership should solve Ms. Humphris' concerns. Ms. Humphris
said it '~begs the question"; it is a very fine splitting of hairs whether it
is a stipend or something else. Mr. Marshall said he has been told that the
Chamber's working relationship with the City has been of tremendous benefit.
Ms. Thomas said she greatly appreciates the work the Chamber does. She
said this is a marvelous community in which a number of individuals and
organizations have given far more than she feels is given in most communities.
People who are appointed to committees give the type of expertise that most
localities would have to pay a lot to get. She does not see how the Chamber
differs from other organizations that have done very significant things for
this body, the County as a whole, the citizens. She thinks of this as being a
domino effect or an unfair action since the Board does not pay stipends to
others like the LOWV who put on citizen voting drives which saves the
Registrar money. The LOWV presented the Board with the Groundwater Study and
the other water study recently. The Board does not pay stipends for the
volunteers, and she views this as that same request.
Mr. Martin asked what kind of relationships other chambers have with
other local governments. He asked if Albemarle County is odd in not having a
relationship. Ms. Dittmar said the County is odd. Most chambers not only
have a membership with their locality, but also receive large grants from
them. The Chamber's Board of Directors feels that because it lobbies the
jurisdictions in the region, it does not want a financial relationship that
would impact anything in any way. The County does fund a lot of other
nonprofit organizations. She is here representing the entire private sector.
There are a lot of things the Chamber and the County could do together.
Mr. Martin asked if the answer to his question is that Albemarle County
is the "odd ball" county. Ms. Dittmar said Albemarle County is very unique.
Mr. Martin asked if that means Albemarle County is the only county in the
state that does not belong to a chamber. Ms. Dittmar said she can only speak
about the larger chambers, those with over 250 members. There are over 1700
members in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber. There are about 13 chambers
of this size in the state. Mr. Bowerman asked if all of those relationships
involve money, even if it is a stipend. Ms. Dittmar said that is not the
central point. There is already a relationship, but there is a funding
mechanism to compensate the organization for sharing resources with County
staff.
Mr. Bowerman said the PEC, along with the LOWV, provides the Board with
resources which it may or may not choose to agree with as a body. He said
individual Board members may make contributions to those organizations, and
there are all kinds of different organizations which come before the Board to
speak and present a point of view. Sometimes on different topics the Board
has received information from both the Chamber and the PEC. Both of those had
to be paid for by somebody, and it was not the County. He is trying to sort
through the logic of how to maintain relationships with these groups that are
supportive of the Board without creating an unholy alliance and alienating
other groups. If there are resources available to the County for grant
writing with the City he assumes Ms. White would know about that. He asked if
when such instances occur the Chamber is involved with the City in providing
information. Ms. White said she is not aware of any such instances. Ms.
Dittmar said she would reference the VIEW grant awarded to the City.
Originally, they were turned down by the State because they did not have
private sector support. They came to the Chamber, and the grant was rewritten
within a few weeks, the grant was resubmitted and funded.
Mr. Martin said he knows that PEC and the LOWV have both been involved
with things in a lot of other areas. What makes it different here?
Mr. Perkins asked if the Board could authorize Mr. Tucker to negotiate
with the Chamber and bring some sort of proposal for the Board to review. He
thinks any organization has the right to do that. He thinks the Chamber has
something to offer this County. He said the PEC and the LOWV have something
to offer the County, and someday they might come to the Board with a proposal
which would need funding. Ms. Humphris said she can't image the '~slippery
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
slope" that would lead the Board down. Mr. Perkins said the Board funds many
different agencies now that did not exist ten years ago. Ms. Humphris said
those agencies went through the process and the criteria that was established
for review. Mr. Perkins said that is what he is suggesting the Board give Mr.
Tucker the authority to do. Ms. Humphris said back to Mr. Martin's question
about whether Albemarle County is odd, sometimes there is a lot of value in
being unique, or odd. It shows that perhaps the County has not gone along
sheep like. She thinks one of the biggest mistakes made was when Virginia
lost its unique position in going to elected school boards. She thinks that
has broken down the ability of the board to communicate and cooperate to a
certain extent.
Mr. Martin said he doesn't mind being odd, and that is the reason he
used that word. He said it does sometimes help to put it into perspective.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not want to say yeah or nay. He wants to
think about the idea. He would like to consider all of its aspects.
