1999-11-10November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
November 10, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire 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 7:00 p.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. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas,
to approve Items 5.1 through 5.9, and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Item No. 5.1. Adopt resolution supporting RailWatch.
The executive summary states that the RailWatch organization mailed the Board of Supervisors
information about its organization along with a resolution requesting the Board endorsement for RailWatch
efforts to educate the public about railroad safety. This information was presented to the Board at its
October 6, 1999 meeting. The Board requested that Planning staff investigate this organization's
objectives further and to inquire with the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) about
their knowledge of the objectives.
RailWatch is a new organization. It has been around less than a year. The earliest members of
the organization were mayors and city council members who had problems dealing with the railroads at
the local level. Some of their supp~orters include: more than 75 local officials, the Ohio Association of
Elementary Administrators, the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, the Minnesota Secondary
School Principals and the Texas Municipal Police Association.
RailWatch is attempting to build a strong national, grassroots organization of individuals and
organizations who share their concerns. RailWatch sends regular newsletters and updates to its
supporters. They sent the same request to others cities and towns in Virginia. If the Board chooses to
support RailWatch, the County would receive the newsletter and updates as well. Their most immediate
goal is for Congress to hold in-depth, thorough hearings on railroad safety. The Virginia Department of
Rail and Public Transportation does not know too much about this organization. Their understanding of
RaiIWatch is that it is an organization that promotes improving the safety of railroad crossings. VDRPT
supports this, but realizes that it would be very expensive and impractical to improve the safety of all
problem railroad crossings at one time. They see no problem with supporting a resolution if it is general in
nature. RaiIWatch has given each locality the flexibility of to rewrite the resolution, but staff does not think
it is necessary to amend the resolution from RailWatch. It does not commit the County to anything, but it
does express our support for improving rail safety.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors support the resolution from RailWatch.
(Ms. Humphris noted that it is possible there will be a funding request for this program in the
future, but she could not support making a contribution. She thinks the Board of Supervisors' resolution in
support of this program is sufficient.)
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS; there is a train accident every ninety minutes; and
WHEREAS; a train carrying hazardous materials goes off the tracks somewhere in the United
States roughly every two weeks, resulting in a spill and the evacuation of people living nearby; and
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meetin~i
(Page 2)
WHEREAS; local city and county officials have no control over train speeds in their communities
although they have the most familiarity with local traffic patterns; and
WHEREAS; railroads use 1930's safety technology that jeopardizes the safety of everyone
including railroad employees; and
WHEREAS; according to the Federal Railroad Administration, more than 80 percent of public
railroad crossings are unprotected by lights and gates; and
WHEREAS; investigations have uncovered alarming safety violations including defective train
equipment, overworked employees, a failure by companies to provide employee training and employees
who are encouraged not to report equipment defects or injuries.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby support RailWatch and its efforts to educate the public about railroad safety, and
joins RailWatch in calling for a complete and thorough investigation of railroad safety by the United States
Congress.
Item No. 5.2. Adopt resolution for installation of "Watch for Children" signs in Forest Lakes
Square in Forest Lakes Subdivision.
The residents of Forest Lakes and South Forest Lakes have requested the Virginia Department of
Transportation to install a total of five "Watch For Children" signs on Ashwood Boulevard (Route 1670) and
Timberwood Boulevard (Route 1721). This request requires a resolution of support from the Board of
Supervisors.
On March 3, 1999, the Board of Supervisors endorsed new guidelines for the installation of "Watch
for Children" signs. Staff will use these new guidelines to review this request.
"Watch for Children" signs shall only be considered on secondary roads. The residents
have requested the signs be located at the following locations: Two signs on Ashwood Bird near
the South Forest Lakes Clubhouse and three on Timberwood Blvd near the Forest Lakes
Clubhouse and Tennis Courts.. Both of these roads are secondary roads. These signs will alert all
vehicles to be cautious as they drive in the vicinity of these areas.
The request must come from a Homeowner's Association where applicable. Please find
attached a letter requesting the signs from the Forest Lakes cOmmunity ASSOciation.
There must be child activity attraction nearby for the sign to be considered. The signs will
be located near two large athletic facilities.
4. The installation of the sign shall not conflict with any existing traffic control devices. The
proposed location of the sign will not conflict with any existing traffic control devices. Staff will
work with VDOT to determine the exact location for the signs.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse a resolution supporting "Watch for Children"
signs at the requested locations in Forest Lakes and South Forest Lakes.
(Ms. Humphris pointed out that there is a discrepancy between the Homeowners Association
request and the resolution as far as the number of signs are concerned. She wanted to make sure the
five signs listed in the resolution represent the correct number requested for Ashwood and Timberwood
Boulevards. The map shows four signs, but it is possible the first place for a sign is pointing to two
locations. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the resolution include five signs to make sure all points are
covered.)
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Forest Lakes Community Association, Incorporated, is concerned about traffic in their
neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that play in the
subdivision; and ·
WHEREAS, the Association believes that five "Watch for Children" signs located near the Clubhouses
would help alleviate some the concerns;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports
the community's requests for VDOT to install five "Watch for Children" signs on Ashwood
Boulevard (Route 1670) and Timberwood Boulevard (Route 1721).
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meetin~i
(Page 3)
Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: General Fund, $600 (Form #99042).
The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles has been selling the Animal Friendly license plates
as part of its special license plate program. The plate is issued to support dog and cat sterilization
programs at a cost of $25.00 per year in addition to the regular vehicle registration fee. After the first
1,000 sets of license plates are sold, $15.00 of the fee is made available to the locality where the
vehicle is registered to be used to support the sterilization program. For fiscal year 1999, Albemarle
County is due $600.00 from this fund.
Virginia Code Section 46.2-749 requires that these funds be used for the sterilization program.
If the locality does not have a program, it may make the funds available to any private, nonprofit
sterilization program in the locality. Albemarle County does not have this program, however, the
Albemarle S.P.C.A. does. It is recommended that these funds be made available for use by the
Albemarle S.P.C.A. to support their sterilization program.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations as detailed on
Appropriation #99042.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99042
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR SPCA FROM DMV ANIMAL FRIENDLY LICENSE
PLATES.
EXPENDITURE
CODE
I 1000 390000 565510
DESCRIPTION
SPCA-ANIMAL FRIENDLY
AMOUNT
$ 600.00
TOTAL $ 600.O0
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1000 22000 220106
STATE REVENUE-DMV
$ 600.00
TOTAL $ 600.00
Item No. 5.4. Authorize County Executive to execute drainage easement agreements for Minor
Ridge and Brookmill areas.
The Stormwater Program was established in the Capital Improvements Program to purchase,
construct and maintain permanent stormwater control facilities throughout the County. Stormwater
control facilities include collection and conveyance structures such as ponds, basins, underground pipes
and aboveground channels and ditches. These structures are part of stormwater management systems
designed to detain runoff, prevent downstream flooding, minimize soil erosion and improve water quality in
our streams. In July of this year, the Board approved construction of the following stormwater projects:
Minor Ridqe Piping Replacement: A major underground pipe replacement project to provide
additional capacity and prevent flooding in and around 20 residences in the Wynridge subdivision.
This project is located north of Greenbrier Drive and west of Commonwealth Drive. The
stormwater system accepts runoff from a larger drainage area including the new Greenbrier Office
Park.
Construction Budget: $250,000
Brookmill Stream Bank Repairs: An environmentally significant project to rebuild an eroded stream
bank of Meadow Creek. The purpose of this project is to protect ten residences adjacent to the river,
reduce sedimentation of the stream and improve the health of Meadow Creek. The Brookmill
subdivision is located in the Branchlands area, south of Greenbrier Drive.
Construction Budget: $50,000
Both ofthese projectsarelocated on privately owned properties. Constructionis scheduledto begin
by Janua~lst
In addition to construction funding, the County must develop a strategy to address the
maintenance of stormwater systems. The County Attorney's Office advises that a public benefit must be
derived from the expenditure of public funds and a permanent drainage easement dedicating the system
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meetin~t
(Page 4)
to public use must be obtained. With regards to the Minor Ridge and Brookmill projects, there are several
alternatives to gain a public benefit and to address maintenance responsibility:
The County and the property owners can agree to permanent drainage easements dedicating the
system "to public use". An easement of this nature will give the County access to the system and
an obligation to maintain the system.
