1998-11-04November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
000043
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on November 4, 1998, 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 (arrived at 9:19 a.m.),
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 9:00 a.m., by the
Chairman, Mr. Marshall.
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.
Mr. Edward L. Strickler, Jr., a resident at 8232 Scottsville Road,
stated that he had distributed to the Board of Supervisors' office
approximately two weeks ago some information relating to a resolution for
human rights and hate. He has additional copies of this information
available. He also provided Board members with a copy of a resolution adopted
by the County of Arlington.
Mr. Marshall responded that the Supervisors have already discussed the
information, and Ms. Thomas has drafted some language for the Board's review.
Ms. Thomas read the following consensus response of the Board which
indicated that the Board members abhor violence that harms any human being,
and that this community will not put up with harmful actions arising from
hate. However, she emphasized that this is just a consensus response, and it
is not a resolution.
"This Board does not usually make pronouncements on local issues,
much less on national issues, believing we serve our citizens best
when we keep our attention on the specific matters brought to us.
But today, we have been asked to express our condemnation of a
particular type of hate crime.
We would like to think that it goes without saying that we,
individually and collectively, abhor violence that harms any human
being. Violence is both hateful and generally arises from hate.
All victims of personal violence have felt the rage that hate
unleashes. But sometimes the sentiments that we would like to
think "go without saying" do need to be emphasized.
We, the members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, want
to speak for our community in saying that this community does not
and will not put up with harmful actions that arise from hate.
We urge our citizens to recognize that stereotypes and prejudice
of all types diminish us as human beings and can create a breeding
ground for hate. We all can profit from examining our own preju-
dices and teaching our children the value and sacredness of each
individual."
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms.-Humphris,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve items 5.1 through 5.10 on the consent
agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day M~et~g) 000044
(Page 2)
Regarding Item 5.2, Ms. Thomas said for quite some time she has been
informally urging the Board to return to the policy of allowing representa-
tives of groups to speak for five minutes as opposed to three minutes. She
mentioned that Stafford County uses a process identical to the one this Board
is proposing. However, she has heard comments that it is hard to tell when
someone is officially speaking for a group or if he or she is just speaking
for a few neighbors. She does not know how to overcome this problem. She
noted that she has been a member of a group which would spend weeks preparing
a statement on a certain subject, and it is hard to say everything in three
minutes. She thinks it is good to have these kinds of limitations, but she
urged the other Board members to consider returning to the policy of allowing
a group spokesperson five minutes to speak.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he is unsure if, in some applications, a ten
minute maximum on the part of the applicant is adequate. However, he believes
if a presentation is well prepared, and the Board is properly informed of the
materials in advance, applicants may be able to make their presentation in ten
minutes. A properly prepared citizen should be able to communicate for a
group or themselves in an allotted time, if they know the time limit in
advance. He added that there are situations when people are bringing forward
new information, and he would hesitate to stop them from talking. He
emphasized that with this policy there is no flexibility, and it may be that a
person speaking for a group needs five minutes. He likes the suggested time
limit, but he would like for there to be some ability to allow the Chairman
discretion if there is something being presented that is specific to the
facts, or the meeting or the individual.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Chairman always has the discretion to allow
someone to speak longer. Ms. Humphris said the Chairman can sometimes get
into trouble by using that discretion during these presentations.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he thinks time limits are necessary, but it
needs to be recognized that there are times when the limits may need to be
exceeded. These times will need to be identified when they occur.
Ms. Thomas stated that sometimes the applicant may not be finished with
his or her presentation in ten minutes, or there may still be questions in the
Board members' minds. The Chairman always gives the Supervisors the option of
asking questions, and that is the time to let the applicant explain something
in more detail. She added that it is possible this same situation could work
with a group that is making a presentation.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that if the time limit is up, a Board member could
indicate he or she does not understand what the speaker is saying, and would
like some elaboration with the Chairman's~and the other Supervisors' concurr-
ence. This would then allow additional opportunity for the speaker to talk a
longer period of time. Ms. Thomas stated that this idea would be worth
trying.
Mr. Marshall agreed. He said nearly all of the Supervisors have been
Chairman of this Board and have had this problem at one time or another. It
will solve the problem, although the Chairman has always allowed any Board
member to ask questions and get all of the information necessary to make a
decision.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the policy helps the process, because it
makes people organize their thoughts and communicate more effectively.
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board is basically supporting the staff's
proposal. Board members responded favorably.
Regarding Item 5.16, Ms. Thomas said an action from the summit was a
suggestion that the planning commissions send their agendas to other
localities. She asked Mr. Cilimberg about this matter, and he indicated that
it can be done, unless Board members have reasons not to want to do so. No
opposition was voiced.
Item No. 5.1. Amend Albemarle County Design Guidelines with the
addition of the '~Architectural Review Board Guidelines for Fuel Pump Canopies"
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day M~eti~g)
(Page 3)
to provide guidance on design of fuel pump canopies proposed in the County's
Entrance Corridors.
000045
A number of applications were submitted to the ARB over the past few
months for proposals to install canopies over new fuel pump islands at
existing convenience stores. Federal regulations requir~ that these
businesses upgrade their underground fuel storage tanks by December 22, 1998,
and these businesses have chosen to combine their tank upgrade with the
installation of new pump islands, dispensers, and canopies. Because standard
canopies typically incorporate multiple colors, bright lighting, internally
illuminated signage in multiple locations, and trademark designs, the ARB
drafted and approved guidelines to help ensure more consistent regulation of
the design of this type of development in the County's Entrance Corridors.
Work sessions were held by the ARB on July 6, July 13, and August 24, 1998.
Staff consulted with Gene Arnette of the Tiger Fuel Company in the preparation
of the guidelines, particularly regarding fuel company standards for canopy
size. Mr. Arnette, representatives of Scenic 250, and applicants with pending
canopy installation projects, attended some or all of the ARB's work sessions
and were given the opportunity to comment. The guidelines were approved by
the ARB on August 24, 1998.
The ARB has outlined ten guidelines for pump island canopies and related
elements. The guidelines address overall canopy size, the size of components
of the canopy, the character of canopy signage, canopy lighting, changes to
existing structures on site, and the color of canopies. The guidelines are
supplemented with ~Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies," which illustrates the
not-to-exceed sizes for canopies and related items.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the addition to the Design
Guidelines.
By the above shown vote,the Board amended the Albemarle County Design
Guidelines with the addition of the "Architectural Review Board Guidelines for
Fuel Pump Canopies" to provide ~uidance on design of fuel pump canopies
proposed in the County's Entrance Corridors.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD GUIDELINES FOR FUEL PUMP CANOPIES
Fuel pump canopies may be required to provide customers with protection
from the elements and to provide lighting levels required for dispensing
fuel. Such fuel pump canopies are functional elements of present-day
gas/convenience stores and their character and appearance shall reflect
a minimalist design consistent with that function.
Fuel pump canopies shall be the smallest size possible to offer
protection from the elements.' Canopies shall not exceed the sizes
identified in "Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies."
3 o
The size of the canopy fascia and canopy support columns shall be in
proportion to the overall size of the canopy structure. The fascia
shall not exceed 36 inches in total height, including any accent bands.
4. Canopy fascias and canopy signage shall not be illuminated.
5o
Lighting of fuel pump canopies shall be of the lowest level that will
provide safe dispensing of fuel. All canopy lighting shall be flush-
mounted and shielded, downward directed, and shall not emit light above
the horizontal plane. All canopy lighting shall meet the .5 footcandle
spillover requirement in compliance with zoning ordinance regulations.
Canopy related elements, including fuel dispensers, support columns,
spandrels, planters, etc., shall be compatible with the character of the
building and site and shall not be used for advertising.
The architectural elements of a building should not be altered to
reflect trademark canopy design.
Canopy fascias shall be limited to the use of one principal color, with
ARB review.
Colors, materials, forms, and detailing may be used to coordinate
canopies with a site, its building(s), and structures.
November 4, 1998 (Regular DaY Meeting)
(Page 4)
10. Fuel pump canopy applicants should refer to ~ARB Standards for Fuel Pump
Canopies."
Item No. 5.2. Adopt Policy to set time limits for applicants presenta-
tions during public hearings.
The Board requested staff to research the length of time applicants and
the public were allowed to speak during public hearings in other jurisdic-
tions. Our current policy allows three minutes for members of the public to
speak but there is no time limitation for the applicant's presentation.
The attached table illustrates the amount of time other localities allow
applicants and the public to speak. The information demonstrates the wide
range of options that comparable Counties are using for applicants' and the
three to five minute norm for public comment. The localities surveyed limit
applicant presentations from no limits to ten minutes and above.
Based on review of the information and our own experience, staff
suggests that a ten-minute maximum be allotted for an applicant to present
their application and then five minutes for rebuttal after public comment, if
desired. The current three-minute time limit for public.comment should be
maintained. Your approval of this policy amendment will authorize the
addition of this policy limiting applicant speaking time into your Rules of
Procedure Manual.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following policy to set
time limits applicants presentations during public hearings, to be effective
January 1, 1999.
The Board has determined that effective January 1, 1999, a Board
policy shall be that applicants will be limited to a ten-minute
presentation of their proposal and will be allowed a five-minute
rebuttal at the close of the public hearing. If additional time is
required, it may be granted by consent of the Board for good cause, but
such decision shall be at the sole discretion of the Board of
Supervisors. Such requests for additional time shall be made in writing
to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, at least five business days
prior to the meeting, stating the reason for the request and how much
additional time will be needed.
The current three-minute time limit for public comments, including
presentations from organizations, shall be maintained.
Item No. 5.3. Set public hearing for December 2, 1998, to amend Section
4-213 of the County Code to include Bedford Hills Subdivision under the
County's dog "leash law".
Under Section 4-213 of the County Code, homeowners may request the
restriction of dogs from running at large in certain areas approved by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
Of the 52 homeowners located in Bedford Hills Subdivision, 29 have
signed a petition supporting the adoption of the leash law request; 13
homeowners are opposed to this request and 10 homeowners are neither in favor
of nor opposed to the request.
Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing on this matter for
December 2, 1998. A copy of the petition and formal request can be found in
the Clerk's Office for your information and review.
By the above shown vote, the Board set the public hearing for December
2, 1998.
Item No. 5.4. Adopt Resolution for VDOT to install "Child At Play"
signs in Minor Hill Subdivision.
The Minor Hill community has requested that VDOT install Child At Play
signs at the entrance of Minor Hill Subdivision and at the intersection of
Westfield Road and Westfield Court. The Minor Hill Subdivision has many homes
with young children. The residents have contacted the County and requested
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 000047
(Page 5)
that two Child At Play signs be installed at the entrance of Minor Hill
Subdivision and at the intersection of Westfield Road and Westfield Court.
The sign at the entrance will let motorists know that they are entering a
community with many children. The sign at the intersection of Westfield Road
and Westfield Court indicates an area where children have to cross the street.
Staff recommends the Board endorse a resolution for VDOT to install two
Child At Play signs in the Minor Hill Subdivision.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the residents of Minor Hill are concerned about traffic
on their street and the potential hazard it creates for the
numerous children at play in the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the residents believe that a Child At Play sign would
help to alleviate some of the concerns;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for
VDOT to install the necessary Child At Play signs to be
located at the entrance of Minor Hill Subdivision and at the
intersection of Westfield Road and Westfield Court.
Item No. 5.5. Adopt Resolution for VDOT to install "Child At Play" sign
on Owensville Road (Route 676).
A resident on Owensville Road (Route 676) has requested a Child At Play
sign.
The resident lives on a curve where there are many families with young
children. The resident has requested two signs be posted in the area between
Route 614 and the Clay Hill Farm area.
Staff supports the installation of two Child At Play signs in this area.
Although this is not an area where children play in the street, they often
cross the street in order to visit friends.
Staff recommends the Board endorse a resolution for V/DOT to install two
Child At Play signs on Owensville Road (Route 676).
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, a resident on Owensville Road ,with the support of
neighbors, is concerned about traffic on Owensville Road and
the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children
that cross the street; and
WHEREAS, the residents believes that a Child At Play sign would
help to alleviate some of the concerns;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby support the community's request for VDOT
to install the necessary Child At Play ding on oWnensville
Road.
Item No. 5.6. Road Name Change Request - change the name of Rumas Lane
to Carriage Trail Place.
Staff has completed the road name change phase of the Enhanced 911
implementation project in accordance with the Board's road name change policy.
The Board's policy states that after this phase of the project has been
completed, no further changes to road names would be permitted without Board
approval. Staff has been made aware of a situation for which a road name
change should be further considered.
A request has been received from a property owner to change the name of
Rumas Lane to Carriage Trail Place. Staff has confirmed that this road serves
only one property owner. A map indicating the location of this road is
attached. It appears that the road name was misspelled when it was originally
approved. The property owner is requesting a new name prior to changing their
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 000048
(Page 6)
address from a rural route address to the Enhanced 911 standard road name
address. The property owner will be responsible for costs associated with a
new road name sign.
Should the Board approve the new road name as requested, it should grant
staff the authority to coordinate/implement the above referenced change.
By the above shown vote, the Board granted staff t~e authority to
coordinate/implement the road name change of Rumas Lane to Carriage Trail
Place.
Item No. 5.7. .Adopt Resolution endorsing First Night Virginia 2000 as
"Albemarle's Official Millennium Celebration".