Mr. Tucker said if a Board member is on the borderline, this could be
reviewed just like any other budget in terms of a proposal. Mr. Bowerman said
the Board is not part of the Regional Economic Development Partnership because
it chose not to be a part. But, membership in the Chamber would not require
that. Mr. Tucker said that is correct.
Mr. Marshall said he thinks there needs to be a motion or a consensus of
the Board members so Mr. Tucker can discuss the benefits of Albemarle County
not being a member of the Chamber, but being in support of it through a
stipend.
Ms. Humphris said the Board has to be very clear in remembering what the
County's Economic Development Policy is and what the economic development
promotion policy is of the chamber. The County does not promote economic
development, but does provide for it. The Chamber's policy is most definitely
to promote it. There the two goals are in definite conflict from the
beginning.
Mr. Martin said he likes Mr. Marshall's suggestion to simply look at it.
Mr. Marshall said he will make that a motion. It was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Bowerman said he would also like for Mr. Tucker's work to include
his thinking and staff's thinking about the Board's relationship with existing
not-for-profit groups, as well as existing not-for-profits that are advocacy
groups for one thing or another, and include that in the mix of the thinking
in the report. What possible pitfalls are there? Being odd is not a bad
thing, but if 99.9 percent of the people do something and it doesn't hurt
them, then one might be odd and also be a part of the group. He want to
explore what it would mean vis a vis the PEC because he knows they did some
work for the Board that has been in decision-making on matters of policy
regarding zoning. The Board does not pay them anything. Then, other groups
come in with the opposite view of PEC and they are not funded.
Mr. Martin said he understands that Mr. Tucker is to look at both sides
of the situation. Mr. Marshall agreed. Mr. Bowerman said he would like the
motion to include that so that Ms. Thomas, Ms. Humphris and himself can look
at that aspect also.
Mr. Tucker asked if this is a report the Board would want before budget
review. Mr. Martin said it sounds like it could come back as part of the
overall budget discussion. Mr. Bowerman said he does not believe time is of
the essence, but time is important in consideration of this matter. Mr.
Tucker said staff will come back with what the Board has requested, but even
then he sees it as a request just like that from any other agency, and every
year the Board could vote it up or down. Staff wants the policy issue settled
first.
At this time, Mr. Martin asked for a roll call. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
(Not Docketed: Mr. Martin said he had received a request which may not
be appropriate, but he is going to allow Mr. Eric Strucko to make a statement.
Mr. Strucko said his comments are directed to Mr. Perkins and he
congratulated him on winning reelection yesterday. He said he respects Mr.
Perkins' talent. He respects Mr. Perkins' years of service to the County and
its citizens, having sacrificed his time. Obviously he has done well for the
White Hall citizens since they have given him a fourth four-year term despite
his own efforts to challenge Mr. Perkins. Mr. Strucko said his candidacy was
a result of his concerns and those of several Crozet, Free Union and
Earlysville residents over the current growth and development trends in the
community. He said these long-time residents encouraged him to run, and he
did so with an emphasis on the need for a stronger growth management policy in
Albemarle County. He hopes Mr. Perkins will give strong consideration to the
concerns of the 1748 White Hall residents who agreed with Mr. Strucko's views.
He wished Mr. Perkins success on the Board of Supervisors. He said he was
honored to run against Mr. Perkins this year and to concede the election to a
gentleman such as Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board. Mr. Martin asked if the Board members would like to go to lunch and
come back to continue with Other Matters.
Mr. Marshall said he does not have anything to discuss under Other
Matters and he must leave the meeting by 3:30 p.m. in order to get to
Harrisonburg. He has asked Mr. Dorrier to go with him, but they will be
present for the joint session.
Mr. Perkins said he is handing to the Board members an article on
Assessment of Virginia's Forest Lands, a Case for Conservation Easements.
asked that the Board members read the article.
He
Agenda Item No. 17. Closed Session: Legal Matters. At 12:39 p.m.,
motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go into Closed 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 a school site; and under Subsection
(7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation
relating to the transition of Charlottesville to town status, regarding
specific legal matters relating to an interjurisdictional agreement, and
regarding probable litigation relating to two claims against the County. The
motion was seconded Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall
and Mr. Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Certify Closed Session. The Board members who were
present reconvened into open session at 4:00 p.m. (Note: Mr. Marshall left
the meeting at 2:30 p.m. Mr. Perkins left the meeting at 2:45 p.m. Ms.