The County and the property owners can agree to permanent drainage easements dedicating the
system "to public use", but specifically agreeing that the County will not be responsible for
maintaining the system. An easement of this nature will give the County access to the system
with no obligation to maintain the system.
Mr. Bowerman and Engineering representatives have met with the residents of these
neighborhoods to review their flooding and erosion problems. There is a high expectation from these
residents, as a result of the Board's action in July, that the County will proceed with the construction
measures necessary to alleviate their concerns and complete the work by the spring growing season so
their yards can be reestablished.
A work session with the Board has been scheduled for December lStto review construction,
maintenance and dedication issues related to our Stormwater Program and the alternatives to fund
anticipated costs.
Staff recommends authorizing the County Executive to execute drainage easement agreements
for these projects to allow construction to begin without delay.
Engineering recommends the easement for Minor Ridge properties be written as outlined by
alternative #1, while the easement for Brookmill properties should be written as outlined by alternative #2.
The maintenance obligation included in Alternative #1 is not recommended for the Brookmill project
because the project involves the restoration of a stream bank. This type of stabilization is subject to the
uncontrollable actions of major storms and may not be a reasonable obligation of County resources.
(Ms. Thomas wondered if this arrangement corresponds with the work going on in the Teague
Funeral Home area. Mr. Tucker responded that they are similar issues, but the Minor Ridge and Brookmill
situation has been reviewed by staff for several years. He went on to say the Teague stormwater issue
will have to go through a certain process. However, the whole issue of stormwater detention policy will be
brought to the supervisors in the very near future, so these issues can be examined.
Mr. Bowerman said in situations such as the Brookmill improvement there may have to be some
public/private partnership for the ongoing maintenance of the project. He suggested that the Homeowners
Association could have a 15 or 20 percent share in the maintenance rather than the public sector having
the entire responsibility. This makes the Homeowners Association a part of the solution in keeping it
maintained.
Ms. Thomas remarked that her question has been answered, because it sounds as though the
Board will be discussing these improvements sometime in the future.)
By the above shown vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute drainage
easement agreements to allow construction to begin without delay, as recommended by staff.
Item No. 5.5. Truck Restriction ih Batesville community (Route 692 between Route 250 West and
Route 29.)
The Batesville Ruritan Club has requested that VDOT restrict through trucks in the Batesville
community (AttachmentA). VDOT reviewed the request and forwarded it the County for a resolution from the
Board of Supervisors. The guidelines for truck restrictions on State maintained roads are found in Attachment
B in italics. Staff has attempted to address these guidelines below each italicized statement.
This section of road began to see increased through truck traffic after state and local officials began
to strictly enforce truck height and weight limits on Route 151 in Nelson County. Route 692 was an alternate
route for those trucks with Route 29 South destinations.
The Board of Supervisors must hold a public hearing. The Commonwealth Transportation Board
(CTB) has the final determination on all truck restriction requests.
According to staff review, the through truck restriction on Route 692 meets four of the VDOT's five
criteria. It should be noted that this area is also the home of several residentswith dump trucks, logging often
takes place in the area, deliveries to Little Market and Pages Market are done by truck, and there are some
orchards in the area that use trucks. Trucks with an origin or destination along the restricted road section are
not prohibited from travel along the posted section if the request is granted.
Based on staff's review of the through truck restriction criteria, this request appears to be a
reasonable and justifiable request for Commonwealth Transportation Board consideration. If authorized by
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meetin~i
(Page 5)
the Board of Supervisors, staffwill take the necessary steps to officially request YDOT and the CTB to restrict
through trucks on Route 692 between Route 250 West and Route 29 South (See Attachment C).
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors authorize staff to proceed with the steps required to
officially request VDOT/CTB restriction of through trucks on Route 692 between Route 250 West and Route
29.
(Mr. Cilimberg said the Executive Summary stated that a public hearing may be held. However,
this process requires that the Board of Supervisors hold a public hearing for this item.)
By the above shown vote, the Board authorized staff to proceed with the steps required to
officially request VdoT/CTB restriction of through trucks on Route 692 between Route 250 West
and Route 29.
Item No. 5.6. Proclamation recognizing November, 1999 as Virginia Literacy Month.
Mr. Martin read the following proclamation and presented it to Frances Lee Vandell. Ms. Vandell
thanked the Board on behalf of the Literacy Volunteers of America and the Blue Ridge ESL Council.
VIRGINIA LITERACY MONTH
WHEREAS,
literacy is defined as the fundamental building block of all learning and is essential to the
growth and success of every citizen in our great Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS,
literacy consists of a set of skills that includes reading, writing, math and critical thinking, and
these skills are required to accomplish a variety of tasks, as well as contributing to our great
Commonwealth of Knowledge; and
WHEREAS,
parents are their children's first teacher, preparing their children to learn and succeed in
school and their environment; and
WHEREAS,
Virginia's Standards of Learning help to ensure that young students across the
Commonwealth master all academic areas, including reading; and
WHEREAS,
a literate workforce is essential to our great Commonwealth today and in our future affects
our economic development along with competitiveness among other national markets; and
WHEREAS,
Virginia Literacy Month will encourage and promote literacy and lifelong learning across our
great state;
NOW, THEREFORE,
I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, do hereby recognize November, 1999 as
VIRGINIA LITERACY MONTH
in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and call this observance to the attention of all
our citizens.
Signed and sealed this 10th day of November, 1999.
Item No. 5.7. Resolution to Deny Claim Asserted by Karl Mansoor.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM
ASSERTED BY KARL MANSOOR
WHEREAS, Karl Mansoor, by counsel, has asserted a $100,000 claim against the County of
Albemarle arising from alleged wrongful actions of the Albemarle County Police Department; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the claim is not supported by the facts or by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia denies the claim of Karl Mansoor for alleged damages in the amount of $100,000.
Item No. 5.8. Resolution to Deny Claim Asserted by Michael Garrison.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM
ASSERTED BY MICHAEL GARRISON
WHEREAS, Michael Garrison, by counsel, has asserted a $5,000 claim against the County of
Albemarle arising from alleged negligence of the Albemarle County Police Department regarding an
automobile accident occurring on August 13, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the claim is not supported by the facts or by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia denies the claim of Michael Garrison for alleged damages in the amount of $5,000.
Item No. 5.9. Request from School Board that Board of Supervisors hold public hearing on SP-
99-66, Monticello High School, on December 8, 1999, following the Planning Commission's public hearing
on December 7, 1999.
The following letter dated November 10, 1999, was received from Mr. John e. Baker, Chairman,
Albemarle County School Board:
"The school division is currently in negotiations with the Association for Investment Management
and Research (AIMR) to rent the Monticello High School for approximately 40 days beginning in mid-June
of 2000 to conduct the grading of international qualifying exams for Certified Financial Analysts. The 40
days would include approximately 20 days for the actual grading of the exams, with the remaining days
used for setup and cleanup. AIMR, which is based in Charlottesville, is a global, non-stock, non-profit
professional organization that serves the worldwide investment community.
The school division stands to earn approximately $140,000-$180,000 after expenses for this
rental, which could be used to address many critical instructional needs. The Child Nutrition Program
would also contract separately with AIMR for meal services during the rental period. Earnings from
providing meal services could be utilized for long-term equipment needs for this financially self-sustaining
program.
In working with local government staff on the logistics of this possible rental agreement, the school
division was advised by the Zoning Department that a Special Use Permit would be required for this use of
the Monticello facility. This permit would be required because the area where Monticello High School is
located is zoned R15 (High Density Residential). The activities involved in the rental would be more
consistent with a CO (Commercial Office Zoning).
In response, the School Board authorized the application for the Special Use Permit. The Planning
Department has indicated that based on the normal process, a decision by the Board of Supervisors on
this application would not be forthcoming until approximately the middle of January. We have been
informed by AIMR of the need to know that the Special Use Permit would be granted by as early as
possible in December, in case other facility arrangements needed to be made.
Because of the need for AIMR to know the status of the application at an earlier point, and
because of the significant financial implications for the school division involved, I have been asked by the
School Board to request the Board of Supervisors to ask local government staff to expedite the Special
Use Permit approval process. Specifically, I would ask that the Planning Commission review this request
at its December 7 meeting and that the Board of Supervisors consider it at its December 8 meeting. I
know that this request represents a major deviation form normal procedure; however, the revenue that this
rental would generate could be used in a number of ways to support our students. The School Board
would deeply appreciate the Supervisors' consideration of this special request.