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution at
the request of First Night Virginia, Inc.:
WHEREAS,
DECEMBER 31, 1999 WILL MARK THE TURN OF THE CENTURY, THE MILLENNIUM,
INTO THE YEAR 2000 AND SIGNAL A PERIOD OF RE-BIRTH, RE-EVALUATION, RE-
DEDICATION, AND RESOLVE FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AND THE WORLD; AND
WHEREAS,
THE OBJECTIVES OF FIRST NIGHT VIRGINIA, WHICH TAKES PLACE ON NEW YEAR'S
EVE OF EACH YEAR, ARE TO RECAPTURE THE SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
PASSAGE FROM THE OLD YEAR TO THE NEW; TO UNITE THE COMMUNITY THROUGH A
SHARED CULTURAL CELEBRATION; AND TO DEEPEN AND BROADEN THE PUBLIC'S
APPRECIATION OF THE VISUAL AND PERFORMING ARTS; AND
WHEREAS,
FURTHER OBJECTIVES OF FIRST NIGHT VIRGINIA, ARE TO CULTIVATE A SENSE OF
COMMUNITY, CELEBRATE OUR COMMUNITY'S DIVERSITY AND CREATIVITY IN THE HEART
OF THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN, AND DECREASE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION ON NEW YEAR'S
EVE; AND
WHEREAS,
FIRST NIGHT VIRGINIA HAS BEEN THE COMMUNITY'S PREMIER NEW YEAR'S EVE
CELEBRATION FOR THE LAST SIXTEEN YEARS, ATTRACTING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
PARTICIPANTS EACH YEAR FROM EVERY FACET OF THE COMMUNITY;
Now,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT, I, FORREST R. MARSHALL, JR., CHAIRMAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
DOES HERBY ENDORSE AND DESIGNATE THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AS AN OFFICIAL
CO-SPONSOR OF FIRST NIGHT VIRGINIA 2000;
i%/TD FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT FIRST NIGHT VIRGINIA 2000 SHALL BE DECLARED HENCEFORTH AS
x~ALBEMARLE'S OFFICIAL MILLENNIUM CELEBRATION."
SIGNED AND SEALED THIS 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1998
Item No. 5.8. Adopt Resolution to Amend for the Albemarle-
Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Service Agreement to add Nelson County
as a member jurisdiction.
The Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority now consists of
only two member jurisdictions: the County of Albemarle and the City of
Charlottesville. Due to changes in state funding and other circumstances
previously outlined to the Board, Nelson County has found it impracticable to
continue to operate its own jail facility and has asked to become a party to
the Service Agreement and a member jurisdiction of the Jail Authority.
The Jail Board supports the addition of Nelson County to the Jail
Authority under the terms and conditions outlined in the attached Resolution.
Nelson County and the City of Charlottesville have already adopted identical
Resolutions.
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution authorizing the
addition of Nelson County to the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail
Authority.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution
authorizing the addition of Nelson County to the Albemarle-Charlottesville
Regional Jail Authority:
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SERVICE AGREEMENT
ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAILAUTHORITY
000049
Be it Concurrently Resolved by the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional
Jail Authority, the Boards of Supervisors of Albemarle and Nelson Counties and
the City Council of the City of Charlottesville:
I. RECITALS
The ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY (hereafter the
Authority"), and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE,
political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Albemarle" and
Charlottesville" or collectively the "Member. Jurisdictions,)have previously
approved and executed an original Service Agreement dated November 15, 1995
and amendments thereto effective March 12, 1998, (collectively, the "Service
Agreement"), creating the Authority and specifying the terms and conditions
under which (1) the Authority will Operate the Albemarle-Charlottesville
Regional Jail (the "Jail") and (2) the Member Jurisdictions will commit
prisoners to the Jail and pay the charges assessed by the Authority for
keeping such prisoners.
Due to changes in state funding, the COUNTY OF NELSON ("Nelson"), also a
political subdivision of the Commonwealth, has found it impracticable to
continue to operate its own jail facility and has asked to become a party to
the Service Agreement and a Member Jurisdiction of the Authority. By adopting
this resolution, and the further amendments to the Service Agreement detailed
below, the Authority, Albemarle and Charlottesville are indicating their
approval of the terms under which Nelson will be admitted to such membership
in the Authority, and Nelson is indicating its acceptance of those terms and
its intention to execute and abide by the Service Agreement as thus amended.
II. AMENDMENTS
The Service Agreement is amended by adding the COUNTY OF NELSON as a
named party and signatory.
B. The following Section is added to the Service Agreement:
Section 2.7. Addition of Nelson County as Member Jurisdiction.
Effective July 1, 1998, or as soon thereafter as the amended
Service Agreement may be executed by all parties, the County of Nelson
shall become a Member Jurisdiction, under the follQwing terms and
conditions.
a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2.2, Nelson shall
be represented on the Authority's Board by its Sheriff and one other
person appointed by the governing body of the county. Alternates may be
appointed as provided by state law.
(b) Within 30 days following its admission, Nelson shall pay the
Authority the sum of Two Hundred Ninety-Two Thousand Dollars
($292,000.00) as agreed compensation for its share of the equity value
of the Authority's existing land and facilities. The Authority shall
transfer this amount to Albemarle and Charlottesville in proportion to
their respective original contributions to the cost of acquiring,
constructing and equipping such land and existing facilities, as nearly
as the same can be determined. In the event of a dispute between
Albemarle and Charlottesville about the appropriate distribution the
decision of the Authority shall be final.
(c) Until such time as the Authority's expanded facility is
Placed in Service, Nelson shall pay the Authority a rate of Fourteen
Dollars ($14.00) per diem to house its prisoners. After the expanded
facility is Placed in Service, Nelson shall pay the same Prisoner Per
Diem Payments as the other Member Jurisdictions, including both the
Operating and Debt Service Components, calculated and paid as set forth
in Section 5.1(a). In addition, after the expanded facility is Placed in
Service, Nelson shall pay the Additional Payment for Debt Service as
required by Section 5.1(b), calculated at the rate of four percent of
the Authority's Net Debt Service not included in the Per Diem Charge.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(d) Nelson agrees to commit all of its jail prisoners to the
Authority on the basis set forth in Section 4.2, and to be responsible
for their transportation as set forth in Section 4.3.
(e) In the event the Authority is dissolved or its powers and
obligations are transferred by operation of law, and the Authority's
property is reconveyed to the Member Jurisdictions, as contemplated by
Section 2.5:1, the Member Jurisdictions' shares of such reconveyed
property shall be in direct proportion to their respective capital
contributions to the Authority's facilities, including both their
initial capital contributions to the existing facility (including
Nelson's payment under Section 2.7(b) above), and the respective totals
of their payments of the Debt Service Component and Additional Payments
for Debt Service under Section 5.1, as nearly as all such. amounts can
reasonably be determined usmng available records.
(f) Except as provided in this Section, Nelson shall have the same
rights and obligations under the Service Agreement as the other Member
Jurisdictions.
C. In all other respects the Service Agreement shall remain in full force
and effecu.
III. EXECUTION OF AMENDED AGREEMENT.
Upon adoption of these amendments by the Member Jurisdictions, including
Nelson, and the Authority, their respective chief administrative officials are
authorized to execute a conformed copy of the entire Service Agreement,
incorporating the foregoing amendments into the original document.
Item No. 5.9. Adopt Resolution Authorizing an Extended Term of Office
for Albemarle County Jail Authority Board Appointee.
The Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Agreement limits
the number of terms a citizen member may serve on the Jail Board to not more
than three full terms of three years. Mitchell Neuman, the County's citizen
appointee is completing his third term of service on the'Jail Board.
Mr. Neuman has played an important role in the jail expansion project
and would like to continue on the Jail Board until that project is completed.
The Jail Board supports a special allowance for an extended term to allow Mr.
Neuman to continue his oversight of this project.
The attached concurrent Resolution, upon adoption by all Member
Jurisdictions and the Jail Board, authorizes the Board of Supervisors to
appoint Mr. Neuman to an additional term of two years. The two-year term
would safely allow for the completi6n of the jail project. At the completion
of this special two-year term, the Jail Agreement would again limit any
citizen member to a term of service not to exceed three full terms.
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution to authorize an
additional two-year term for the County's citizen appointee to the Jail Board.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to
authorize an additional two year term for the County's citizen appointee to
the Jail Board:
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to extend the service of the
citizen appointee to the Albemarle-Charlottesville Jail Authority
Board (the "Jail Board") until the completion of the expansion of
the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail (the "Jail"); and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle's citizens appointee is completing his
third full term and cannot be reappointed under the terms of the
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Jail Board and the Member Jurisdictions concur that the
services of Mitchell Neuman, the Albemarle County citizen
appointee, would be beneficial to, and in the best interest of,
the completion of the Jail expansion project; and
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
00005i
WHEREAS, due to these special circumstances it is desirable to authorize
an additional two year term on the Jail Board for Mitchell Neuman.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT CONCURRENTLY RESOLVED BY THE ALBEMARLE-
CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY, THE BOARDS OF
SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE AND NELSON COUNTIES.AND THE CITY COUNCIL
OF CHARLOTTESVILLE THAT:
Notwithstanding Section 2.2 of the Albemarle-Charlottesville
Regional Jail Authority Agreement, Albemarle County may reappoint
Mitchell Neuman as its citizen representative on the Jail Board to
serve an additional two year term. At the conclusion of such
special two year term Section 2.2 of the Agreement shall, again,
be controllmng in all respects.
Item No. 5.10. Appropriation: Drug Court Services Grant, $35,508 (Form
#98038).
The County of Albemarle has entered into a contract with the Virginia
Department of Corrections to provide eligibility determination for all
potential candidates for the Drug Court prior to bond hearing. The County in
turn has contracted with Offender Aid & Restoration (OAR) to provide these
services as part of its Pre-Trial Services program. The Commonwealth
Attorneys and the Courts make recommendations for eligibility.
Funding is provided by a $35,508 Department of Corrections grant. The
County serves as the fiscal agent for the grant and there is no local match.
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 98038 in the amount of
35,508.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1998/99
AUJMBER: 98038
FUll-D: GRANT
PI/RPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR DRUG COURT SERVICES
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1237 29405 566120 OFFENDER AID & RESTORATION $35,508.00
TOTAL $35,508.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1237 24000 240414 STATE DEPT OF CORRECTIONS $35,508.00
TOTAL $35,508.00
Item No. 5.11. Comparison of FY 1997/98-2002/03 and FY 1998/99-2003/04
Final Allocations for Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway System Albemarle
County Projects, as revised, was received as follows:
On September 2, 1998, staff presented the Final Allocation for
Interstate, Primary, and Urban Highway System for Albemarle County to the
Board of Supervisors. Staff informed the Board that there might be some minor
changes because the Federal allocations were not final at that time. The
federal funds are now final and they did have a minor impact on three
projects. The total for all listed projects in the tentative allocation was
$246,238,000. The final allocation is $246,278,000, a $40,000 increase.
The final allocations only had a minor impact on three projects:
(comparison below is between the tentative 1998/99-2003/04 plan and the final
1998/99-2003/04 plan)
Rt. 29 Widening from South Fork Rivanna River to Airport Road:
· Funding in FY 2000/01 increased from $556,000 to $754,000.
· Funding in FY 2001/02 decreased from $1,121,000 to $621,000.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
000052
· The total funding over the five-year period decreased from $3,293,000 to
$2,991,000.
Reason: VDOT is still determining the scope of this'project. Money in
the plan was moved to finance more current projects. Once the scope of work
has'been established, a more accurate estimate will be established and a
realistic funding schedule will be established'in the Plan.
Rt. 29 Bridge Replacement over South Fork Rivanna River:
· Funding in FY 2002/03 increased from $800,000 to $845,000.
· The total project cost increased from $6,850,000 to $6,895,000.
Rt. 29 Vertical Improvement on the South Bound Lane near Rt. 641:"
· Funding in FY 1999/00 decreased from $243,000 to $238,000.
· The total project cost decreased from $943,000 to $938,000.
Ail changes are in italicized in Attachment A. The Board requested
information from VDOT on certain road projects. Staff sent a letter to VDOT
(Attachment B) requesting a response from V DOT. VDOT response can be found in
Attachment C in the last two paragraphs on the first page and the first four
paragraphs on the second page.
The Board also requested that staff inquire as to why the County has not
been receiving its fair share of surface transportation program funds (STP).
Staff has requested this information from VI)OT. VDOT is in the process of
investigating the lack of STP funds for the County.
Item No. 5.12. 1998-2000 Work Plans for Albemarle County Development
Departments, was received as information.
Item No. 5.13. Letter dated October 20, 1998, from Mr. J. H. Shifflett,
Maintenance Operations Manager, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W.
Carey, Clerk, re: notice that Route 692, .5 miles East of Route 29 in Southern
Albemarle County, will be closed to through traffic through November 20, 1998,
was received as information.
Item No. 5.14. Copy of letter dated October 14, 1998, from Ms. Amelia
G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, to Dorothy and Charlie Floyd, re: Official
Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1, Tax Map 45, Parcel 31W,
was received as information.
Item No. 5.15. Copy of Monthly Bond and Program Report for the Arbor
Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts) for the month of September, 1998, was
received as information.
Item No. 5.16. Draft Report on the Regional Planning Summit, dated
September 10, 1998, hosted by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission, was received as information.
Item No. 5.17. Copy of minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
October 20, 1998, was received as information.
Item No. 5.18. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the
Albemarle County Service Authority meetings of August 20 and September 24,
1998, was received as information.
Item No. 5.19. Copy of 10th Annual Virginia Water & Sewer Rate Report,
as prepared by Draper Aden Associates, was received as information'[
Item No. 5.20. Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1998,
was received as information.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 0000~
(Page 11)
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: March 20(A), 1995; October 16,
1996; March 19 and March 24, 1997; and March 16(A), July 27(A), September 2,
September 9, September 16 and October 14, 1998.