Thomas did not return at this time, but returned at 4:09 p.m.) There was no
certification adopted at this time since there was not a quorum of the Board
members present. See certification at the end of the session with the School
Board.
Agenda Item No. 21. Reconvene at 4:00 p.m. in Room 235 for a Joint
Meeting with the School Board.
Present at this time were School Board members: Mr. John Baker, Mr.
Madison Cummings, Ms. Susan Gallion, Mr. Jeffrey Joseph, Mr. Steve Koleszar,
Ms. Diantha McKeel and Mr. Charles Ward. Staff members present were: Dr.
Kevin Castner, Mr. Mark Trank and Mr. Michael Thompson.
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Agenda Item No. 22. Call Meeting back to Order.
At 4:05 p.m., the meeting was called to order by Mr. Charles Martin and
Mr. John Baker.
Agenda Item No. 23. Presentation: FY 2000-2001 Salary Recommendations.
Mr. Tucker said one of the Vision Statements for Albemarle County
adopted in 1994 is to have "A highly recognized, satisfied and
well-compensated work force .... " The ability to attract and retain
top-quality staff is directly linked to the County's ability to offer
competitive compensation and benefits.
In FY 1996-1997 the Board of Supervisors and the School Board adopted
and implemented many of the changes recommended by the independent consultant,
Mr. Charles Hendricks of Hendricks & Associates. The most significant changes
were (1) move from a 15-step to a 30-step teacher pay scale, (2) move from a
traditional step system to an open range pay system for classified and
administrative employees, and (3) move from a Career Ladder program for
teachers to an Academic Leadership Stipend program. The new pay structures
(scales) for teachers and classified employees were competitive when
implemented for FY 1996-1997. Based on the staff's report presented to the
Boards in August, 1997 regarding classified salary compression, the Boards
directed staff to develop a salary decompression plan for inclusion in the FY
1998-1999 budget. A three-year plan was implemented July 1, 1998. The third
and final decompression increment is slated for July 1, 2000.
Since adoption of the Hendricks' recommendations, the Boards have
approved the following changes to the salary structures and merit programs:
Classified/Administrator Teacher ~ T15
Fiscal
Year' Scale Adjustment Merit Pool Scale Adjustment Scale + Step
'96-'97 New open ranges 4.50% New 30-step scale New 30-step scale
'97-'98 -0- 3.50% 2.00% 3.50%
~98-'99 1.00% 2.75% 1.17% 2.75%
'99-'00 3.00% 4.00% 2.36% 5.00%
** NO across-the-board increases. Only new employees and those below
the new minimum salary received an increase from the scale adjustment.
Maintaining competitive compensation requires two separate, but related,
actions. First, insure the pay structure (scales) are competitive to insure
the County can compete in the recruiting market for new staff. Second, to
insure current employees are rewarded for performance and the acquisition of
new skills by maintaining both internal equity within their pay range and also
maintaining market competitiveness for similarly situated talent. One way to
assess the competitiveness of one of the pay structures is to look at how
teacher pay scales compare to the other 133 public school division's in
Virginia.
Ranking of Albemarle County Teacher Pay Scale
Bachelor Degree Teacher @ Various Years of Experience
Fiscal Year 0 10 20 30 Maximum
'95-'96** 52 12 28 96 101
'96~'97 56 20 34 42 46
'97-'98 50 22 34 41 47
'98-'99 58 27 34 46 48
'99-'00 70 30 38 46 57
** Scale prior to implementation of new 30-step scale. Data from
annual Virginia Education Associate surveys.
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
This data indicates the teacher scale adjustments have ranged from 1.17
percent to 2.36 percent over the past three years. However, these have not
kept pace with other school divisions as reflected in the County's entry-level
teacher ranking dropping from 56 to 70. This competitive erosion in the scale
will continue to impact the County's ability to attract teachers. Similar
ranking data is not available for the classified pay scales, however, the
market analysis by the consultant indicates the classified pay scales have
become less competitive over the same period of time.
Since 1997 the County has been using the firm of Slabaugh Morgan White &
Associates (SMW) to assist staff with medical and dental insurance programs,
as well as assisting the County in developing a five-year strategic plan for
compensation and benefits. Although this comprehensive work on the County's
Total Rewards programs will continue over the next five months, the budget
schedule requires staff to provide only one element of the longer range plan
at this time, which is the annual recommendation of current pay scales and
merit.