As always, thank you for your strong support of our schools."
By the above shown vote, the Board approved holding the public hearing on SP-99-66,
Monticello High School, on December 8, 1999, following the Planning Commission's public
hearing on December 7, 1999.
Item No. 5.10. Update on Hunting Enforcement Program for Year 1999-2000.
In response to citizen concern regarding illegal hunting, the Board authorized additional county
resources to supplement the effort of the game wardens during the 1998/99 deer hunting season. The
Albemarle County Sheriffs Department provided specially trained auxiliary and off-duty deputies to heighten
law enforcement visibility in the field, speed the response of officers to calls and respond to routine calls for
service so that game wardens could concentrate their efforts on responding to more serious hunting-related
incidents. Statistics gathered from the police and sheriff departments and from the game wardens indicate
that efforts to increase contact and visibility were successful. The data also provides baseline statistics to use
in analyzing future enforcement efforts. Based on assessments from all involved parties, the effort was
deemed successful and additional resources were added by the Board of Supervisors to allow an expanded
hunting enforcement effort to go forward during the 1999/00 deer hunting season.
NOvember 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
The Sheriff's Department will again be providing specially trained auxiliary and off-duty
deputies to meet the enforcement goals stated above. These deputies have received five sessions of
training encompassing traffic stops, radio communications, reporting, fire arms, officer survival and field
training to prepare them for this effort. The deputies have developed a calendar of special enforcement
details that will allow them to concentrate manpower during the times of highest demand, specifically
weekends and holidays. In addition, the Police Department's Community Policing Division will be
coordinating special details involving police officers to supplement the efforts of the deputies and the
game wardens. While a strong emphasis will be placed on locating and arresting violators, an
important aspect of the program will also be preventing illegal hunting through education, outreach and
continued visibility and contact with the hunting population.
The following is a brief recap of statistics compiled from the three law enforcement agencies
involved in this effort. A complete summary of the activities of the game wardens was received from the
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries on November 2, 1999, and is attached.
67 charges placed by game wardens
10 of 11 convicted of failure to wear blaze orange
6 of 8 convicted of trespass to hunt posted property
4 of 4
6 of 9
4 of 4
1 of 1
2 of 2 convicted
5 of 6 convicted
8 of 8 convicted
8 of 8 convicted
1 of 1 convicted
1 of 1 convicted
1 of 1 convicted
1 of 1 convicted
2 of 2 convicted
convicted of trespass to hunt unposted property
convicted of hunting without required license
convicted of violating department regulations
convicted of trespass by use of A-IV
of exceeding daily bag limit
of possessing illegal wildlife
of transporting loaded firearm in vehicle
of killing wild animal in closed season
of hunting with unlawful firearm
of possession of firearm by felon
of concealed weapon
of possessing illegal weapon
of discharging firearm from highway
69 calls for service answered by game wardens
9 charges placed by county police officers
1 of 2 convicted of spotlighting
1 of 3 convicted of discharge of weapons in roadway
1 of 1 convicted of failure to tag deer
2 of 3 convicted of trespass on posted property
I charge placed by deputies
1 of 1 convicted of discharge of weapOns in roadway
'187 hunters checked by deputies
165 public contacts by deputies
86 calls for service answered by deputies
No action is required by the Board regarding this item.
(Ms. Thomas referred to a communication from a citizen who had compared those figures with an
earlier report, and found some discrepancies. She asked if these discrepancies can be clarified. Mr.
Tucker responded affirmatively.
Ms. Humphris stated that this is a good example of how citizens do a lot of work for County
officials, and she thanked Mr. John Martin, a citizen of Albemarle County, for his work on this item. She
said not everybody has the time or ability to do such a careful analysis. She added that the Board of
Supervisors appreciates such information, and it is received in a very positive fashion.)
Item No. 5.11. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for October 12, October 19 and October
26, 1999, were received for information.
Item No. 5.12. 1999 Third Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning
and Community Development, was received for information.
Note: Mr. Martin suggested at this time the Board take up several items on the agenda which had
been requested for deferral or withdrawal.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-99-55. CV20'1 Route 676 (Ivy Creek Methodist Church) (Sign #43).
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow personal wireless service fac in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the
Zoning Ord. TM44, P12H, contains 1.6 acs. Znd RA. Property is site of Ivy Creek United Methodist
Church at 674 Woodlands Road (Rt 676), approx 1/2 mi E of intersection of Rts 676 & 660. Jack Jouett
Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 25 and November 1, 1999.) (Applicant requests
deferral.)
Mr. Martin said a request for deferral has been received from the applicant. In an effort to work
with the church and the County, the applicants are looking at another location on the same property. Mr.
Cilimberg stated that he suggested to the applicant that this will need to go back to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if this Board needs to take action to refer this item back to the Planning
Commission. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes."
Ms. Humphris stated that she is certain the process for deferral is well known by applicants, but it
is obvious applicants are not heeding the rules and regulations in place. She said perhaps the Planning
staff needs to remind them. She noted that the staff had this item deferred once with the Planning
Commission and then the applicant had it deferred once with the Planning Commission. Now there is a
last minute deferral, and she is not sure it is justified. The application was so obviously in trouble, and the
applicant has known this all along.
Mr. Cilimberg remarked that the staff advises applicants that beyond the date established in the
Board of Supervisors' policy, it is completely up to this Board as to whether or not action is taken. He said
it is not a standard item before this Board.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if the deferral is denied, would the applicant have to reapply and pay for
the permit, etc.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks applicants should be respectful of the fact that the Supervisors go to
a great deal of effort to prepare for such items. She said applicants are not being very considerate of the
staff nor the Supervisors when they spend hours preparing for an item, and something different is
presented to them. She feels this way about both of the deferrals being presented to the Board tonight.
Applicants need to show more cooperative spirit in the deferral process.
Mr. Martin asked how other Board members feel. Ms. Humphris asked if Dick Shearer, with CFW
Intelos, is present.
Mr. Shearer responded that he is certainly not trying to inconvenience the Board. When it was
determined last week that there was a problem because of the recommendation from the Planning
Commission, the church representatives came to talk to him. They were not present at the Planning
Commission meeting, and Mr. Sullivan, a church member, indicated that he was supposed to be there, but
he had forgotten to come. The church representatives asked him to consider moving the tower away from
the corner and the Riviere's property. However, to do this in a timely manner, a re-survey has to be done.
He commented that he is trying to accommodate the landowner as well as install the system where it
would best be located.
Ms. Humphris inquired if there is a significant number of trees at the proposed new site. Mr.
Shearer answered affirmatively. He explained that there are trees on both sides, and the site is behind
the parsonage. Ms. Humphris asked why the tower was not proposed for this site in the beginning when
so many problems were identified relating to the property line distance. Mr. Shearer responded that the
first location was directed by church representatives.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if Mr. Shearer had adequately communicated the church members'
desires to staff. Mr. Shearer reiterated that the church members had actually come to him, because he
had told them he felt as though the first request was not going to be approved. They asked if he would
consider relocating the tower somewhere else on the church property.
Board members agreed that the matter would have to go back to the Planning Commission.
~ Ms. Humphris stated that since this request falls within the Jack Jouett District she will, with some
reluctance, make a motion to refer SP-99-55, CV201 Route 676 (Ivy Creek Methodist Church) back to the
Planning Commission. She then asked if it was possible to assign a time limit.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant should get the new information to the staff so it can be analyzed
and prepared for the Planning Commission. He would not suggest a time limit.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that the adjoining property owners will be re-notified.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Ms. Thomas noted that she went to the site and spent some time on the matter. The County
policy relates not only to the type of structure, but the location is also very important, and it needs to be
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
hidden away in the trees with the top barely visible. The first site was certainly not hidden away, and she
hopes a location that fits this description can be found.
Ms. Humphris remarked that the contrast between this site and the one approved several weeks
ago at Spring Haven Farm is very different. She would have thought the applicant should have known
ahead of time that this site would not be approved.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bo.werman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9a. CPA 99-02. Piney Mountain Community Industrial Service Area.