Mr. Perkins read the minutes of October 16, 1996; and September 9, 1998
(pages 1-23 [Item #10]) and found them to be in order.
Ms. Thomas read March 19(a), 1997 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Marshall read July 27(a), September 2 (pages 1717 [Item #13]) and
September 16, 1998 (pages 1-22 [Item #7]), and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bowerman read March 16(a) and September 2 (pages 17 [Item #13]-
end), 1998 and found to be in order with some typo corrections.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters.
Ms. Angela Tucker presented the Board members with a handout outlining
the breakdown on secondary funds for Albemarle County which includes STP and
equity funds from federal TEA-21 funding. She said cities, towns, counties
and MPOs have annual input to request STP funds for safety projects. In
addition to the secondary funds, Ms. Tucker reported that Albemarle County has
recently received close to $1,000,000 in additional STP funds through two
safety projects which are the restructuring of Hydraulic'Road and the upcoming
guard rail project on Rio Road.
(Mr. Martin arrived at 9:19 a.m.)
Ms. Humphris inquired if the $1,000,000, to which Ms. Tucker referred,
is included in the Six Year Plan. She noted that the County gets funds from
an allocation of STP funds which is different from the regular allotment. Ms.
Tucker responded that the safety funds are a ten percent cut of the overall
STP funds, and they are in addition to the secondary funds.
Ms. Humphris commented that she has not been able to understand STP
funding. In the Six Year Plan there are pages entitled, "Secondary
Improvements Utilizing STP Regional Allocations." Five of the nine
Transportation Districts in the Commonwealth have received funds that went to
specific projects, and some were very significant. One project involved a new
four lane road in Hanover County. She asked if this type of money could be a
funding source for Phase II of the Meadow Creek Parkway. If so, she inquired
as to the requirements or guidelines for this funding. She also wondered why
County officials have not been made aware of it, if it is an available source.
Although Mr. Cilimberg has been in touch with VDoT representatives, he has not
yet gotten an answer to this question. She said at the MPO meeting this
month, Mr. Bob Casata and Ken Lance were present. She noted that Mr. Lance is
the top Planning official for VdoT. She asked about Mr. Casata's title. Ms.
Tucker replied that Mr. Casata is head of VDoT's Programming and Scheduling.
Ms. Humphris pointed ouu that Mr. Casata and Mr. Lance are two very
important VDoT officials. She again asked the question, but they indicated
there were no other accounts. She was told that all of the service transpor-
tation funds the regions receive are identified and folded into the regular
allotment. Ms. Tucker's chart bears this out. She then noted information
which she said is found in the Six Year Plan. She does not understand why
these particular projects are segregated for STP allocations rather than being
folded into the regular allotment as shown on Ms. Tucker's chart.
Mr. Marshall asked if the $1,000,000, to which Ms. Tucker referred, is
the same funding Mr. Frank Stoner mentioned. Mr. Tucker answered, ~no." The
money to which Mr. Marshall referred is directly assigned to Meadow Creek
Parkway for planning and design. Ms. Humphris noted that County officials
assigned that money~ because it was County money and not Federal funds.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 0000~4
(Page 12)
Ms. Tucker explained that 50 percent of STP funds is distributed by
population to all counties, towns and cities. In Northern Virginia, as well
as Suffolk and the Richmond area, the allocation goes to the MPO as regional
STP funding, and the MPO selects the projects. She said.outside these three
areas, the money is added to the secondary or urban allocation, which is the
handout she gave Board members today. She added that 30 percent of the money
passes through the regular 40/30/30 allocation formula which is the
distribution of federal and state funds that make up the secondary budget.
Ms. Humphris remarked that this still does not answer her question. She
asked again for an explanation of why the projects shown on the sheet that Ms.
Tucker just distributed are separated in the Six Year Plan instead of folded
in such as other STP projects. : ~ ~ ~ ~
Ms. Tucker said she would discuss the remainder of the percentages which
would perhaps make better sense of the whole picture. Ten percent of the
funding goes to safety projects, and ten percent goes to enhancement projects.
She cannot answer why funding for certain projects is done in addition to
secondary allocations, since she does not know what the projects are nor how
they were awarded the money. For example, Route 863 in Lynchburg looks as
though it is a secondary project, and it is not one of the three areas that
received regional STP funding. She went on to say perhaps funding was done
for Route 863 due to a safety problem.
Ms. Humphris stated that all of the projects to which she referred are
secondary projects. Ms. Tucker noted that the Hydraulic Road and Rio Road
projects are in the primary Six Year Plan. However, she'is unsure if they are
in the current plan, because they are completely funded, and one project has
already been completed. She reiterated that there is an additional $1,000,000
of safety funds coming to Albemarle County thrqu~h STP funding.
Ms. Humphris commented that the Hydraulic Road and Rio Road projects are
secondary projects. She asked why they would be shown in the primary Six Year
Plan.
Ms. Tucker answered that these are secondary projects, but additional
money is involved. Route 863 in Lynchburg could be a similar project, and she
will investigate this matter further. She recalled that the safety funds
required a ten percent match of secondary money which was funded out of the
secondary Six Year Plan. The ten percent match on the safety funds received
is why approximately $25,000 is shown for Hydraulic Road and approximately
$60,000 is shown for Rio Road. Ms. Tucker stated that she is still examining
the question of whether these funds are available for the Meadow Creek Parkway
Phase II. She is also looking into the application process for safety funds.
She explained that she is referring specifically to safety projects, and there
are some cost benefit formulas that go into the application process.-All of
this information will be forwarded to this Board as s~on as she receives it.
Ms. Humphris wondered why it is so difficult to get an answer when VDoT
officials are asked a simple question. She appreciates the informatiOn Ms.
Tucker has brought to the Supervisors, but she is dismayed that the two top
gentlemen, from VdoT, who were at the MPO meeting didn't seem to know the
answer. Even though they answered the question, it is not the same answer that
Ms. Tucker gave the Supervisors today. She also does not know why it should
take the County staff six weeks to get the answer. Ms. Tucker stated that she
thinks a clear answer with regard to Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II is needed.
Ms. Humphris commented that if the questions she has posed were
answered, a lot of things would be clarified. She hopes VDoT representatives
will remember that the Board members are lay people, and sometimes they do not
see things on VDoT's level.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if Ms. Tucker fUlly 'understands hOw this funding
is done. Ms. Tucker answered that she does not always understand how funding
is accomplished. Mr. Bowerman said it is a very complicated formula, and it
is even harder for members of the public to understand it when they don't work
with it every day. He added that questions such as the ones Ms. Humphris' has
asked, as well as questions from the public arise, because they don't know the
answers. Ms. Tucker responded that these are good questions because as
everybody learns the process, it makes that many more options available. She
said everybody wants to take advantage of all of these options. If money is
available, and there is the opportunity to acquire it, there are needs for it.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
000055
Ms. Humphris said Board members do not want to overlook any type of
funding available. She thanked Ms. Tucker for her information.
Next, Mr. Perkins inquired as to why the County will get less money in
the next biennium than this one. Ms. Tucker answered that as the year goes
on, when certain monies are hOE used, they are redistributed. It is similar
to revenue sharing where a certain amount of money is programmed, but if other
localities don't use theirs, then close to the end of the fiscal year, it goes
back to be redistributed. These figures can change as the fiscal year moves
forward. This is why 1998-99 shows the increase plus the recent influx.of
federal money. She noted that work is still being done on this coming fiscal
year, so the figures are likely to change. She pointed out that for the last
three or four years, there has been an increase in secondary funds as the
fiscal year goes on, and it has been due to additional federal monies.
Ms. Humphris referred to a September 10, 1998 letter from Mr. Cilimberg
to Ms. Tucker in which he noted the question about the widening from the South
Fork to the Airport Road and how the total project cost has increased close to
$7,000,000. She noted that Ms. Tucker replied on October 5, 1998 that the
estimate for this project is still a guess because VDoT has not settled on the
scope of work. She wondered why the cost has increased so drastically, if the
scope of work has not yet been settled.
Ms. Tucker replied that there were vast scopes considered. The project
started out initially as a widening project similar to the other two Route 29
projects where the road is widened to the median and to the outside of the
lanes. At one point, it was determined that the project had to be nothing
less than controlled access due to the Western Bypass touchdown merging back
into Route 29. She added that with this concept more money was given to the
project due to the need for reverse frontage road, as well as some fairly
significant rights-of-way impacts due to access restriction. The project
probably has a blend of these two designs, at this time, but she is unsure if
a decision is closer now than it was a year and a half ago in an effort to get
to a public hearing. Prior to a public hearing, VDoT wants to discuss
solutions for this piece of corridor with the Supervisors. She noted the
complication of the Western Bypass, Meadow Creek Parkway and ongoing
development, including the Airport Road widening, UREF development, as well as
other site specific developments.
Ms. Humphris remarked that she would like to have seen these comments in
a letter so everybody would understand the same thing.
Ms. Thomas stated that she is nervous about these plans because this
will be one of the most significant changes to Albemarle County's appearance,
since the UREF proposal. The road will be a block from Route 29, and it will
go through an area that is presently not developed, but development will be
encouraged on it. A decision will also have to be made about whether or not
development on Route 29 should be discouraged even more. She added that there
are a lot of good long range planning questions, as far as this project is
concerned, that are not really long range. She referred to Ms. Tucker's
statement that VDoT representatives want a discussion with this Board before
the project gets too far along. She said she understands VDoT representatives
are working with the County Planning staff, but the Supervisors would also
like a chance to discuss the plan before it is presented in its final form.
Ms. Humphris commented that this project has been considered for a long
time, but the Supervisors know nothing at all about it.
Mr. Marshall told Ms. Tucker that the Board members would appreciate her
bringing back such information to them.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that there was another accident involving a
multi-axle truck turning over on Rio Road close to Pen Park. He referred to
earlier comments by this Board about such accidents, and he emphasized that
flashing signs are needed at the last point where a truck can turn around.
These signs must be lighted, and they should be installed at Melbourne Road
and Pen Park to indicate that a multi-axle truck cannot negotiate the
following roadway. It doesn't do any good to cite these drivers after they
have closed the road down for six or eight hours, they have to be kept off of
this portion of Rio Road, because they are too disruptive. He went on to say
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
000056
he believes people unfamiliar with the road are the ones causing the problem.
They have to be told that their trucks are going to turn over if they go on
this portion of Rio Road. Albemarle County would probably pay for its part of
the signage, but the signage has to be something significant.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that there are already flags on the signs, and
truck drivers still try to travel this portion of Rio Road.
Next, Ms. Tucker informed Board members that the speed on Broad Axe Road
will be legally reduced and posted from 45 miles to 35 miles an hour. Ms.
Thomas thanked Ms. Tucker for this announcement.
Agenda Item No. 8. JAUNT Annual Report, Presentation by Donna
Shaunesey.
Ms. Donna Shaunesey reported that JAUNT had a tremendous year, which was
due in large part to the County's financial and moral support. She also noted
that the Supervisors have appointed good Board members from Albemarle County
who have been important on the JAUNT Board. She said Roxanne White serves on
JAUNT's Finance Committee, and she is an invaluable resource in developing
JAUNT's budget. With Ms. White and Linda Peacock's help, JAUNT representa-
tives feel that the local governments understand and accept their budget. She
mentioned that Juandiego Wade, from the County Planning Department, serves as
the JAUNT Board president this year. He is a wonderful supporter of JAUNT and
has shown up at all of the events, which shows the staff that there are Board
members who care. She mentioned that Margaret Borwhat and Clifford Buys, from
Albemarle, also serve on the Board and provide support in certain areas where
help is needed. She thanked the Supervisors for all those appointments.
She then noted that there are several new programs, such as the Welfare
Reform Program and the Passenger Education Program. The public servzce JAUNT
provided in Albemarle County increased by 13 percent, but the local dollars
recezved were far below this increase, which shows a lot can be done without
any more money. She pointed out that over 70,000 trips were provided to
County residents, and approximately 90 percent of those were for people with
disabilities. This is the highest percentage of any jurisdiction JAUNT
serves, so it is clear JAUNT is reaching a lot of people who really need to be
helped. She noted that approximately 40 percent of JAUNT's ridership are
seniors, and some of these people are disabled. JAUNT carries a few children,
but most of the passengers are adults. Most of the service provided in
Albemarle County is demand response service, although more and more people are
being encouraged to take advantage of fixed routes, because it is more cost
efficient. She commented that approximately 60 percent of JAUNT's service is
in the rural area, and the remaining 40 percent is in the urban area. Some
programs tend to concentrate on people in and around Charlottesville, but
JAUNT makes an effort to reach out to people who need help, no matter where
they live.
Next, Ms. Shaunesey talked about the Welfare Reform Program. She
explained that with the help of Albemarle County's Department of Social
Services, JAUNT was able to apply for a grant from the State Department of
Social Services. Over a period of a year and one-half, JAUNT has received
almost $400,000 to deal with people who are going to work for the first time.
This program covers Charlottesville, Albemarle and Fluvanna, and it has been
incredibly successful. She noted the difficulty people have who are going to
work because there are so many obstacles such as finding child care, finding
skills and finding jobs. Transportation is one big obstacle that has been
completely eliminated by JAUNT, because no matter what time a person works or
how far they have to go, JAUNT is able to take care of it. She noted that
JAUNT has service 24 hours a day, seven days a week. She referred to one
rider who lives in the eastern part of the County. JAUNT brings this person
to work at Food Lion at 8:30 a,m., takes her to her second job at Walmart at
3:30 p.m. and back home at 1:00 a.m. in the morning. She went on to say that
JAUNT takes this person's children to daycare, at the same time. JAUNT has
been pleased with the response it has gotten.