SMW has assisted in reviewing the competitiveness of salary structures.
This study was not designed as a reclassification study but rather as a study
to refine the structure already in place. SMW analyzed selected benchmark
positions in order to: 1) determine the market competitors and geographic
areas of competition; 2) determine market competitiveness of the County's pay
scales; and, 3) make recommendations concerning salary structure adjustments
and merit for FY 2000-2001
SMW chose sixty benchmark positions for review. They analyzed the job
descriptions for these positions, related organizational charts and salary
administration policies and guidelines. They then used a number of
professionally published labor surveys of private and public sectors to match
these positions in terms of skills, tasks, responsibilities, knowledge and
experience. The most appropriate labor market for some positions is the
private sector, while for other positions it is primarily the public sector.
Moreover, the relevant labor market for some positions is local, while for
others it is regional, statewide or national.
The SMW recommendations are presented to both Boards for consideration
in their FY 2000-2001 budget preparations. SMW recommends that the Boards
consider the following recommendations based on available local and State
revenue:
A0
Co
Adjust the teacher pay scale by 5.7 percent.
Adjust the classified/administrative pay scale by 4.0
percent. Only new employees and those below the new
minimum will receive a salary increase from the
adjustment. All other employees who are above the new
minimums will receive increases only through participation
in the merit program.
Establish a merit pool for classified/administrative
employees of 4.0 percent.
Establish a 2.0 percent annual salary pool for each of the
next five years to provide resources to address
classified/administrative shortfalls and structural issues
through the five-year strategic planning process.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors and the
School Board consider accepting these recommendations for budget guidance in
preparing the upcoming FY 2000-2001 budget. The recommendations ultimately
included in the budqet will be based on projected local and state revenues.
Mr. TUcker said Ms. Julie Lewis, Principal with Slabaugh Morgan White,
will present the report findings and recommendations.
Ms. Lewis summarized the SMW recommendations and a slide presentation
was made. (Note: Ms. Thomas arrived at 4:09 p.m.) All materials are on file
in the Clerk's Office with the paperwork for this meeting. There was little
discussion by the members, and no action was taken.
Agenda Item No. 18. Certify Closed Session. At 4:43 p.m., motion was
offered by Mr. Bowerman 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
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session
were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments. There were none made this date.
Agenda Item No. 24. Presentation: FY 2000/2001 Budget Guidance.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said that in October of
each year, the Department of Finance prepares preliminary revenue projections
for the upcoming fiscal year. The projections form the basis for the
recommended budgets which come before the Board of Supervisors in March. In
November, the Board traditionally allocates these revenues to committed
expenditures, and then to General Government and School Division operations.
Based on recent revenue projections from the Department of Finance, property
tax revenues are expected to increase by approximately $5.75 million over the
current year. This increase reflects an anticipated seven percent
reassessment increase and approximately $100.0 million in new construction
revenues, as well as increased personal property tax revenues. Other local
taxes are projected to increase by $2.14 million, reflecting increased sales
and use, business license, lodging and meals tax revenues.
These new revenues were allocated to committed expenditures of General
Government and the School Division. A $7.90 million overall increase in local
tax revenues is shown. Reductions are required to fund Revenue Sharing and
the transfer to the Tourism Fund, for a net increase of $7.46 million.
Increases in committed expenditures total $1,086,682. These committed
expenditures include a $239,070 increase in the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) transfer, a $400,000 increase in School Debt Service, a $439,312
increase in General Government Debt Service (reflecting debt service on the
800MHz radio system,) and an $8300 increase in Refunds.
Based on the remaining $6.37 million in uncommitted revenues, 60
percent, or $3.82 million, is allocated to the School Division, and 40
percent, or $2.55 million, is allocated to General Government. This
'allocation provides an increase of approximately 7.4 percent in local revenues
to the School Division, and a 6.5 percent increase in local revenues to
General Government, to address baseline costs, fixed costs and additional
operating costs associated with capital projects.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed FY 2000-2001
allocation of new revenues to the School Division and General Government.
Mr. Bowerman said if this is what the Finance Department and Executive
staff project as being available for .next year, he would offer motion that the
budget guidance be based upon the staff's recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said the T. J. Venture has been funded.
November 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Agenda Item No. 26. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
d by the B
Supervisors
Initials