PUBLIC HEARING to consider an amendment to the Comp Plan Land Use Plan for Piney Mountain
Community in that area E of Seminole Trail (Rt 29N), W of Watts Passage (Rt 600) & N of the N Fork
Rivanna River to expand or adjust the Development Area boundary, meaning the Land Use Plan
designation may change from Rural Area to Industrial Service and from Industrial Service to Rural Area..
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 25 and November 1, 1999.)
Mr. Bowerman stated that because the applicant for ZMA-99-3 Value America has withdrawn this
request, he will make a motion for denial of CPA-99-02 relating to Piney Mountain Community Industrial
Service Area. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wanted to defer CPA-99-02. Mr. Cilimberg explained that
CPA-99-02 was initiated by the Planning Commission in response to the possibility of the two Zoning Map
Amendments which actually requested land outside of the development. The applicant has asked that
ZMA-99-3 be withdrawn which is completely outside of the development area boundary and that
ZMA-99-02 be deferred so he can work with staff on redefining this zoning within the development area.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that because of this situation, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is no longer
necessary.
Agenda Item No. 9c. ZMA-99-3. Value America (Si_~n #28). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to
rezone 17.21 acres from RA to LI to allow a 100,000 sq ft office bldg. TM33, P15 (part thereof) & P16
(part thereof). Located on the E sd of Seminole Trail (Rt 29 N) approx 1/2 mi N of the N Fork Rivanna
River. (The Comp Plan designates this property as RA.) Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on October 25 and November 1, 1999.) Applicant requests withdrawal.)
At this time, Mr. Bowerman offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to accept the
applicant's request to withdraw ZMA-99-3, Value America.
Ms. Thomas inquired as to why this application cannot be denied instead of withdrawn. She
asked if there is a difference in the finality of the Board's actions between allowing a withdrawal and
denying a request. Mr. Davis replied that there are some subtle differences. However, by state law a
request for withdrawal prior to the opening of the public hearing has to be honored, so this is merely a
formality.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9b. ZMA-99-2. Value America (Signs #29&30). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to rezone 43.009 acs from RA to LI to allow 100,000 sq. ft. office bldg. TM33, P1D (part thereof),
P1F (part thereof), P14 (part thereof) & P15 (part thereof). Located on E sd of Seminole Trail (Rt 29N)
approx 1/2 mi N of the N Fork Rivanna River. (The Comp Plan designates part of this property as
Industrial Service in the Piney Mountain Community Development Area, and part as Rural Area.).
Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 25 and November 1, 1999.) (Applicant
requests deferral.)
Mr. Cilimberg informed the Board of Supervisors that ZMA-99-2 is a referral request. He told the
applicant that this will need to go back to the Planning Commission once the actual area to be rezoned
within the boundary of the development area has been determined.
Ms. Humphris asked if the item is referred back to the Planning Commission, will all of the
requested information be available when it comes back to the Board of Supervisors.
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Cilimberg said when the application comes back to this Board, the boundaries will be within
the development area. This is all he can guarantee, since anything else will be the responsibility of the
applicant. He remarked, though, that the applicant has indicated he wants to refine the area of the
rezoning request so it is within the boundaries of the development area. The applicant wants to do this
with staff so that when the request comes back, it will be within those boundaries. There are other issues
regarding a master plan and a transportation plan that are still outstanding. However, the applicant should
address these things with the Planning Commission.
Ms. Humphris said she highly recommends that such things be brought to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman noted that this request is located within the Chairman's district. Mr. Bowerman
then moved that ZMA-99-2, Value America, be referred back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Marshall
seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance to amend Section 9-404 of the County
Code to establish amounts of license fees for motor vehicles. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
October 25 and November 1, 1999.)
Mr. Tucker said pursuant to Virginia Code § 46.2-752(A), the County assesses a license fee on motor
vehicles, trailers, and semitrailers. The amount of the local license fee may be equal to but not greater than
the amount of the license tax imposed by the Commonwealth on such vehicles. Periodically, the General
Assembly adjusts the amount of state license tax and the County Code must be amended so that the County
fee does not exceed the amount of the corresponding state tax.
Albemarle County Code § 9-404 sets forth the local license fees on motor vehicles. Currently, the
fee for motor vehicles is $20.00 for vehicles under 4,000 pounds and $25.00 for vehicles in excess of 4,000
pounds. The Virginia Code has been amended to raise the state tax for such vehicles to $23.00 and
$28.00, respectively. The attached ordinance would amend County Code § 9-404 to increase the local
license fee to the state maximum. The Virginia Code also has been amended to raise the state tax for
motorcycles to $18.00. The proposed amendment would raise the license fee on motorcycles from $15.00
to $18.00 to correspond to the increase in the state tax. Finally, Virginia Code § 46.2-694.1 has instituted a
three-tiered rate schedule based on weight for non-passenger trailers and semitrailers. The attached
ordinance would amend County Code § 9-404(C) and (D) to continue a two-tiered fee schedule for trailers
and semitrailers rather than to institute a three-tiered fee schedule.
The current County Code provides for a two-tier rate structure on trailers (less than 1,500 pounds
$5.00; over 1,500 pounds - $25.00). The allowable three-tier rate would require substantial modification
to billing systems and is not being recommended at this time.
The Virginia Code tax for large trailers is now less than the County license fee for such trailers.
The proposed decrease in the fee for the large trailers, therefore, is mandatory to comply with State Law
and will cost $10,030. The proposed increases are shown only for your information and you have the
discretion to continue with the current fee or increase the fee up to the maximums shown.
Enactment of the new rate schedules would have the following impact on annual revenues:
Type Old Rate New Rate Variance Revenue Impact
Vehicles under 4,001 lbs. $ 20.00 $ 23.00 $ 3.00 $168,924
Vehicles over 4,000 lbs. 25.00 28.00 3.00 39,618
Motorcycles 15.00 18.00 3.00 2,208
Small Trailers 5.00 8.00 3.00 3,465
Large Trailers 25.00 18.50 6.50 (10,030)
Net Increase $ 204,185
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board consider adopting the attached Ordinance amending
Section 9-404 to decrease the motor vehicle fees for trailers and semitrailers and to consider adjusting the
other fees to the amounts now permitted by the State Code.
Mr. Marshall wondered why the fee for large tractor trailers was reduced from $25.00 to $18.50.
Mr. Tucker replied that the state had made this reduction, which means the County has to do it also.
At 7:30 p.m., Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin
closed the public hearing.
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Perkins asked if the same rate could be adopted for all vehicles regardless of the weight. Mr.
Davis answered that this can be done as long as it does not exceed the maximum amount provided for by
the state. Mr. Tucker added that the County's fees have to be less than, or mirror, the state's rates. Mr.
Perkins then asked if there could be a $23.00 fee for all vehicles. Mr. Tucker replied that this could be
done except for motorcycles or small trailers. Mr. Perkins said he was referring to cars. Mr. Tucker
concurred that this was being suggested for cars.
Mr. Martin pointed out that if there was a $23.00 fee for everything except motorcycles and small
trailers, there would be a revenue loss. Mr. Tucker agreed that there would be a revenue loss with the
vehicles weighing 4,000 pounds or over if the $23.00 rate was used for them also. He said approximately
$40,000 would be lost with this rate.
Mr. Bowerman next made a motion to adopt an Ordinance to amend Section 9-404 of the County
Code to establish amounts of license fees for motor vehicles. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 99-9(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC,
ARTICLE IV, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES, 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 9, Motor
Vehicles And Traffic Article IV, County Vehicle Licenses, is hereby amended and reordained by amending
section 9-404, License fees-Amounts, as follows:
Sec. 9-404 License fees--Amounts.
A. On all motor vehicles, except as otherwise specifically provided in this article, there shall
be an annual license fee based on gross vehicle weight. The fee shall be twenty-three dollars ($23.00) for
vehicles with gross vehicle weights of four thousand (4,000) pounds or less and twenty-eight ($28.00) for
gross weights in excess of four thousand (4,000) pounds. Gross maximum loaded weight shall be
substituted for gross vehicle weight for motor vehicles not designed and used primarily for the
transportation of passengers.
B. On every motorcycle there shall be an annual license fee of eighteen dollars ($18.00);
and an additional license fee of three dollars ($3.00) for each sidecar for each motorcycle.
C. On every trailer or semitrailer not designed and used for transportation of passengers,
there shall be an annual license fee as follows:
Gross Weight Annual Fee
0 - 1,500 lbs. $ 8.00
1,501 lbs. and above $18.50
D. In the case of a combination of a tractor-trailer or semitrailer, each vehicle constituting a
part of such combination shall be licensgd as a separate vehicle.