Ms. Shaunesey pointed out that there is a full-time staff person who
works with the 250 people JAUNT is transporting because they need day by day
supervision to make sure they can keep on working. She mentioned one obstacle
is that a lot of people don't have driver's licenses, and they never learned
to drive. The staff person was able to develop a program, with the help of
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
00005?
all the counties and the adult education program. This program provides
people the ability to go through the classroom portion of the drivers license
exam, take the test to get the learner's permit and then have on the road
training. She pointed ouu that 14 people have gotten their licenses who
couldn't drive before, which means that ultimately these people will be more
self sufficient, and they won't have to depend on JAUNT. She said once the
program is over, these people will have an option. Several of these people
have gotten cars through the MACAA program, and others have family members or
friends who have given them cars. She remarked that people are working their
way through this program and getting out on their own, or they can take
advantage of JAUNT's services that are at their regular fixed route at more
reasonable times of the day.
Ms. Shaunesey then referred to the BIG BLUE service, and said JAUNT
representatives are pleased with it. In the last couple of months, there has
been an increase, although it is still not at the desired level in terms of
ridership. Since JAUNT deviates off the route for almost anybody, the program
has been opened up to some people who are not exactly on Route 29, but who are
able to use this service in other ways. There are good transfers between
JAUNT and CTS so people who need to get other places can do so, and the route
has been changed during the year so there will be transportation to the
University of Virginia. This has made a big difference, and a lot of the new
riders are people who work either at UVa hospital or the University, itself.
She explained that, on a monthly basis, arrangements are.being made to have a
person present to discuss the route, and there are other plans to try to get
more riders. She added that the people who are riding are incredibly loyal.
She referred to JAUNT's passenger survey where people were indicating
they needed JAUNT to run more often such as Saturdays, Sundays and weedends.
New ways to make JAUNT more useful are being considered. She mentioned that
there is a concern about people who work in the downtown area, or for the
County, who get off work at 5:00 p.m. and don't have access to the bus,
because it leaves the University of Virginia at 5:10 p.m. Ways to change the
route have been considered so it will be more useful for this group of people,
but a way has not been found that is not a lot more costly, and it would
displace some of the people who are currently riding. An interesting thing
about the route when statistics are considered, is that twice as many people
are being brought into Charlottesville as are being brought home. People
usually come in on the 7:00 a.m. bus and find other ways home in the
afternoon. The Food Lion in Greene County is going to supply some park and
ride lots so extending the route further will be considered to see if it makes
it more useful. There are some people in Greene County, as well as northern
Albemarle, who would like to take advantage of JAUNT's services, and this
would be the closest stopping point. The fixed routes already in place have
really been stressed, and from Scottsville, Crozet and Covesville, more and
more people are being encouraged to use JAUNT in that way. It is cheaper for
them and JAUNT, and it provides a really good sevice. The Covesville route is
so successful that there are two buses coming into town every morning and
going home every night. Scottsville has twice a day service, as well, and
there are five round trips made to Crozet every day. A lot of people in
Crozet are using this service, but demand response is not being used in the
Crozet area nor any place in between, since these trips are happening every
two hours, and it seems the most efficient way to serve those people.
She then referred to the Passenger Education Program which helps
passengers to use the service most efficiently. She went on to say over the
years people had gotten used to using JAUNT's services as an escort, or to put
them to bed when they got home, but the desire is to make it look more like a
transportation system and less like a social services function. This has
really been successful, although it did not provide quite the desired dollar
efficiency. A staff member spent the entire year meeting individually with
people, especially the regular riders, to inform them that they needed to be
ready on time, and they would have to pay on time with exact change. It was
explained to these passengers that JAUNT could not wait for someone because it
would make the next person late. This has been a big bonus for JAUNT in terms
of people understanding the system. She noted that with 12 vehicles, the
system could work a lot slower, but with 60 vehicles, everything needs to be
efficient and on time. In response to all of the efficiency strategies, some
money has been saved, and a check has just been sent to Albemarle County for
$7,000 of the local match which was not used last year for County services.
Ms. Shaunesey next announced that JAUNT won the Virginia Transit
Association's award as the outstanding public transportation system, and this
000058
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
award will be accepted nexu week. Application for the awar~ was based on some
of the new programs that were done, and JAUNT is pleased to receive it. The
new night and weekend service was started in July, and it has been successful.
JAUNT can take people to church on Sunday, or to the movies, or out to dinner
to places they have no5 gone before. She recalled that one person in a
wheelchair went to the Albemarle County Fair for the first time this year.
Ways to accommodate people are constantly being examined, although as many as
ten buses are needed at 10:00 a.m. on Sunday morning, and none are needed on
Tuesday nights. However, JAUNT officials are working through some of these
details. JAUNT is taking quite a few people to jobs during these odd hours,
but she emphasized that these rides are only for people with disabilities.
rural counties are being served as well as the urban counties. JAUNT has had
a great year, and she thanked the Supervisors for their support.
Ms. Thomas said when she attended the City Summit,'a representative from
one of the cities commented that more services such as JAUNT should be
provided recognizing that without this type of service, people, as a last
resort, are moving into the cities and impacting on the cities infrastructure
and social services. She said anything that can be done to keep them mobile
and in their own homes helps everybody.
Mr. Marshall thanked Ms. Shaunesey. He has worked on the JAUNT Board,
and he knows what a good job the JAUNT Board members are doing.
Mr. Martin stated that given the fact that JAUNT's funding comes from so
many different sources, and a lot of it is earmarked for specific things, he
thinks JAUNT is doing a great job keeping up with its budget.
Agenda Item No. 9. Rivanna Trails Foundation, Presentation by John
Connover.
Board members thanked Mr. Connover for the beautiful book of pictures he
presented to them. Mr. Cozznover responded that Mr. Evan Smith, who retired
from the County Planning Department a few years ago, really enjoys taking
these pictures.
Mr. Connover stated that he had the good fortune to be President of the
Rivanna Trails Foundation. It zs made up of a really wonderful group of
people and a great Board. Not much time is being spent raising money nor
paper shuffling, because the staff actually goes outside and works with tools
in the woods. The goal is to build a walking trail system for hiking and
jogging around the City of Charlottesville that weaves in and out of the City
and County, narrowly following Moore's Creek and Meadow Creek, as they run
into the Rivanna River. This project has been going on for approximately five
years, and now people can walk from Hydraulic Road at K-Mart to the Woolen
Mills, although they have to cross streets. Otherwise, it is close to an
Appalachian Trail experience. As the trail is expanded further on the south
side, City property, County lands and the University property are affected, so
representatives were invited from these groups to meet with his Board. It was
a good experience, and it was suggested that this be continued on a regular
basis.
This group has been meeting on a monthly basis at the new Ivy Creek
Educational building. The booklet he handed ou5 to the Board has the names of
the people attending this monthly meeting, such as David Benish, Pat Mullaney
and Dan Mahon from the County. Nothing radical is being planned, although it
has been an interesting experience to be with City, County and University
representatives to have discussions as to what can be done together for the
community at large without a lot of recognition of the problems that
necessarily come up from being in different jurisdictions. He then mentioned
the purposes for this report.
First, he wanted to let Board members know that these meetings were
being held, and he hopes they will continue to permit their staff members to
participate in them. He mentioned that the Governor is having a State
Greenway Conference in May, and he hopes someone from the County will attend.
Secondly, he was complimentary of the draft of the Comprehensive Plan, because
a lot of the things outlined in the draft are actually happening. He would be
happy to make further detailed comments over time, but his group ~s very
pleased with this Comprehensive Plan. The objective is to establish a
Countywide network of greenway trails for conservation, recreation,
transportation and education throughout Albemarle County and link the trails
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
000059
with the City of Charlottesville. This is a wonderful objective, and he hopes
everyone can keep it in mind as plans .develop. He remarked that Albemarle
County is fortunate to have been served by its history, because many of the
waterways and the topography have kept some of these areas from severe
development. He added that whether this will continue in the future will take
more good luck, because as the County expands along the Rivanna River with
private development, it is not as difficult to throw road development closer
to the waterways, or close the waterways as has been done along Meadow Creek
and Moore's Creek. He urged the Supervisors to try to work with developers as
they request rezonings and building permits to recognize and set aside the
greenbelt trail, because there is only one opportunity to preserve the land
for this purpose. In the spirit of greenways which is coming across America
presently, most developers recognize they are .adding value to their projects
and not subtracting it. Sooner or later people will be asking for funding
from Albemarle County, although he does not think this is going to be a big
project. However, there is a limit to volunteerism to maintaining linear
trails and places beyond the urban area.
He referred to Ivy Creek where the County's Parks and Recreation
Department does a wonderful job helping supplement the volunteer effort as
will be done at Ragged Mountain. He asked the Supervisors to keep in mind
that there is a reasonable pay-off to citizens of Albemarle and
Charlottesville, as well as the future. This area is on the verge of
something really spectacular. The ring around Charlottesville will be built,
and the University of Virginia has a 50 year plan for opening the grounds to
pedestrian traffic in realization that cars do not work in the central or the
north grounds. This Board has supported Ivy Creek for a number of years, and
now there is a circular trail under Ivy Creek six miles around the Ragged
Mountain Reservoir which will be connected to the ring trail. He remarked
that Monticello has built, although it has not yet been opened, a spectacular
handicapped accessible board walk trail from the Visitor,s Center to the top
of the mountain. He mentioned that John Holden, who runs Blue Ridge Mountain
Sports, said this area is on the verge of being known as possibly having the
finest trail system in the south. Mr. Connover stated that he has always been
proud to live here, and he would be even prouder if this were true. He would
be happy to answer questions.
Ms. Humphris noted that it is a regular practice of the staff to try to
include during rezonings, etc., the ability to include proffers for future
greenway projects. The book Mr. Connover presented to the Board was
beautiful, but her curiosity was piqued in the introduction where it indicated
that Meadow Creek and Moore's Creek were draining water from the hills of
Charlottesville and carrying it to the Rivanna River. She thought the water
originated in the hills of Albemarle. Mr. Connover answered that water does
not have much knowledge of political boundaries, and Charlottesville is
obviously hilly. Mr. Bowerman suggested that~the report could refer to the
~hills in the area."
Mr. Connover stated that even though someone has lived in
Charlottesville a long time, there may be some things he or she does not
really know. He explained that Main Street is a ridge back, and all water on
the north side of it flows into Meadow Creek, and the water on the south side
goes into Moore's Creek, and eventually all of it flows into the Rivanna
River. All water south of Rio Road flows into the Rivanna River, and this
information can give a sense of security in the knowledge of the area. He
next referred to conservation easements and access easements, and he pointed
out that the concept of a greenway is somewhat different than a trail system.
A greenway system is a breathing space around a more concentrated urban area
which can be three or four miles wide, 200 miles wide or any desired width.
He urged that a greenway be developed in the area, and recommended that
parallel to the greenway there be a trail system which has access easements
allowing people to walk for health, etc. They are not always exactly the same
thing.
Ms. Humphris commented that Albemarle County chose to name its trail
system a greenway, but it means relatively the same thing as a trail system.
Mr. Connover mentioned that the trail system which is being developed
during the next year is on the south side of Charlottesville. There is an
application for development inside the 1-64 area, but the urban area does not
go all the way there. The access easement will permit the circle trails to be
made around the City of Charlottesville.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
00006;0
Next, Mr. Connover stated that one result of the City and County working
together is that they are working on solving the map problem to which Ms.
Thomas referred. The City, County and University have been using different
software systems, as well as different measures of topo lines, and the maps
did not fit. He commented that the staff is going to work on a map that will
extend past Ivy Creek to Milton, which will not only be useful for greenways,
but it will also be useful for other things.
Agenda Item No. 10. Piedmont Virginia Community College Annual Report,
Presentation by Dr. Jack Lewis, Interim President.
Dr. Lewis acknowledged Phil Sparks as a member of the audience, who is
the Chairman of the Piedmont Community College Board. He also introduced Dawn
Tucker who is the Director of the Center for Training and Work Force
Development. The College Board had spent considerable time during the last
week working through the process of selecting a new President, and Mr. Sparks
has done a wonderful job leading the College Board in this effort. He
mentioned that Dr. Frank Friedman will be the new President, and will start on
January 1, 1999. Dr. Friedman is from Austin, Texas where he is the Chief
Academic Student Services Officer serving a very large community college with
five campuses and over 26,000 students. This was one of.the most unanimous
decisions he has ever seen come through a selection process, and he is very
grateful the Board of Supervisors selected Phil Sparks to be on the College
Board. He mentioned that Clark Jackson, Joe Henley and Chuck Gross also
represent the County on the College Board, and they have also been involved in
this effort.
Dr. Lewis went on to report that in 1997-98 PVCC served 6,804 students,
2,375 of whom were residents of Albemarle County. This accoun=s for 34.9
percent of the college's total enrollment and 3.0 percent of the County's
total population. Since its beginning in 1972 through the summer of 1998,
PVCC has served a total of 75,992 students, and since its first commencement
in 1974, the college has awarded 5,385 degrees, certificates, and diplomas.
He mentioned that 50.6 percent of all County residents attending a college or
university in Virginia in the fall of 1997 were enrolled at PVCC. Within its
service region, PVCC enrolled 44.1 percent of all students attending
institutions of higher education in Virginia during that semester.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the statistics indicate that the majority
of PVCC's students go on to other institutions to complete a different
education. Dr. Lewis responded that in a community college, particularly when
50 percent of the enrollment is examined, there are students who are taking
classes to improve their job status and enhance their capacity to advance mn a
career. He said one-third of the enrollment in the coll~ge is in transfer
programs, and of those who are in a curriculum, two-thirds are enrolled in
transfer programs. He stated that 50 percent of the students are actually
unclassified because they are students who are taking courses for many
purposes, and many of them are job related.
(Mr. Marshall left at 10:10 a.m.)
Ms. Thomas inquired as to the meaning of the term, "transfer program."
Dr. Lewis answered that it is a term given to students who are planning to
transfer to a four year college or university.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it appears the success of students who attend
PVCC and get either a job or a regular four year college degree is much
greater than the certificates that are issued at PVCC for graduates in the two
year program.
Dr. Lewis concurred. PVCC is nationally recognized for its transfer
degree programs which is due largely to the strength of its relationship with
the University of Virginia. Recently the House Appropriations Committee
visited Piedmont and the University of Virginia, and he and Peter Lowe, who is
the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Classroom Management at UVa, were
charged with making a joint presentation on the partnership between the two
institutions. Almost 1,500 students from PVCC have gone through UVa, and 44
percent of all students from the Community College System that attended UVa
this past year came from Piedmont. He said this is amazing since Piedmont is
only two and one-half to three percent of the enrollment for the whole
community college system. He then referred to the statistics that were gzven
to him by Peter Lowe just before the joint presentation to the full house
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
O000G:L
Appropriations Committee, whose Chairman is V. Earl Dickinson. The grade
point average of the Piedmont students who graduated this past year from UVa
was 3.319, which was better than all the other transfers from any other group,
and even better than UVa's native students. The message needs to be sent
about the strong academic program at Piedmont, because there is something
profound about it which may not be understood by a lot of people. He pointed
out that PVCC has probably doubled its number of PhDs in its faculty because
40 percent of the faculty there have their doctorates. He then noted that the
opening of the V. Earl Dickinson building will strengthen the humanities and
social sciences program next year.
(Mr. Marshall returned at 10:14 a.m.)
The V. Earl Dickinson building houses the largest division at Piedmont
which is the Humanities and Social Sciences Division and the facility has an
art gallery, as well as a 500 seat theater. The acoustics are great and there
is not a bad seat in the facility. He already indicated that half of PVCC's
students are unclassified, and these are students who are largely being served
by classes offered dealing with business and industry. PVCC has a center for
training and work force development, which is basically there to customize and
provide training for students by businesses, industries and the government.
This center serves Albemarle County Public Schools. There is a lot of
emphasis throughout this region on work force development and work force
training. PVCC is a member of the Albemarle County and City of Charlottes-
ville Chamber of Commerce, and participates vigorously in Chamber evenss.
Amazingly the College served 3,894 students this past year through courses
specifically offered for business and industry. He said over 100 employers
were served and many of those were from Albemarle County.
He next mentioned that PVCC administers the Central Virginia Tech Prep
Consortium to assist teachers as they integrate academic and vocational
technical education. This strengthens the students' program and their ability
to perform in the work place. PVCC is one of 23 community colleges that make
up the Community College System, which was established in 1966. PVCC offers
14 associate degree programs, 29 majors in specializations and 18 certificate
programs, and he expects there will be more expansion in the certificate
programs in response to business and industry. He explained that packages of
courses are put together for a specific need in a business, industry or
government. Based on Fall, 1997 data, approximately 81.5 percent of the
students are part-time, which is characteristic of a community college.
Albemarle County is consistent with this figure since 80 percent of its PVCC
students are part-time. He then noted that 60.5 percent of PVCC's students
are female, and 61 percent of Albemarle's PVCC students are female. The
College has 12.3 percent African-American students, and there are 9.8 percent
of African-Americans coming from Albemarle County. He said 17.8 percent of
all the students are minorities, which is an area that is constantly being
examined to try to increase these figures.
Dr. Lewis then talked about the County's graduating high school
students. About 26 percent of Albemarle and Western High School graduates
come directly to Piedmont upon graduation, which is impressive. Dr. Lewis
mentioned that he is Dean of another community college, and over a number of
years following high school, his college will enroll approximately 50 percent
of the students who graduated from a high school class. Many of those are
disillusioned about the work place and have decided they need an education.
Many of them were not successful in their college of choice, so they are
coming back for their second chance, which for many is their last chance.
He then told Board members how much Kevin Castner's work with PVCC is
appreciated. A meeting was held yesterday with the Monticello High School
staff and the Central Office. The discussion cennered around how PVCC and the
school system can be better partners and how programming and facilities can be
shared. He pointed out that interesting things are already being done between
Monticello High School and Piedmont. This fall a ceramics class from
Monticello High School is meeting in PVCC's lab which is in the Visual and
Performing Arts Building. PVCC has a class using the photography lab in
Monticello High School. A lot of opportunity can be seen for sharing
programming and facilities just by the geography of the two Schools being
close together. He next mentioned the evening classes PVCC holds at Albemarle
High School where this past year there were 1352 students served who did nou
have to travel to the college.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 0000~2
(Page 20)
He appreciates the Board of Supervisors allowing him to give an update
of PVCC. He commented that it is a wonderful college, and he will miss being
here, although he looks forward to going home. It has been his pleasure to be
interim President since June 1, 1998, but he will now be returning to his own
community college.
Mr. Marshall thanked Dr. Lewis for his presentation.
Dr. Lewis mentioned that the average age for community college students
is 29 years old to 32. However, at PVCC, the average age is 28 years old.
Ms. Humphris thanked Dr. Lewis for his service to the Piedmont
community. She is sure Dr. Lewis will be glad to get back to his own school
and his family, but he has done a superb job here.
Ms. Thomas commented that it takes a special talent to serve in an
interim capacity.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Chairman that a public hearing was scheduled for
10:00 a.m., and he suggested that the presentation by Mr. Brent, relating to
water conservation measures, be postponed until after the public hearing.
Mr. Marshall concurred. (At 10:21 due to time, the Board went to Item
13.)
(Mr. Bowerman left the room at 10:20 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 13. 10:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING to consider imposing,
increasing and decreasing certain fees in an ordinance amending Section 17-209
which is contained in Article 2 of Chapter 17, Water Protection, of the
Albemarle County Code. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 19 and
October 26, 1998.)
Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering and Public Works, summarized
the proposal to adopt a revision to the Erosion and Sediment Control Fee
Schedule of the Water Protection Ordinance, Section 17-209. He noted that the
Albemarle County Engineering Department has proposed a revised Erosion and
Sediment Control Fee Schedule to ensure that staff resources are available to
adequately protect the streams and lands of Albemarle County. The proposed
fees will increase the recovery of actual program costs from approximately
five percent to 50 percent. There is a current staff of three inspectors and
two plan reviewers which manage over 600 sites in the County per year at a
total cost of approximately $220,000 per year. He then mentioned changes in
the fee schedule which include charging a nominal fee for single-family
dwelling projects, since currently there is no fee, as well as increasing the
fee for large development projects from $150 per project up to a maximum of
$2,500 per project depending on the number of acres disturbed. It is a
variable rate schedule in that regard.
The proposed fees have been developed with input from representatives of
the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, the Design and Review Council, the
Kessler Group, Great Eastern Management Company, R. D. Wade Builders and
Hunter Craig Development. He added that the proposed fees are consistent with
fees of comparable counties such as Spotsylvania, Stafford and Augusta and are
supported by the State Division of Soil and Water Conservation. The staff
recommendation is to approve the Erosion and Sediment Control Fee Schedule as
proposed, effective December 1, 1998. He is available to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas commented that she walked Blandemar Farm Road, and she was
amazed at the huge earth moving project. It seems $2,500 will not come close
to covering the engineering costs involved.
(Mr. Bowerman returned at 10:24 a.m.)
Mr. Mawyer responded that the fee schedules were developed from other
counties' history since some of them had used this figure. The Department of
Conservation and Recreation is comfortable with this fee, also. The law does
not limit the fee. It used to be limited to $1,000, but the law was changed
to allow localities to recover actual costs.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
000063
Ms. Thomas wondered if it would be possible to keep track of projects
costing more than the recommended maximum fee in order to determine if this is
an adequate limit. Mr. Mawyer answered affirmatively.
Mr. Marshall asked if he heard correctly that more than $2,500 could be
collected. Mr. Tucker replied that there is no maximum state limit. Ms.
Humphris pointed out that more can be collected only if the County's ordinance
so indicates. Mr. Tucker agreed. The maximum is being imposed now, but he
thinks Ms. Thomas' idea of tracking the projects over the next year is a good
one.
Mr. Marshall inquired if the County can only charge $2,500 even if a
project costs more than $2,500 this next year. Mr. Tucker indicated that this
is correct.
Mr. Mawyer stated that a new annual renewal fee of $250 has been added
for very large projects. The total charges could be more than $2,500 although
the initial application fee will not exceed that amount. He explained that
the goal was to balance the small sites versus projects with hundreds of
acres. A rate structure has been created of $250 plus $100 per acre of
disturbed area to give it a variable nature and reflect the magnitude of the
projects.
Next, Ms. Thomas asked why the County ms only collecting 50 percent of
its costs. She realizes that the whole community benefits from having clean
water, so it is fair that there be some subsidy. However, nothing would have
to be paid if these projects were not disturbing the land. Mr. Mawyer
answered that the schedule was developed based on a reasonable increase from
the fees already in place. The fees were $150, and now they can be as much as
$2,500. The fees were also compared to those of other counties to see if they
fit market value. These were some of the tempering factors used when the fees
were examined.
Mr. Tucker said it was realized that perhaps there is some public
benefit involved, so there should probably be some subsidy from the General
Fund. He explained that this is why most of the CounEy's fees are around 50
percent.
Mr. Martin commented that he does nou think the County should collect
taxes from taxpayers and then charge them for every service. There has to be
a balance. Ms. Thomas concurred.
Mr. Marshall mentioned his concern about affordable housing. Mr. Mawyer
remarked that the cumulative amount will be 50 percent, but the individual
fees do not necessarily reflect 50 percent. He explained that this is why he
called it a nominal fee on the single-family dwelling pro]ects of $10. It
will not cover 50 percent of the costs for a project at Forest Lakes, but it
seemed fair for them to have some participation mn the program.
Mr. Perkins asked when a re-inspection is needed on a single-family
dwelling. Mr. Mawyer answered that a re-inspection would be necessary, for
example, if an inspection on site showed that the Erosion Control Agreement
was not being followed, and it was necessary to go back the next day to make
sure someone had put up a silt fence. He explained that the goal is to visit
the sites every two weeks. However, if a site was not in compliance with the
requirements, and it was necessary to go back the next day to make sure the
problems had been corrected to prevent erosion from washing onto a neighbor or
a stream, then a fee would be charged for the return trip.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if all sites would be visited soon after a
significant rain event. Mr. Mawyer responded that the regulation requires
visitation of the site within 48 hours of a storm event.. It would take
approximately 18 znspectors to cover 600 sites in 48 hours, so discretion is
used as far as which sites really need this attention. The site owner ms not
charged for this visit.
Mr. Bowerman next asked what happens if something has to be corrected at
the site. Mr. Mawyer said this could constitute a re-inspection for failure
to comply, and a fee could be charged. The application fee includes the costs
of reviewing the plan, as well as doing two week inspections, rather than
sending bills every month because the site was visited. The staff is trymng
to get out of the billing business by collecting the money at the beginning of
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
the process with an average type fee arrangement.
become more efficient in the administrative area.
000064
This will help the program
Mr. Perkins asked about requirements on a single family dwelling on a
good site where it is not steep or close to a stream. Mr. Mawyer responded
that there may be no requirement, for example, if it is a rural lot, there is
20 acres, the house is in the middle of a field, and there is plenty of
natural filtering around the site in case there is run-off. Things to be
considered with single family sites involve whether there is a gravel entrance
to prevent mud being tracked on the highway, or whether sediment is allowed to
enter a stream. He also mentioned an area such as Forest Lakes where there
may be a dense development on an incline. He said sediment would not be
allowed to wash from one site onto an adjoining homeowner's property.
Mr. Perkins then asked about land disturbing activities pertaining to
non-exempt agricultural land. Mr. Mawyer answered that agricultural is exempt
from erosion control regulations if a person wants to plow a field for
planting crops. However, if more than 10,000 square feet is disturbed in
building a structure such as a barn or silo, a plan has to be submitted. This
would be a non-exempt agricultural activity.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this is consistent application of the Code. Mr.
Mawyer replied affirmatively.
At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing.
No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas noted that lack of the public being present is a compliment
to the staff in how this fee structure was developed with the community.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
adopt an ordinance to amend Section 17-209, in Article 2, Chapter 17, Water
Protection, of the Albemarle County Code, regarding Erosion and Sediment
Control Fees.
Ms. Humphris called attention to a letter in the Board members' packets
from representatives of the State Department of Conservation and Recreation in
which they not only accepted this proposed fee structure, but they commended
it. They also said localities such as Albemarle County, that create such a
fee structure, provide a stable platform which promotes the successes of such
a program that truly protects the welfare of its citizens and protects the
localities' and the Commonwealth's land and water resources. She thinks the
Department of Conservation and Recreation representatives feel the staff
members went a great deal further than necessary, and they appreciate the
information provided to them. Mr. Mawyer said the staff tried to involve the
Department of Conservation and Recreation in the process.
Roll was then 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.
ORDINANCE NO. 98-17 (1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 17, WATER PROTECTION,
OF THE CODE OF THE COI/NTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA, THAT CHAPTER 17, WATER PROTECTION, IS HEREBY AMENDED AND REORDAINED
BY AMENDING SECTION 17-209, FEES, AS FOLLOWS:
Sec. 17-209 Fees.
Each owner seeking approval of an erosion and sediment Control plan or
entering into an agreement in lieu of a plan shall pay a fee upon submittal of
such plan, and shall pay a fee for each reinspection, in amounts according to
the schedule set forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a
check payable to the "County of Albemarle."