E. On every motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer upon which well-drilling machinery is
attached or other "specialized mobile equipment" as defined in Virginia Code § 46.2-700(B), there shall be
an annual license fee of fifteen dollars ($15.00).
(Code 1967, § 12-93; 1-18-73; 6-7-89; Code 1988, § 12-25; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 46.2-694, 46.2-694.1, 46.2-700 and 46.2-701.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2000.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-99-54. Covenant Upper School (Sign #27). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to allow priv school (upper school campus) in accord w/Sec 14.2.2 (5) of the Zoning Ord. TM90A,
P2, contains 25.933 acs. Znd R-2. Located on Hickory Street near the intersection of Oak Hill Dr (Rt
1113). Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 25 and November 1, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave a summary of the staff report for SP-99-54 relating to a request from Covenant
Upper School to relocate its present site at the former Mclntire School. The property is located on Hickory
Street near the intersection of Oak Hill Drive (Route 11 t3) and is zoned R-1 Residential. He noted that
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
the site is undeveloped and heavily wooded with large areas of undeveloped property to the east of the
parcel. The school at the proposed location projects a total of 450 students through 2010 with a
maximum of 550 students thereafter. He also described the favorable and unfavorable factors of the
request. The staff recommends approval of the request with the five ConditiOns shown in the staff repOrt.
He reported that the Planning Commission also recommended approval of the application, but its action
was subject to the conditions and provided the site plan is in substantial accord with information presented
to the Commission at its October 12, 1999 meeting, especially as far as the percentage of impervious
surface is concerned.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Cilimberg to interpret the memo (copy on file) regarding the traffic update
that was included in the Board members' packets. Mr. Cilimberg stated that this memo highlights the
points which have already been discussed, and most of them will be resolved during the site plan process.
Mr. Frank Cox, representing the Covenant School, assured the Board that he would not be asking
for a deferral of this request. There are 320 students who need to be in a school by 2002, so there is not
much time to work with this problem. He has been involved both on a professional and advisory basis, as
well as a Board member, with the Covenant School since its inception 15 years ago. It is a VAIS (Virginia
Association of Independent Schools) accredited K-12 grades school which has grown from 43 students to
approximately 650 today, and it is represented by over 300 families and 110 faculty persons. The school
has been in a growth mode, and a new headmaster has been employed. There are 300 faculty members
and parents who volunteered to come tonight to speak, but participation has been limited to the Board of
Directors, the majority of whom are present. School representatives have been searching for the right site
for 15 years. This is a 26 acre site which was given to the school, and the site location map shows how it
is nestled south of the Wachovia Operations Center just east of the Southwood Mobile Home Park. There
is a charming residential community to the north and east surrounding the property. The school staff and
VDoT representatives have worked since August to try to resolve as many issues as possible, and they
have been narrowed to just a few. He noted that issues particularly related to traffic will require final
engineering, and the school officials have agreed in principle to just about everything VDoT has required.
This particular application is one that will bring a compatible uniqueness to the neighborhood, and it offers
a chance to build an institutional community around an existing residential community. The directives of
the Covenant School Board of Directors reflect a desire to have a school that will meet a number of long
term educational needs in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area.
He next called attention to a posted site plan representing the conceptual siting. He said, though,
it has not been shown to either the Planning Commission or the staff as being the official preliminary plan,
and it is the school representatives' intent to begin a process next week with a group of architects who
have been retained. A nationally known educational architect and a well-known local architect have been
hired to form a joint venture to begin the process of programming and final designs for the property. The
site plan, to which he referred, shows a view of what will be sited on the property. The property was
considered from two directions, and the first time he saw it, he thought it might be a good site for a
WaIMart or a six unit per acre townhouse development. In developing these considerations, an analysis
and comparative traffic findings were done. The conclusion has been reached that the design program is
favorable as far as the overall impacts from the utility and land utilization, as well as the ability to preserve
buffers and perimeter landscaping. There is also the ability to moderate traffic and provide a good
neighborly image that would be highly landscaped and designed for this community. As far as the
statistics of the property, it is 26 acres in an R-2 zoned area, and the developed plan calls for
approximately 15 to 17 percent impervious cover. There will be approximately 75 to 80 percent of the
property at full development that will be open and not covered with buildings, and the overall floor area
ratio, compared to most commercial, institutional and residential developments, will be far below the
average.
Mr. Cox then referred to the traffic analysis, which was done in a progression, and ultimately the
property was assessed for 650 students. However, he reiterated that for the first ten years only 450
students are expected, but the conditions of the special permit under this particular approva! is for 550
students. As the traffic impacts were evaluated for a 650 student institution, standing alone without the
impact of a commercial project, as well as other projects contemplated in the area, all of the intersections
work favorably. He noted, though, that traffic began to get heavy around the year 2030, but a lot of that
had to do with the traffic generated from surrounding development. It is felt the traffic can be well
managed on this property. He mentioned that as far as a peak utilization, it is a fairly viable alternative, as
opposed to a residential or other nonresidential use which might fall under special permitting opportunities
under the R-2 zoning district and the underlying Comprehensive Plan land use category.
Mr. Bowerman inquired about the approximate physical distance between the proposed site and
the Covenant lower school. Mr. Cox pointed out various areas on the map and noted that the same
amount of traffic will be taken to the other side of Fifth Street. There is approximately one-half mile
between the two properties.
Mr. Martin asked who now owns the old Mclntire school property. Mr. Cox replied that the
Covenant School is the present owner. The lower school will be moved from its present location back to
Mclntire. The ultimate plan is to acquire enough property within this immediate area either to the west or
the south where both campuses could be consolidated into a single campus. The long term goal is to
maintain the Mclntire building as a viable academic institution.
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Bowerman inquired if Mr. Cilimberg had indicated there might be a sixth condition that the site
plan has to be in general accord with the conceptual plan. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Commission
members recommended approval subject to the five conditions. However, they added wording to the fifth
condition indicating that the site plan had to be in substantial accord with material presented to the
Commission at its October 12, 1999 meeting especially related to the percentage of impervious surface.
This can be a separate condition, if the Board members so desire, or they can qualify their action with this
language. The wording was included in the Commission's action letter, but it was not shown in the
conditions listed in the staff report.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that this was actually a condition of the critical slopes waiver. Mr.
Cilimberg concurred.
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
Dr. Ron Sykes, Headmaster at the Covenant School, announced that he began working in this
position in July, 1999. He has been a Headmaster in Memphis and Natchez and was the Academic Dean
for the past 11 years at Hargrave Military Academy in Chatham, Virginia. He had no intention of making a
career move, and although he was working on his doctorate here and was commuting. He was familiar
with the area, but he had never lived here. He explained that he got a call about the Covenant School and
initially indicated he was not interested in moving, because he had expected to retire in Chatham. He then
came to Albemarle County and interviewed with the Covenant School, and two things brought him and his
wife here. In 13 to 15 years when he retires, he would like to look at the Covenant School and stand back
with pride at what has happened over the last few years. Its growth in the last 15 years has been nothing
short of remarkable, and its success was unpredicted. It has grown faster and been more successful than
was ever dreamed.
The first reason he chose to move to this area is because the Covenant School is a quality
institution, and the VAIS Accreditation Report indicates it is a unique institution in that it has created a
learning community. The report complimented the school on its shared vision for children in the
community. The second reason he relocated is because of Albemarle County, and he and his wife have
enjoyed it every day since they moved here. If the school moves onto the proposed site and builds a
campus there, the school will be a good and valued neighbor. School representatives have already met
with the neighborhood. At the Mclntire location it is time for the fall raking, and the residents have been
very aware of the school's presence in the neighborhood. Part of a service requirement is satisfied each
fall by helping out the neighbors with their yards. There are some older families in the neighborhood at the
proposed site, and it is intended that the school will adopt these families, and the young people will work
with them. He is present at this meeting because he wanted to introduce himself to the Board of
Supervisors. He is proud to be here, he believes in the institution, and he believes it will be a definite
asset to Albemarle County.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to when the 12th grade was added to the curriculum. Dr. Sykes
answered that the third 12th grade class was graduated this year from the Covenant School.