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
ao
Bo
Co
000055
Land disturbing activity pertaining to single family dwelling unit:
1. Agreement in lieu of a plan if single family dwelling
unit located in a residential development: $10
2. Agreement in lieu of a plan if single family dwelling
unit not located in a residential development: $25
3. Plan for a single family dwelling unit: $100
4. Each reinspection: $25
Land disturbing activity pertaining to non-exempts. · .... ~
agricultural land:
1. Plan:
2. Each reinspection:
All other land disturbing activity:
1. Plan:
2 o
Annual renewal of approved plan:
Major amendment of plan:
Each reinspection:
$100
$25
$250 + $100 per
acre of disturbed
area or portion
thereof, not to
exceed $2500
$250
$120
$50
(§ 7-4, 6-18-75, § 6, 10-22-75, 4-21-76, 11-10-76, 3-2-77, 4-17-85, 2-11-87,
12-11-91, 3-18-92; § 19.3-17, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-4, 19.3-17; Ord. 98-
A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-17(1))
State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-562.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after December 1, 1998.
Agenda Item No. 11. Albemarle County Service Authority Water
Conservation Measures, Presentation by Bill Brent.
Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director for the Albemarle County Service
Authority, handed out information to the Board members relating to water
conservation measures. In order for the Service Authority to be successful in
this endeavor, it must get the attention of the customers. Some subtle
methods are being used, as well as some which are not so subtle, such as the
redesigned water bill, showing customers more representation of their water
use over the past 13 months. He showed the Supervisors a typical bill of a
customer who had a fairly consistent water usage over a period of time, but
who developed a rather significant leak last August. He hopes this redesigned
bill is of some benefit to the customer. He mentioned that new customers are
provided with packets of information whenever they connect to the system.
This information has recently been redesigned, and it is included with the
information given to the Supervisors. He noted that as customers come onto
the system, they will be encouraged to look for leaks. He then referred to a
publication which was designed by the Authority's Accounting Supervisor, on
her own time, and using her own computer and software. He does not believe a
professional publisher could have developed a more readable or useful document
for the customer.
One of the problems in helping customers identify leaks is to be able to
give them something useful to test for leaks. In the past the customers have
been told to use food coloring, etc., and although there has always been a
tablet on the market, it cannot be inserted by the inserting machine into the
envelopes sent to the customers. He noted that recently dye strips have come
on the market which are easy to insert into the bill, and' customers can use
these to test their toilets and look for leaks. He then referred to a
document that used to be published by the Water Center at Virginia Tech which
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
00005(;
has been helpful to the Authority. The document used to be funded by the
State, but it is no longer funded. However, permission has been received to
continue using this publication. The dye strips have recently been mailed to
all of the customers, and it is intended that this will be done each year.
The inhouse publication has also been mailed to all of the customers in the
system. Customers can check their toilets for leaks, and many customers have
reported that they are surprised to find their toilets were actually leaking.
This has been a very positive program with the customers.
He recalled that the last time he was present at a Board of Supervisors
meeting to discuss water conservation, he advised the Supervisors that a water
leak survey had just been started for the entire system. He mentioned that
during this survey, a technician walks every inch of the 150 miles of pipeline
looking for water leaks. The Authority knew it was a tight system, but this
needed to be documented particularly because of the process of developing a
new water supply. The tightness of the system has been confirmed by this
report, and a map has been included in the information showing the section in
the urban area that has been surveyed to date. By the end of this year the
survey of the urban area will be complete, and so far, only one leak, of any
consequence, has been found. This leak involved a service line connection to
a main line in the Camelot Subdivision. He commented that if a customer is
home and using water, leaks cannot be found. However, so many residences are
vacan~ during the day, so these water lines can be checked, and it can be
determined whether there is a leak inside a certain house. If this is the
case, customers are mailed a letter, advising of the suspected leak and
encouraging them to search for the leak. He added that a sample of this
letter is included in the information distributed to Board members.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the process of checking for leaks is done when
the meter is read. Mr. Brent answered, "no." A listening device is used. He
explained that it can be put on the outlet to the meter, or it can be put on
fire hydrants or anything allowing the device to get close to the water pipe.
When water leaks, it emits a hissing sound, and the frequency of the hiss
varies according to the size and type of leak. If no one is home, and there
is no leak on the main, the customer side of the pipe is checked. If water
can be heard there, then the customer can be informed that he or she appeared
not be home, but water was moving through the system.
Ms. Thomas inquired about the mailing of these letters to customers.
Mr. Brent replied that several hundred letters were sent. He wenu on to say
62 percent of the water delivered to customers in the Authority's water system
is for residential use. Therefore, the primary target of these wauer
conservation efforts has been aimed at the residential customer. He mentioned
that 19 percent of the Authority's water consumption is by commercial
customers, and hotels and motels make up a sizeable portion of the commercial
market. The hotel and motel customers have been contacted, and there are
certain industry associations which encourage people not to request clean
sheets or towels every day. He noted that the American Hotel/Motel
Association has a program called ~Good Earth Keeping." Another such program
is the ~Green Hotels Association," and the Authority's cussomers are
encouraged to investigate these programs, if they are not already members.
The Authority representatives will probably be following up with these
customers after the first of the year to see if they have gotten involved in
these programs, and to further encourage them to do so.
Although not directly related to water conservation, water theft has
been a problem. He said actions have been initiated over the past decade to
reduce water theft. However, through strict enforcement, most water theft
problems have been eliminated, and he voiced his appreciation to the County
police officials for their help. There is still some waser taken from fire
hydrants which is probably for legitimate purposes, but sometimes the methods
are not legitimate.
Ms. Thomas znquired about fire departments offering to fill swimming
pools. Mr. Brenu answered that this is considered a legitimate use, but the
fire department is required to obtain a permit from the Authority, and the
customer is billed for the water.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Brent is referring to people who might be
doing hydro-seeding, for example, and they might go to a hydrant rather than a
pond for water. Mr. Brent replied affirmatively. The Authority is more
concerned about the integrity of the water system than the small amount of
lost revenue. The biggest concern is a hydro-seeder that is not properly
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
0000, ?
protected from a possible back flow condition into the water system. He
recalled a place in Northern Virginia a few years ago in which a contractor
had a hydro-seeder connected to a fire hydrant. There was a fire down the
street, and the fire department connected to a fire hydrant a couple of blocks
away, and sucked all the fertilizer and grass seeds back into the water
system. Mr. Brent stated that since the enactment of federal standards
requiring certain flow for water fixtures in new buildings, new structures
have not been the focus of much attention during the past few years as far as
water conservation is concerned. He added that this past year, cooperation
was solicited from a local builder, Randy Rinehart of Rinehart Homes, to
explore the possibility of further reducing water use in new homes. Mr.
Rinehart agreed to take an in-depth look at a house he was building in
Glenmore, and after consultation with his plumber, he agreed to switch from a
planned copper plumbing system in the house to a new type of manifold system.
This is unique, because it is similar to the electric service. He said a
main line comes in to a fuse box, and wires go off from the fuse box. He
said water comes into the manifold, and the blue lines indicate the cold
lines, and the red lines indicate the hot water lines. He added that each
individual faucet has its own supply line. The water savings in this program
is that if a person wants to draw hot water in the bathroom to shave, he will
not have to wait for the entire main hot water line through the house to
empty. There is a small supply line that comes directly from the manifold to
the faucet, so the line empties quickly and there is hot water available, and
both water and the energy cost of heating are saved. He went on to say Mr.
Rinehart looked further at his house and realized that this being a luxury
house, he had included a double shower head in the master bathroom. He
quickly determined this was counterproductive to the water conservation
effort, and he blanked out the second shower head.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if the house to which Mr. Brent referred was a
custom built home. Mr. Brent replied, "no." It is called a "spec" home. Mr.
Rinehart and his landscape designer, Scott Price with Snow's Florist, looked
at the possibility of zero scaplng this lot in Glenmore. He explained that
zero scaping is a landscape technique which originated in the southwest where
drought acclimated plants are used, as well as mulch and stones, to eliminate
the need for outdoor watering. He personally does not think the type of zero
scaping look that has been achieved in some of the higher regions in the
country will ever take place in Albemarle County. However, through careful
planning, Scott Price was able to incorporate into this plan some zero scaping
techniques. There will still be green grass and blooming flowers at the
house, but it has been laid out so there is a limited sprinkler system. When
the sprinkler is running to irrigate the limited amount of grass, any run-off
will flow into the mulch beds and planting beds so that there is no place
where water will be running into a parking lot or to the street. This is a
very good plan. He mentioned that the house will be open for tours later this
year, and he encouraged all of the Supervisors to take advantage of the
opportunity to tour it. He also expressed his appreciation to Rinehart Homes
for working out the plans for this particular house. Education is important,
and in addition to educating the customer, Authority representatives are
attempting to assist the school system in educating the younger customers.
He mentioned that the new Standards of Learning for Virginia Schools
contains specific instruction requirements for water conservation. The
Service Authority has worked closely with Diane Clark, who is the County
Science Coordinator, and for the second consecutive year, the teaching and
learning aids essential to the teaching of the water conservation program in
the County schools is being funded by the Authority. He noted that last year,
the Authority got some press coverage when the first truckload of materials
was delivered to the schools. He reiterated that 62 percent of the water
usage in the County water system is for residential use, and the largest user
in the residence is the toilet. This is the focus of the water conservation
effort in the immediate future. The Service Authority Board of Directors has
gzven tentative approval to a demonstration project in which 100 customers
will be solicited to volunteer to replace their slx gallons per flush toilets
with a 1.6 gallon per flush toilet. He added that the Authority will give
those customers a rebate toward the cost of retrofitting the piping.
Mr. Martin asked if there is any material available which rates the 1.6
gallon per flush toilets. He has one at his house, and he does not like it.
Mr. Brent agreed that these toilets are a problem. This is why the
demonstration project is being done rather than encouraging everybody to
replace their toilets. He said Consumer Reports recently published a rating
guideline of all the major manufacturers, and it is a source of information as
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
0000 38
to which kind of toilet works best. He added that he recently did a shopping
trip around town to see what these commodes cost, and a 1.6 gallon toilet can
be obtained for $44. However, the price increases as high as $700, depending
on the desired appearance.
Mr. Marshall said he has also had problems with a low flush toilet at
his home. Mr. Bowerman suggested that it might be helpful to have one six
gallon toilet in a house, and the remainder of them could be low flush
toilets. Mr. Marshall mentioned that he has rental property in South
Carolina, and he was required to install low flush toilets there. It has been
a bad situation, and he has even had to replace flooring in the bathroom.
Mr. Brent stated that if the toilet requires three flushings, it is not
a savings of water. These toileus are a problem, and they have not been well
accepted. However, he reported that the industry is making modifications.
The ones being bought today work better than the ones that were on the market
a year ago, and each year they have gotten better. He went on to say that
this is the demonstration project, and in addition to monitoring changes in
water usage by the customers, their satisfaction with the product will also be
monitored. He mentioned that New York City requires low flush toilets, but
there is a tremendous black market there for the old type toilets.
Ms. Thomas remarked that the Rivanna Solid Waste representatives will be
able to report how popular the low flush toilets are at the Exchange Center at
the Landfill. Mr. Brent said this does not help conservation efforts. Mr.
Bowerman commented that two or three bricks can be put in a standard toilet
and the water can be reduced by a gallon. The toilet works just as well, but
it is a very efficient method of reducing the flushing volume. Mr. Marshall
said there is a plastic apparatus that fits inside the toilet tank and works
very well.
Mr. Brent reported that bricks are now being discouraged for toilets
because they decompose, and the grit can cause leaks. He then stated that the
Albemarle County Service Authority Board has given tentative approval of a
conservation kit to distribute to all of the customers in houses built before
1991 or 1992 before the Federally mandated water conservation fixtures. He
mentioned that there are a number of manufacturers and a whole new industry
that seems to be emerging in developing water conservation projects. There
are a number of companies that make conservation kits for one to three
bathroom homes which contain new shower heads, and new aerators with flow
restrictors. There is a bag that goes into the toilet tank, and it displaces
a certain volume of water in the tank so less water will be used when the tank
is flushed. Since Scottsville and Crozet have their own independent water
supplies, and those two areas have predominantly the older housing stock, it
is believed that these conservation kits can be offered to the customers at no
cost, and it can quickly be seen what water savings will be as a result of
this program. He noted that it would not be possible to do this experiment in
the urban area, because the City uses the same supply, and the benefits of
conservation could not be determined as quickly.
Mr. Brent also stated that he met with representatives of the Albemarle
Housing Improvement Program to see how the Authority could coordinate with
AHIP in getting these fixtures into some of the homes. There are so many
things on the market, and new things are being presented every day. He then
showed the Board members a water conservation device that fits in the toilet
tank. There is a supply line that fills the toilet bowl, and the water runs
until the tank fills. He added that in many instances the wauer runs through
the bowl and is wasted until the tank is filled. This gadget is inserted on
the end of the water supply line allowing the bowl to fill at the same time
the tank fills, and some wauer is saved.
(Mr. Martin left at 10:55 a.m.)
Mr. Bowerman inquired if this conservation measure'could be sent out
with the bills. Mr. Brent replied that the device will not go through the
bill stuffing machine. However, they hope to get them to the customers in
some other fashion. He said lots of things are developing, and the Authority
representatives propose to continue to try to reduce the amount of water used
by their customers. They hope to do this through means such as this, rather
than punitive means which punishes the consumers for using more water than
they should. He stated, though, that methods of altering the rates are being
considered to see what possible effect could result. If this needs to be
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
000069
done, it will be done some time mn the future, but so far the emphasis has
been on non-punitive means.
Ms. Thomas stated that she noticed the rates are below average, as well
as not increasing as fast as other areas. Mr. Brent agreed that this is true.
This year, the rates dropped below average, and the Authority is pleased to be
there. Ms. Thomas mentioned that a major expense will be faced with the new
reservoir, so it is her concern that everyone should be made aware that water
zs not going to be cheap, even if it seems cheap at the ~oment. Mr. Brent
noted that by attempting to achieve conservation through rates always hurts
the people who can lease afford it.
Ms. Thomas stated that it ms not desirable to increase water rates at
the same time County officials are trying to get people to live in the
development areas, and she understands this dilemma. She said, though, this
is a paper concept of amortization, but when the rates are below average, it
seems as though it would be well to raise the water rates.
Mr. Perkins commented that it seems as though the higher rates in the
dry summer months, would not affecu the people who can least afford it. The
wealthier people probably use more water in the summer because they are the
ones who irrigate their green lawns, etc. Mr. Brent concurred.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the Master Gardeners indicaue that people
should not be watering lawns in Albemarle County, anyway. Mr. Brent said the
Authority will work with the VPI Extension Service and the Master Gardeners to
get more information out to the customers on proper techniques for watering,
etc.
Mr. Marshall stated that this will have to be done. He remarked that he
noticed there is no water in the Moormans River below the Reservoir, and he
does not know how to fix this problem except with a new reservoir or through
conservation efforts. Ms. Thomas remarked that conservation efforts will be a
lot less expensive than a new reservoir. Mr. Brent replied that more
conservation efforts will be attempted, but at this point, he is unable to
indicate what savings can be expected from the conservation program to which
he referred. He said he believes the benefits from this project will be
noticed in the nou too distant future.
Agenda Item No. 12. Proposed Groundwater Treatment System, Ivy
Landfill, Presentation by Arthur Petrini, RSWA.
(Mr. Martin returned at 11:00 a.m.) (Mr. Perkins left at 11:00 a.m.)
Mr. Arthur Petrinz, Executive Director for the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority and Solid Waste Authority, referred to a color coded map of the
Landfill. His comments today will relate to solid waste. He noted that the
Supervisors' packets include a description of a system that will treat the
groundwater on the western side of the Landfill that is contaminated from
historical use of the Landfill. The plan is to prevent this contamination
from going off site to the west. It will be treated on site, stored on site
in the holding pond and then used for irrigation throughout the entire site.
He mentioned that all the cells are currently being closed except for the
current construction demolition and debris disposal areas. This means there
are several cells being closed, particularly old MSW cells. He explained that
these cells are being capped and soil, grass cover and some shrubbery are
being used. He pointed out that the proposed irrigation system will irrigate
these areas in order to maintain a good growth of grass, etc., because now
they are dependent on rainfall. The dry weather has hindered the growth
efforts, but once the irrigation system is in place, a better growth over the
cells can be maintained. The groundwater will be treated to essentially
drinking water levels, so the treated groundwater will be extremely clean. He
commented that all the contaminants will be treated to non-detectable, so by
DEQ approved laboratory testing, there will be no organics detected in the
treated water, which means it is drinkable.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to the meaning of the initials, ~POTW," which
were used in the information given to the Board meanings. Mr. Petrini replied
that this term relates to the leachate. The leachate is separate from the
groundwater, and it will be stored in the holding pond which currently exists.
It will then be trucked to the treatment plant. The term, ~POTW," means
publicly owned treatment works. The leachate is a separate stream which will
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
continue being trucked to the Moore's Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant and
then treated.
(Mr. Perkins returned at 11:03 a.m.)
Mr. Bowerman wondered how the leachate will be separated at the holding
pond. Mr. Petrini answered that the pipes will be physically separated so the
leachate only goes to the leachate pond, and the contaminated ground water
only goes to its holding pond. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the diagram is
not correct. Mr. Petrini agreed that the diagram is not correct, because it
only shows one application. There are two applications at the treatment
plant, and one is for leachate. He reported that the pond is sized to store
the volume for a year, so there can be an irrigation system, and there will
still be water remaining in the pond. If there is a malfunction with the
irrigation system, there are contingency plans to use existing tank trucks for
hauling to the POTWs.
Mr. Bowerman wondered why this would need to be done, based upon the
treatment process up to this point. Mr. Petrini answered that it is because
the DEQ has indicated that this plan is approved for a non-discharged system.
If a discharge system is desired, another process would have to be followed,
and it did not seem necessary.
Ms. Thomas asked where the equalization basin is located on the map.
Mr. Petrini pointed out the equalization basin, and he noted that it is not
color coded.
Next, Ms. Thomas asked if the air stripper is a building. Mr. Petrini
replied that the stripper is a structure. He said he would let Terry Phillips
describe it.
Ms. Phillips explained that it is a plain air stripper so it does not
have the towers as does a regular air stripper. This stripper should be less
obtrusive, physically. She noted that it involves a metal box that will be
contained in a small building. She said it can be insulated and protected
from the weather, and it will just be a regular outbuilding. She added that
the building would probably be 12 or 15 feet in size, and all the equipment
will be contained there. The ability is also needed to be able to access the
building.
Ms. Thomas asked if there was any noise involved with the equipment in
the building. Ms. Phillips replied that people should not be able to hear the
equipment, because the building will be insulated, and it will be
approximately 200 feet from the property line.
Mr. Petrini mentioned that the building will be green in color so it
will blend in with the other area. There will not be an issue as far as
neighborhood impact.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to why the irrigation could not be left on for
an extra 30 minutes using the water that is basically potable instead of
hauling to the POTWs. Mr. Petrini answered that he does not plan on trucking
the leachate and water. This is a contingency plan which was required by DEQ.
Ms. Thomas referred to another issue involving the location of the
holding pond which had been shown on a plat for a couple of years in an area
suggested by neighbors. When she first saw this plan she thought it was a
great idea, and it is in the location where the neighbors have always wanted
it. However, it is also in the location of a spring. She explained that
water from the spring flows onto a neighbor's land, and he regards it as an
important source of water for his stream from which he used to water cattle.
She does not think he uses the stream for this purpose any more, but his
concern is that his spring will be contaminated by this process.
Mr. Petrini responded that there is a very small spring in the proposed
holding pond. He pointed out that he visited the site yesterday, and he was
told that the volume of the spring was very minimal. He compared the spring
to other sources of water contributing to the stream. He noted that when the
area was excavated, the spring was exposed, so it was not in existence four
years ago. The water was not historically going through the natural water
channels, but it was probably meandering through the ground before coming out
somewhere else. He stated that the volume of the spring is inconsequential to
the volume of the stream. The spring is now being piped through the area
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29) . . ............
0000?l
toward the stream. The spring is approximately one-quarter inch high in
elevation of water and about two to three inches wide, so it involves a very
small volume of water. However, the stream that meanders through the Ivy
Landfill property, the neighbor's property and then back onto the Landfill
property measures two to three feet across, and it is six to eight inches
high. There will not be an impact to the stream by absorbing the spring into
the holding pond.
(Mr. Bowerman left at 11:12 a.m.)
Ms. Thomas asked about the quality of the water. Mr. Petrini replied
that the stream meets all state and federal stream quality standards, and it
is getting cleaner, and the capping process, etc., continues. It met the
standards several years ago, but it is getting even cleaner now. He
emphasized that, to his knowledge, there is no pollution mssue.
Ms. Thomas recalled that a member of the public came to this Board a
year and one-half ago with this same recommendation. The person indicated
that the ground water should be pumped out because it creates a negative
pressure and over the years, the assumption is that it will keep the plume
from flowing outward from the landfill. This is the best thing the engineers
have been able to develop as far as remediating ground water connamination.
This seems to be exactly the thing everybody wants RWSA to do, although the
spring is one small problem.
Ms. Humphris stated that the newsletter put out by RWSA ms an excellent
publication, and since it is published quarterly, she looks forward to seeing
more of them. Mr. Petrini thanked Ms. Humphris for her comment. He said a
lot of effort went into the publication, and he is happy to see that it is
well received.
(Mr. Bowerman returned at 11:14 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 14. Resolution of Intent to amend Section 35, Fees of
the Zoning Ordinance, re: telecommunications towers.
As a follow-up to discussions last month regarding potential fee
structure for applications for wireless telecommunications special use
permits, Mr. Cilimberg said the staff has developed three possible options.
The first option regarding a flat fee option for each application has been
discussed with this Board before, and it has been estimated previously to be
as much as $5,000 per application. The second option would actually establish
a maximum fee in a tier level which would be collected at the beginning of the
application, and depending on the amount of review necessary, it can be
affected by the amounn of information provided by the applicant, etc. If
expenditure of the full fee was non reached, part of the fee could be refunded
back to the applicant. The third option relates to a multi-tiered fee system
for each application, similar to that proposed in option two, and it would be
based on the required level of review by the consultant for that application.
He explained that the level of review by the consultant under this option
would be based on fixed criteria applying to the type of wireless facility
proposed. The criteria could best be established after the Kreines Study has
been completed and wireless telecommunications policies and regulations have
been adopted. He called attention to the example shown in the Executive
Summary which suggested that there could be a ~tree top tower" level of fee
structure, as well as a third fee tier associated with more standard monopoles
or lattice structures that exceed the tree line. This could best be developed
after the Kreines Study is complete.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff has made a recommendation for a Resolution
of Intent to initiate a Zoning Text Amendment to establish fees under Option
Two in the report. The amount of fees specified in the ordinance for each
level of review will be calculated and set at a level projected to recover the
average review costs. He noted that Mr. Davis worked with the staff on
developing the Resolution of Intent regarding the fee structures.
Ms. Thomas stated that she can support Option Two.
Mr. Davis referred to the Resolution of Intent included in the Board
members' packet. He recommended that the Supervisors adopt the Resolution and
instruct the Planning Commission to take action as soon as possible, if they
would like to move forward with Option Two.
November(page 30) 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 000'072
At this time, Mr. Bowerman offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris,
to adopt the Resolution of Intent to initiate a Zoning Text Amendment to
establish fees to recover the cost of consulting services incurred in the
review of applications for wireless telecommunications special use permits
pursuant to Option Two.
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.
WHEREAS, Section 35.0, Fees, of the Zoning Ordinance is intended to
collect fees to cover the costs of processing applications for
zoning approvals; and
WHEREAS, substantial new costs are anticipated to process applications
for wireless telecommunications special use permits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED T}IAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice, the
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution
of intent to amend Section 35.0, Fees, of the Zoning Ordinance to
establish fees to recover the cost of consulting services incurred
in the review of applications for wireless telecommunications
special use permits; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission is requested to hold
a public hearing on this resolution of intent, and to return its
recommendations to this Board at the earliest possible date.
Agenda Item No. 15. Status of the Comprehensive Plan on Community
Facilities in the Crozet area, as identified in the Crozet Community Study.
Mr. Marshall pointed out that today there will be a presentation on the
status of the Comprehensive Plan on community facilities in the Crozet area,
as identified in the Crozet Community Study. If the Board members feel a
public hearing is needed on this matter, it will need to be held at a later
date.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that this item arose from a discussion last month
relating to consideration of the continuation or releasing of the old Crozeu
School. He said reference was made at that time to some studies which were
done regarding the old Crozet School, and the County Engineering Department
had copies of these studies. This report makes reference to an adaptive reuse
study for the school. He noted that Mr. Mawyer is present at this meeting,
and there are a number of recommendations or possibilities proposed in these
studies which were done at the University of Virginia. He said options were
proposed, and he will be glad to elaborate on them, if this is the Board's
desire. He also reminded the Supervisors of the prior completed Crozet
Community Study which is referenced in the Comprehensive Plan, which is a
guiding document. He noted that a number of community facility type of
recommendations have been included from this plan. He pointed out that this
study did not put a lot of emphasis on the old Crozet School, and it is just
north of the community as designated in the Plan. He referred to a reference
on Page 60 of the prior study, which is the nexu to last page of the
Supervisors' attachments, indicating that the County should maintain the old
elementary school as a public building for use as a school or for other public
uses as necessary. There are a number of other capital facility type of
recommendations in the document, but these recommendations have not been
considered to any extent because of facility funding limitations. There are
neighborhood plan implementations identified in the CIP, but funding has been
rather limited, so any projects in Crozet have not been undertaken which
actually fall under this program. However, this is a guiding document that
will give some guidance and a basis from which to work as money becomes
available. The Supervisors will need to make these decisions when they are
considering their Capital Improvements Program as to how to fund some of these
projects as well as other sources which might be identified along the way when
road projects and sidewalk opportunities are being discussed. He commented
that this sets the item apart from the discussions the Supervisors had last
month about the old Crozet School.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
000073
Mr. Bowerman stated that it would have been helpful if the Board of
Supervisors had already received the report on the old Crozet School, and he
was disappointed thaE it was not included. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the
report is very thick, and he believes this is the reason it was decided not to
have it delivered. He can get the Board members copies of the report, if they
so desire. Mr. Bowerman suggested that a summary of the report would be
helpful.