Mr. Jack Taggart, Chairman of the Board of the Covenant School, stated that he has been
associated with the school since its beginning. He has two children who attended the Covenant School
for four or five years, and they are now grown and living and working here in the community. His children
have told him that some of their finest years have been at the Covenant School. The people involved with
the Covenant School have worked hard to create a school that is part of the community. If the people
around the school's Birdwood Campus are approached, he is sure they will indicate that the school has
been a good neighbor. The same thing can be done with the new property, which is to create something
of which the citizens in the community can be proud, and where the children can be made into citizens
who will come back here and be assets to the community. He has a petition with 172 signatures
supporting this application. The school is on a very tight time frame because the children have got to be
out of the current lower school by the summer of 2002. Mr. Cox has drawn a time frame, and he hopes
that everything will fall into place during this time, or there will be no place to put over 300 children. The
Covenant School Board is committed to provide this education for them. He has lived in the area for 33
years. He asked the Supervisors to act favorably on the request, and he committed to them a facility of
which they will be proud.
Mr. Floyd Artrip, a taxpayer in Albemarle County, remarked that he read it takes $6,784 to
educate a student in the public schools. It doesn't cost the taxpayers a nickel to educate students at the
Covenant School nor the other private schools. As a taxpayer, he thinks this is a good investment, and
private schools should be supported any way possible. There are approximately 1,500 students from the
County in private schools which is $10,000,000 not being spent in taxpayers money. He noted that
$100,000,000 has been spent in capital improvements during the last ten years, so 1,500 students
represents a school that will not have to be built. He said financially it makes sense to approve this
request.
No one else came forward, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman stated that Covenant School officials are turning out a good product, if the quality
of the student body is anything like the quality of the content of the letters he received from the Covenant
students by e-mail.
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Marshall noted that this site is located within his district, and he looks forward to the school's
move to this particular location. He knows the school will help some of the families in the trailer park
which need it desperately. He has not had one single call from anybody in his district in opposition. He
then made a motion to approve of SP-99-54, Covenant Upper School, subject to the five conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission and provided that the site plan is in substantial accord with
what was presented to the Planning Commission at its October 12, 1999 meeting, especially related to
percentage of impervious surface. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Ms. Thomas stated that land use decisions are not made based on how well the people are liked
who are about to move into a neighborhood. However, in this case she thinks this is a wonderful match
for the neighborhood, but the Board of Supervisors' decisions have to be based on the realization that this
permission goes with the property. The property might be sold to another school, so when the roads and
traffic are discussed, they are things for which this Board is responsible to the whole community. The
people in her district are very concerned about the traffic that is developing in greater numbers in that
area. She then asked school officials, when they are developing their plans, to encourage alternative
transportation as far as giving precedence to parking spaces to car pools and allowing bike access to the
school, etc. This is her own personal suggestion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
The Covenant Upper School shall be operated in accordance with the special use permit
application and attached July 23, 1999 letter from Frank D. Cox, Jr., PE AICP, herein included as
Attachment B. Student enrollment is not to exceed 550 students;
No subdivision of the property or expansion of the school use beyond that stated in the original
special use permit application shall occur without amendment of this special use permit;
Prior to final site plan approval, the applicant will be responsible for satisfying all Virginia
Department of Transportation requirements related to signalization, intersection improvements,
and roadway improvements on Stage Coach Road and Oak Hill Drive, and meeting requirements
of the Department of Engineering and Public Works regarding traffic management and roadway
improvements on Hickory Street;
All uses associated with the Covenant Upper School Hickory Street campus shall comply with the
commercial setbacks set forth in Section 21.7 and the lighting requirements of Section 4.17(a) of
the Zoning Ordinance; and
Final site plan approval shall not be granted until the Albemarle County Service Authority
approves public sewer service to the site.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: FY 2000/2001 Budget/Salary Recommendation (continued
from November 3, 1999.)
Mr. Tucker referred to the FY 2000/2001 Budget presentation last week where several questions
were raised by Board members. He said staff has been working on these questions, and Mr. Bob
Brandenburger from Human Resources will make a brief presentation to try to answer those questions.
Mr. Brandenburger announced that some of the questions received from the Board of Supervisors
and the School Board are still being researched and work is being done with the consultants. All of the
information is not ready at this time, but it is expected to be completed no later than Friday, November 12,
1999. Additional information in terms of answers to analytical type questions will be given to the
Supervisors some time next week. He has distributed a packet of material to the Board members relating
to the history of what has occurred in aLI of the County's compensation programs since 1996 when the last
major study was done. Last week's presentation had two parts relating to economic factors and
forecasting factors which are part of an assessment of the strategic approach to the current environment,
as well as what the environment will be in the foreseeable future. The program is being reviewed now with
the assistance of the consultants, and the results of this study will be forthcoming in the spring. One of the
underlying factors considered every year has to do with the actual pay scales in place, which are the
classified pay scale, the teacher pay scale and the merit program. In the past all of this has been
examined every year, and many studies have been done to try to get a sense of the market to help guide
any recommendations being brought to this Board. The focus will be on the near-term, and the annual
assessment, which will be done every year, will still be part of the strategic approach. He stated, though,
that the short term issue needs to be addressed for the 2000-2001 budget year, and services of the
consultants have been engaged to help with this project.
He noted on the first page of his report that when compensation issues are considered, a balance
of external equity has to be examined, which deals with the external competitiveness of the positions. He
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
said that reflects the County's competitiveness in the market place for new employees whether they are
teachers or classified staff. A second, but also important issue, is referred to as internal equity which is
the internal pay structure. This primarily deals with classified employees' issues, as compared to
teachers' issues, which is the relationship of positions among themselves within the County structure.
That is why there are well over 330 different job titles between the schools and general government.
However, all 330 positions are not surveyed in the market place because many are unique to the
organization. Some balance is trying to be maintained in terms of pay rates for those positions. He then
explained that internal equity relates to how an employee begins to progress within his or her pay rate in
terms of future salary increases, once the employee is hired and is assigned to a pay rate. This is
primarily done through the merit pool program. As the external market moves, and if the County's pay
scales are adjusted accordingly, it puts focus on what is happening to the people in those positions, as far
as trying to maintain some level of pay progression. He referred to the decompression issue which
evolved after the Hendricks and Associates Salary Study. Prior to 1996 when previous pay studies were
implemented, employees have been moved through the process. People were disadvantaged from the
compensation perspective based on the equity issue, and a proposal was developed to decompress. This
is the third year for this program, and next year will be the third installment on the decompression
proposal. After the 1996 study was implemented, any future pay changes had to be avoided that would
compound this problem or recreate a similar situation. When pay scale changes and merit pool issues are
considered, they have to be addressed under the current structure.
Mr. Brandenburger then mentioned the viability of the merit pool program. There are two
elements involved. First there is the pay progression because that is how classified employees move
along in their pay. Secondly, is the ultimate percentage size of the pool and whether or not it is meeting
the criteria to be a viable performance based system as far as what percentage of money is attractive and
motivating to employees. He also mentioned that in any context, when recommendations are made, the
affordability issue has to be examined for all proposals. He remarked that when the consultants were
asked to look at the County's market competitiveness and make a recommendation regarding the scale
issues and the merit pool issues, they were not provided with any constraints as far as the affordability
issue. Staff members felt as an organization, they wanted to know how the County compared in the
market knowing of course that there is a fiscal responsibility for that. He noted, though, that it will fall on
staff to make those assessments, but the information received from the consultants with their cost
estimates will reflect the consultants' recommendations. He then mentioned one of the things done to
maintain consistency when a salary survey is done, and there are over 330 positiOns to consider. He
reiterated that all of the positions are not surveyed because there are not good matches for all of them,
and there is a cost issue to survey. He stated that 'core' benchmarks are considered, and these are
designed to take a cross section of the classified structure of the organization vertically. Some higher
classified positions and lower ones will be examined, as well as different occupational areas, and positions
will be selected for comparable matches. It is desirable to get a job title that is reflective of someone
else's job title, which is one reason all 330 positions were not surveyed. When the Hendricks study was
done 55 were examined, and the consultants currently have considered between 60 and 65 positions.
The same positions used in the Hendricks study were considered, so consistent information can be
compared from year to year. The Hendricks report, as far as the competitive market is concerned, the
public sector was mainly considered which involved school divisions, counties and cities. There were
some from the surrounding area, although there were a few fro~ Northern Virginia, as well as Richmond.
There were also about five or six from North Carolina, because of its proximity and similarities to the
County, such as being in a university environment. Last year a similar study was done, but it was not as
extensive as the current one, which involves a larger context of private sector issues as well as other
governmental and school issues. He emphasized that the data base has been expanded, and when the
Slabaugh Morgan White Consultants presented this information, some positions were identified relating to
national issues, as well as other issues involving the southeastern United States. He noted that other
issues were strictly Virginia related, and others were composed around the surrounding jurisdictions. In
relationship to CORE positions, the data provided in the supplement showed specifically the positions
examined, and it showed how the County compared in the market place at the midpoint, minimum and
maximum of the pay scale. The emphasis to be considered in terms of salary competition relates to how
the County's midpoint compares to the market's midpoint. He recalled that some of those positions were
above the market, some were below, and others were fairly close or right on the midpoint. Ideally it would
be good if the County's midpoint matched up with every one of the market's, but in certain instances, this
will not be the case.
He next referred to a question that was raised regarding inequities when salaries are adjusted,
and whether or not certain positions can be adjusted without involving other employees. This can be
done, if it is felt it is appropriate to do so. There are justifications as to why some of the positions might be
above or below the -market. He gave an example where the County's Chief of Police was significantly
below the market analysis, but part of the reason related to the market data. Albemarle County is still a
rather small locality with a Police Department, but if national, southeastern or northern Virginia data is
considered, there will be larger jurisdictions in this particular occupation because many small jurisdictions
still have sheriffs. This was understood, and the fact was acknowledged that there may be explanations,
and adjustments will not be made to such a position purely on this one basis. He mentioned examples of
other positions which might be over or under the market. He indicated that a lot of it might have to do with
the internal equity question, where it might be beneficial to the County to make adjustments to a certain
position at a particular point in time. There are some explanations, but an average differential with these
positions is the desirable goal.
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
He next explained how the data is being used that is shown in the tables at the back of the
material given to the Board members, and he referred to the material pertaining to history. He called
attention to the chart at the bottom of Page Two showing a history of what has happened with both the
classified pay structure and the teacher pay structure since the 1996 Hendricks study. This may help to
put the context of the consultants' recommendations in perspective. A decision was made in the first few
years regarding the classified area, when the pay structure was changed to match the Hendricks'
proposal, and it was decided not to provide a scale increase in the following year but to put most of the
money into the merit program. It was the desire to move people on their pay line away from the front end
of their pay scale to help with the distribution knowing that this would not harm the County too badly from
external competition for one year. However, in 1998-99 the scale was moved one percent, and the merit
pool was only 2.75 percent. Last year more of a concerted effort was made to maintain a competitive
scale with a three percent scale change. The summary of this over four years is approximately a one
percent average. The consultants have noted that other organizations in the governmental sector are
moving scales anywhere from two to four percent annually. He pointed out that on face validity it would
say that the County is approximately four percent off, and the consultants' suggestion that the scale be
adjusted is probably not unexpected. This is the analysis of data that is still being examined for additional
responses to the Board members' questions, and it will be provided to them. He noted that when scale
adjustments are made, it doesn't mean that everybody will receive the same amount of money in terms of
a pay increase. It has been distributed 100 percent on merit which can cause some difficulties as far as
trying to maintain the right balance between the size of the merit pool and the size of the scale adjustment.
He referred to the teachers' scale where the average salary increases are approximately the same as
compared to classified staff.
Mr. Brandenburger next called attention to the table at the top of Page Three which examined
teacher issues within the State of Virginia as seen in terms of the entry level teacher salary which has
moved significantly in the lower direction as compared to other jurisdictions in the state. This does affect
the County's ability to recruit and hire teachers, and more information will be provided to the Supervisors.
This has had an adverse impact on the County because comparing last year to this year the average
scale increase for teachers was approximately 2.4 percent, and the pay scales on the preceding page
have not necessarily moved at the same rate. He said it is probably not surprising to find out where the
relative positions of teacher pay issues are competitive in the State of Virginia.
In summary, Mr. Brandenburger discussed Slabaugh Morgan White's recommendations on the
bottom of Page Three. He mentioned the first recommendation which is to have a four percent structure
adjustment to the classified/administrator pay scale.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the new recommendations will move the midpoint of each pay scale up
four percent. Mr. Brandenburger answered affirmatively. This recommendation moves the midpoint as
well as the minimum and maximum points to four percent. He noted, though, that the recommendation did
not indicate that this is an across the board increase. The only people who will be receiving any money
initially from this recommendation will be those people who are below the minimum. An entry level
employee today, if the scale was moved four percent tomorrow, would be brought up so he or she would
not be paid below the minimum. Instead, the employee would be brought back to minimum. This is a
relatively minor cost, and the cost figures are included in the proposal. A four percent merit pool has been
recommended, but the teacher scale is different in terms of maintaining market competitiveness, and the
recommendation is for a 5.7 scale adjustment. This is made up of two increments, and based on the
market assessment, the County is about 3.3 percent behind the market today. He said a 2.4 percent last
year's surrogate figure was used for this, which is how the 5.7 percent scale adjustment was derived.
Mr. Marshall inquired if the recommendation is for an across the board 5.7 percent adjustment for
teachers. Mr. Brandenburger replied affirmatively. He explained that the teachers' pay scale is based on
steps of service, and when a 5.7 percent increase is applied, every one of the steps is being raised by that
amount. Teachers who are in the system today get a step increase. This program is very similar to the
Hendricks' program relative to the classified staff when the system involved steps. When a scale increase
was applied, it affected everybody across the board.
Mr. Marshall asked what is being done as far as recruiting math teachers and special education
teachers. The County is losing people to Microsoft and Wall Street in related positions. He wondered if
incentives are being given to certain categories of teachers to try to encourage them to come and stay in
Albemarle County. Mr. Brandenburger replied that currently there is no differentiation among the
teachers. They receive no different incentives even if the teachers are in a critical area. Mr. Marshall
stated that now physical education teachers are being hired for the same salary as math teachers. Mr.
Brandenburger verified that this is correct. The School Board will be receiving a recruitment and retention
report. It has been done for the last four years, but this year it will be expanded with more strategic
information. These are the very types of issues that will be considered because of the supply and demand
problems. There will have to be a way found to deal with such issues, and it may or may not cause
increases across the board.
Next, Mr. Brandenburger called attention to the recommendation from the consultants dealing with
classified employees relating to a four percent scale and a four percent merit increase. It is not desirable
to recreate the compression issue, and last year it was avoided by making sure the merit pool percentage
was larger than the scale increase. Last year the scale increase was three percent and the merit pool
was increased by four percent, which allowed employees to move along this line. Staff members and
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
consultants are aware of the issue involving additional compression, and they will try to find a way to make
sure this type of situation is not created. However, this matter is still being examined.
Mr. Tucker explained that all of this is dependent on available revenues. The Board of
Supervisors may not be able to approve funding all of these recommendations, and the School Board may
not be able to recommend to this Board all of these things. He emphasized that these are the consultants'
recommendations based on their analysis, and it may take two years to implement some of them.
Mr. Bowerman called attention to the recommendations on Page Three of the 2000-2001 Budget
Development for Compensation. He asked how these recommendations translate into dollars. Mr. Tucker
responded that this is covered in the report, but it does not show in the information given to the Board
today. Although it will be difficult to fund the full 5.7 percent of teachers salary adjustments.
Mr. Brandenburger stated that the consultants were working with a data base supplied to them in
August, but data bases in terms of employee population changes. He said especially in the school
division, those costs are probably not going to be as high from a salary perspective because there is a lot
of funding that is not being taken from the school general fund. They are self-sustaining programs, and
they are funded separately. This is the type of analysis being done for the Supervisors, and it will be in
the information being sent to them next week. It will be a better figure in terms of total cost, and it will
include benefit issues.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to the starting salary for police officers. Mr. Martin said it is
approximately $22,000 to $23,000.
Mr. Bowerman stated that there is an overall strategy in the County's management structure of the
goals that are hoped to be achieved as far as employees are concerned, and how this fits into the
County's goals of providing service to the public. He then asked staff how these proposals translate into
accomplishing these goals. Mr. Brandenburger answered that these types of recommendations will be
seen in the strategic plan where the total rewards of both compensation and benefits will be aligned. Mr.
Bowerman remarked that as a general rule benefits in any locality are very similar.
Mr. Martin wondered who had requested such information from the localities. Mr. Bowerman
replied that the Human Resources Director for the City of Roanoke made this presentation.
Ms. Thomas commented that even though benefits in localities are similar, it doesn't mean that
they are not expensive and a major part of the County's budget, nor that they can't be cut. Mr. Bowerman
concurred. He said it doesn't mean that the cost of living isn't built into the cost of benefits which are also
accounted for in the pay structure. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Bowerman means that benefits are generally
the same in localities as far as jurisdictions being competitive. Mr. Bowerman answered affirmatively.
Mr. Brandenburger said this is true in the public sector in the State of Virginia because most
organizations are involved with VRS. Usually the only variable to be found in the benefit structure is the
cost of health insurance and how much the employer contributes toward the employees' health insurance.
Mr. Brandenburger referred back to Mr. Bowerman's question about the County's overall strategy, and he
stated that organizational needs, as far as what employees want relative to benefits and pay issues, have
to be considered as well as how all of this can be aligned with the funds available. There could be some
changes in the programs the County has currently to better utilize the money available to accomplish
those goals. This will be the strategic approach, but at this time, it is uncertain how it will be done.
However, it will be reported in some level of detail in the spring time. Mr. Bowerman commented that the
County will have goals, and the recommendations for the pay structure will demonstrate how the County is
moving toward those goals.
Mr. Brandenburger referred to the recommendation from the consultants about the two percent
annual salary pool for classified/administrator shortfalls. He said because the structural issues have not
been fully analyzed, there may be some transitional issues in the spring when the budget is approved.
The ability to make these transitions is needed.
Mr. Tucker referred to the Hendricks' proposal where two members of this Board as well as the
School Board were involved. He thinks it would be wise in development of the strategic plan to have one
or two members from each Board be a part of the Steering Committee which has already been
established. It is currently primarily made up of different areas of staff. This should help the Board
members understand the process better. He recalled that at the presentation given to the Board last
Wednesday, some Supervisors indicated it was hard to comprehend a lot of those things.
Mr. Marshall asked if there was a percentage turnover figure available for classified employees.
Mr. Brandenburger answered that it varies, and he will provide some of this informatin next week. There
is more turnover in certain occupational areas, and there are more difficult issues with hiring and recruiting
in certain areas. Mr. Marshall stated that the percentage of turnover is awful in the retail industry.
Mr. Bowerman added that when a distinction is made to pay more money to attract people in
certain areas, then they will also have to make a commitment back to the County. Mr. Tucker concurred.
More and more employees are reaching retirement age and are moving on, and the experience is being
lost to the school system and the local government.
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he is not suggesting making a distinction across the board.
However, he thinks there are identifiable areas which need to be considered. Mr. Martin said Mr. Marshall
has indicated that contracts may need to be involved when positions are hard to fill. Mr. Marshall called
attention to the $1,000 increment for advanced degrees, and he wondered if the current stipend is going to
be increased by this much money. Mr. Brandenburger answered, "no." He explained that this
recommendation came out in the 1996 study, and it was implemented. There is no proposal to increase
the advance degree stipend any further.
Ms. Thomas said there are things that are not on the salary nor benefit scales that are important
for retaining morale and people. She read an analysis of what creates the most satisfaction, as well as
the best schools in the country, and getting teachers into contact with university courses and university
people in their subject area is one of the most satisfying things that can be done for teachers. This
corresponds with things she has heard over the years. The possibility of having such a program is very
evident since the University of Virginia is so close. The program wouldn't be free, but it also does not
appear anywhere on the salary scale, and she wondered if people within the administration are
considering this possibility. Mr. Brandenburger answered that he would have to defer this question to
other staff members since he has not been working on the retention and recruitment report, and he is not
familiar with some of the programs to be considered. Ms. Thomas said she is not suggesting that such a
program would be perfect, but it is the sort of thing that should be considered. She then recalled an article
in the newspaper which suggested that having a retention and recruitment study done was somehow
shirking the County officials' duty. She regarded the study as very important information which was
needed in order for County officials to do their duty.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he now understands better how the pay system can work both in
monetary and non-monetary ways to accomplish the organizational objectives. These objectives are to
provide service to the public plus the motivation of employees to be more productive.
Mr. Perkins asked for clarification as far as the structural change relating to the four percent
adjustment to the pay scale and the four percent merit increase. He wondered what sort of salary
increase would an employee receive as a result of this type of situation. Mr. Brandenburger responded
that the pay scale proposed by the Hendricks' proposal has an acceleration function. He explained that
the further people are on the Iow side from their midpoint, the intent is to move them to a competitive rate
of pay as soon as possible based on their performance. Once people are past the midpoint, they will still
get increases, but they will not get them at the same rate. He noted that the merit system also influences
the situation where if someone gets the highest level of evaluation for the same constants, they are going
to get a higher proportion of pay than someone who would get a Level Two or Level One rate of pay. He
recalled that last year when the County had a four percent merit pool, the lowest increase was
approximately three and one-half to three percent, depending on the person's evaluation. This would only
relate to someone on the higher end of the pay scale, He stated that an entry level employee, who would
be someone who is perhaps a year or two years into the system and who got a very high evaluation, might
have gotten as high as six percent. The average payout, since it was only a four percent pool across the
board, is four percent. The acceleration and deceleration function is not well received by employees in
certain categories especially around the midpoint. There is concern about the motivation factor, so this is
one of the issues to be considered again.
Mr. Marshall inquired if the compression issue has been solved. Mr. Brandenburger answered
that next year will be the third installment on the decompression funding. Ms. Thomas asked if next year
will finish the decompression funding. Mr. Brandenburger replied affirmatively. It was a three year phase-
in program.
Mr. Perkins referred to some information resulting from the meeting Mr. Bowerman attended
pertaining to compensation and benefits in different jurisdictions. Mr. Bowerman said the meeting involved
a good broad based discussion because there were a lot of elected officials attending, as well as county
administrators and human resource people from various counties.
Agenda Item No. 11. Cancel Board of Supervisors' meeting of November 17, 1999.
Mr. Bowerman offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris to cancel the November 17, 1999
Board of Supervisors meeting. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: June 4, 1997 and September 15, 1999.
None were read.
November 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Ms. Thomas mentioned a communication dated Qctober 7, 1999, from the Chair of the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission, regarding the watershed management statements. The Water
Summit Committee developed some recommendations, and the Planning District Commission has sent
these on to local governments and urges them to adopt them in some form. She asked if other
Supervisors had received such a communication.
Mr. Martin indicated he had not received this information.
Ms. Thomas stated that she would give the communication to the administration. It could perhaps
be an item for the Consent Agenda because it mentions a lot of things already being done in this area.
Ms. Thomas referred to the joint meeting the Board of Supervisors is having with the
Charlottesville City Council on Thursday, November 18, 1999. She is concerned about the organization of
this meeting because she is unsure if anyone has met with Monticello High School representatives to
inquire about such things as the speaker system. She noted that Art Petrini had handled these types of
things for an earlier meeting, but she did not know if anyone had asked him to do so for this meeting.
Ms. Carey, Clerk to the Board of SUpervisors, indicated she is taking care of the matter.
Mr. Bowerman wondered about the Board of Supervisors' role in this joint meeting. Ms. Thomas
replied that an agenda is available. There is a presentation by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
representatives, as well as the ad hoc Water Coalition. There will be a ten minute recess, and then there
will be the chance for public comments.
Ms. Humphris remarked that the Planning Commission minutes kept referring to RWSA which is
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. This is incorrect and the reference should have been made to
ACSA, which is the Albemarle County Service Authority. She does not recall the topic of discussion when
this error was made. The Board of Supervisors cannot correct the Planning Commission's minutes, but
she will report the error to the appropriate person.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to November 18, 1999, 7:00 p.m., Monticello High School.
At 8:35 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman for the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to adjourn to Thursday, November 18, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. at Monticello High School. Ms.
Humphris seconded the motion.
Mr. Martin reminded Board members that he has to be available for six days of jury duty within the
next month, and one day is the same as the December Board of Supervisors regular day meeting.
Although he may be present for this meeting anyway, if he is not selected that day for jury duty.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
~,hairman
!,,,DaApproved by Bo
te O¢,% Oo
tials ~