Mr. Tucker asked if Mr. Bowerman wanted a summary of the report now, or
would he prefer something in writing. Mr. Bowerman replied that he would
appreciate something on the order of an Executive Summary. Mr. Tucker stated
that Mr. Mawyer may be prepared to give the Board a verbal summary, although a
written summary can also be done. He said copies of the report are available,
as was indicated.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he has no idea about what was included in
the study. Mr. Mawyer pointed out that there 1s an Executive Summary in the
front of the report. Me said some of the possibilities of how the school
could be used which were discussed in the report are tha~ it could be sold to
private interests; the building could be held for future needs; or it could
be demolished. If the desire is to renovate the building, it will cost
approximately $2,500,000.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if there were any proposed uses for the renovated
building. Mr. Mawyer answered that a library and community center were
mentioned, as well as another County school.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like a copy of this summary to keep
with the Crozet Plan. He found some considerations lacking in the review of
the Crozet Community recommendations. He added that the entire community
outside needs to be considered to try to figure out the balance between
residential, and commercial lands. This report seemed to be more
infrastructure related specificaly to Crozet, but it doesn't speak to how Grey
Rock and some of the other residential developments that are proposed fit into
a total community for Crozet. The work of this Committee could lend a greater
scheme to the area so it develops as a self-contained community, able to
support itself with jobs, as well as retail and commercial activities more so
than as a separate community which depends on Charlottesville almost
exclusively.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the Board was given this information
because he had the impression concern was being raised about how facilities
were being considered in Crozet. These facility recommendations were being
focused on, but the plan document in total speaks to the balance of a Crozet
community. He agreed with Mr. Bowerman, though, that it is important to
determine how these situations can develop for the whole community.
Mr. Bowerman stated that consideration needs to be given as to what
areas such as Grey Rock mean to the whole picture. He asked where parking
and commercial plans will take place if the situation is outside of the
downtown area, and he wondered when the phasing in of the Jarmans Gap
improvements will be done in order to make access between the residential
areas, public facilities and commercial activities.
Ms. Thomas stated that Crozeu is going to be a community of 11,000 at
moderate density. It is a town that is partially there, and it can be ruined
easily. She remarked that she does not feel the Board members have enough of
a picture of what should be done to create a town, and it is going to take a
public investment that Albemarle County is not used to doing in a community.
She wondered if a mistake was made 20 years ago when the decismon was made to
focus on Crozet, and she mentioned that people were afraid of annexation at
that time, and Crozet was a place where people were thinking about retreating.
People who drive along Route 250 now are asking why this was done. She
commented that if there are just a lot of subdivisions there, everybody will
be shortchanged, including people between Charlottesville and Crozeu but
mostly the people who live in Crozet. Crozet could be a good community, with
some of the things referred to by the DISC Committee. She said it might not
become such a community, and it could be a real problem in a few years.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the study spoke to the things to which Ms.
Thomas referred. Ms. Thomas responded that these things have not been
considered in the CIP.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
000074
Mr. Cilimberg answered that the staff has tried to include these types
of things in the CIP, but the money was not available. He reminded the Board
members that it would involve hundreds of thousands of dollars to make this
happen. The Supervisors need to make a fundamental decision about how much
money they are willing to put into these types of things that may enable the
Community of Crozet, as well as some of the other developing areas, to begin
accomplishing the Comprehensive Plan objectives. He pointed out that he knows
it is a difficult decision for the Board of Supervisors, but these projects
are a part of the whole picture, and they require a lot ~f money.
Mr. Perkins stated that this Board has put much emphasis on pedestrian
traffic, and there has been a lot of money spent for sidewalks on Route 29,
Rio Road, as well as other such roads. If Crozet is going to be kept as a
community, then some money is going to have to be spent on new sidewalks, as
well as improving the ones already there, because they are old and
deteriorating. This plan suggests a lot of new sidewalks and connectors, but
there are some changes that have occurred in Crozet during the last couple of
months. The Crozet Foods Store has closed, and the post office will be moving
to that building. He said now there will be a post office there, but there is
no longer a grocery store in that vicinity, so a sidewalk needs to be put into
place to connect the other grocery store and the post office. He noted that
it would be good for people to be able to go to the grocery store and, rather
than driving to the post office and looking for another parking place, they
could very conveniently walk to the post office. There also needs to be
sidewalks along Route 240 connecting Western Ridge and Highlands, and this
would make those people feel they are a part of the community. When Grayrock
is finished, and the road there is improved, hopefully there will be a
sidewalk built there. He added that sidewalks and crosswalks are the biggest
need in the community as well as improving the sidewalks already there. He
remarked that so many places in Crozet, the sidewalk is on one side of the
street, but not both sides, so people have to cross the road. He mentioned
that the only sidewalk he knows of that was built during the last half century
replaced the one torn up when the new Crozet School was built. He emphasized
that it took some effort to get this sidewalk put back into place.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if the balance between the current Comprehensive
Plan and the current CrozeE plan between commercial, residential, industrial
and retail uses will develop Crozet as a community the way it is envisioned,
or if it is ouE of balance. He does hOE know how a residential development
fits into the scheme of things in terms of the other things that need to be
considered. He asked if there is too much zoning for residential use there
and not enough of another type of zoning.
Mr. Marshall agreed that this is a good question. He recalled Crozet
when he was a boy where everybody would shop at the Red Front Market on
Saturday, as well as the Crozet Drug Store. It was more community oriented
then, and even though now there are a lot of subdivisions around Crozet, the
people are driving to Charlottesville. He said a year ago there were two
drugstores at Crozet, but on January 1, 1999 there will be none.
Mr. Perkins stated that a drug store will be opening soon in Croze5.
Mr. Marshall said his point is that business people need to get
interested in downtown Crozet to put some investment int6 that area to make it
grow. It will have to be some entrepreneurs who will be willing to gamble.
He stressed the fact that the community needs the support of such businesses.
He then referred to the downtown mall in Charlottesville. People did not
support it, and they went outside of the mall, and now it has become a
financial district.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if there is enough industrial land available to
create jobs for the people who live in Crozet. Ms. Thomas pointed out that
the Board of Supervisors' only action has been to take away industrial land.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he heard Ms. Humphris say that there have to be
economic reasons for businesses to locate in certain places, and those reasons
are people. If people are working in a certain place, then they are more
inclined to be a part of the community.
Ms. Thomas remarked that commercial interests are trying to figure out
if Crozet is going to be mostly a town center or if it is going to be mostly a
highway center, such as the area where Blue Ridge Home Supply is located. She
said people in town representing commercial interests, to whom she has spoken,
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
O000?5
are discouraged because of VDoT's entrance requirements, as well as parking
requirements and other things that don't fit a village. However, it has been
a long standing decision that Crozet would be a village,'so she thinks
sidewalks and some public investment are necessary.
Mr. Marshall commented that the community needs to support itself, and
the people who live in the community need to support the local businesses and
stop driving to Route 29 North. Mr. Bowerman stated that there has to be a
market large enough to support a business being there, and this is the
difficulty. There is not enough mass to create the probability for a
supermarket or a grocery store to stay open downtown.
Mr. Perkins stated that there is a grocery store downtown, and the
grocery store owners tell him they have all the business they can handle. Mr.
Bowerman asked if there is enough business in Crozet for two grocery stores.
Mr. Perkins answered that there is enough business for two grocery stores in
Crozet, but a lot of the people who are running these businesses are retiring.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the County has made a nice capital
investment in the park, so it is not that County officials have ignored
Crozet. He said there are more things that need to be done to make Crozet
more viable so it can develop in the way people who live there want it to
develop.
Mr. Perkins suggested that there should be a commitment on a yearly
basis of a certain amount of money for infrastructure, such as sidewalks,
street lights, etc. It can't all be done at one time, but it has to be done
over a period of time.
Mr. Marshall indicated that he could support Mr. Perkins' suggestion,
but he knows the previous owners of the drug stores in Crozet, as well as the
new person who will be opening another drug store there. He knows what has
happened in the drug business there, and the community did not support the
previous owners to the point where they could stay. He wishes the new owner a
lot of luck in his business there, but the community needs to support this
drugstore when it opens. He explained that a lot of people are working in
Charlottesville, and they stop on their way home to buy groceries, clothes and
drugs. He knows this for a fact because he has a drug store on the west end
of Charlottesville, and there is an enormous amount of customers in the Crozet
area who stop at his store on their way home to Crozet.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the County's community concept is probably
far beyond where the actual development balance has occurred. He recalled
that the same thing happened in Hollymead, and it is because the residences in
the development area are coming first, before a lot of the employment actually
arrives in those places where people might live and work in the same area.
They are commuting to other places.
Mr. Bowerman stated that this will probably change as those houses sell,
and the real estate park develops.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that this will happen in Hollymead, but the
question in Crozet relates to whether there is enough employment generating
development that might occur there. He commented that there is a lot of
designated land in Crozet, but it isn't under any type of active change in
development for the purpose of employment generating uses. There is a lot of
acreage involved, but it is not turning over for the purpose of new business.
He pointed out that Acme has basically closed its operations, although there
has been a fair amount of stability at ConAgra. He noted, though, that new
employment generating uses have not located to any great extent in Crozet.
The plan anticipates this will happen and it also puts a lot of focus on
downtown Crozet. Downtown Crozet can be a beneficiary of having the employers
and people there. He said it is a matter of timing. He also agreed with Ms.
Humphris' comment about where the market tends to be at any point in time.
The market has related to so much residential development where the land is
available that now the outlying communities are more oriented to commuting
patterns than they are to local employments. He said, hopefully, this can
change with new employers locating in these communites.
Mr. Martin stated that there has to be a certain amount of residential
mass in order to attract retail or employment opportunities. He referred to
the DISC report as far as putting in infrastructure ahead of time, but there
are some things that cannot be done ahead of time. He noted that the same
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
000076
thing can happen with a school if it is built before it is filled. He said
people get upset and wonder why all of the money is being spent.
Mr. Bowerman commented that Crozet has'water and sewer service, but he
wondered if it has efficient delivery of telecommunications and power that is
adequate to support more technological types of businesses. He pointed out
that it really doesn't matter where they locate, because it is access to the
world that they need. He pointed out that these businesses are residential,
they create new jobs and they involve some of the infrastructure improvements.
Most importantly, it will allow Board members to see how the business fits
into the overall scheme when the application comes before them.
Ms. Humphris stated that there are some things over which this Board has
no control, such as the market place. She said businesses have to be able to
make money, and they will not go to a place unless they know they have the
critical mass that is going to allow them to do that. It seems to her a key
element is the old school and the plans for it. It could be a tremendous
factor in uniting the Crozet community if the decision was made to use it for
a library or an additional school, etc. She commented that it could be a
centerpiece because it is so close to the central place.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the old school could also be used as a
commercial office building.
Ms. Humphris said she is unsure of the schedule for planning for the
future of this property, but perhaps County officials should actively be
planning for its use so it can be a positive thing for people to look forward
to in the future. She then referred to the huge list of recommended sidewalks
for Crozet. Mr. Perkins commented that when there are no sidewalks, a lot
need to be built.
Ms. Humphris agreed that there are a lot of sidewalks currently
nonexistent that are recommended. She said it seems to her that the sidewalks
along with the needed lighting at particular places are things for which this
Board could start earmarking some CIP funds. This would show progress. She
also mentioned the idea of building out from the center of Crozet with
connecting sidewalks. She recalled on several occasions public discussions in
Crozet about building and connecting pedestrian accesses. The developer of
Western Ridge, etc., had attended these meetings and, at the time, she thought
the builder had agreed to build these accesses. However, it was not done.
Maybe ways need to be found to encourage developers to build such things.
Mr. Mawyer reported that a CIP project is being completed at the present
time to replace the roof on the old school building at a cost of $300,000, and
there is a plan next summer to replace all the windows and do some structural
repairs for an additional $300,000. The infrastructure is being maintained
until a decision has been reached beyond the current decision.
Mr. Marshall asked if this matter could be revisited in a future
meeting. Mr. Tucker explained that the CIP will be coming to this Board in
December, and some of these proposals will be included, such as sidewalks and
street lights. There are two ways to approach the plan for readaptive use of
the old school building. This Board can consider the matter, or it can ask
the Planning Commission to consider what might be the best use for this
building.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he would like for the Engineering Department
to determine what would be required, as far as the current Code, to bring the
building up to standard to meet ADA and fire safety requirements, as well as
all of those applications that would have to be considered if major
renovations are done. This might be a critical decision point as far as what
will be done with the building. He pointed out that the children were moved
from the building because it was a problem.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that there are various alternatives for use of the
building. Mr. Bowerman agreed. However, he would like to know the cost of
preparing the building for some of the alternatives.
Mr. Tucker asked if the Supervisors want to do this, or would they
rather ask the Planning Commission to consider the situation.
Mr. Marshall suggested that the Planning Commission could consider the
matter.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
000077
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Commissioners need to look at practical
applications as far as what it would cost to make the building into something
else such as a library or a school. He would like to know if elevators are
needed, as well as better fire accesses, in addition to the windows and other
things that would need to be done. It would also be helpful to know the Code
requirements, so there would be some idea as to the magnitude of the
transformation.
Mr. Mawyer remarked that the report indicated that it would take
$2,500,000 to renovate the building, and he suspects the cost will be close to
this amount. He referred to the $600,000 he had mentioned earlier already
planned to be .spent on the building. He mentioned that the building is not
air conditioned, so this will cost another $500,000. The project can quickly
climb to $2,000,000 or $3,000,000.
Ms. Thomas wondered if this Board can expect to get another report from
the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to have a more realistic dollar
amount for adaptive reuse.
Mr. Tucker said the Board members can be provided with the things they
have now indicated they would like to have. The bigger picture needs to be
considered, and he does not want to continue to look at this building as an
island. He wants to know that this Board or the Planning Commission is
thinking of it as part of the bigger scheme of Crozet.
Mr. Bowerman concurred. He reminded the Board members that Albemarle
Square was transformed after the County signed a lease with the Northside
Library. Ms. Thomas mentioned that this Library is charming, but it is
inadequate, and it does not even have a computer.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the old school building is now an island,
but information needs to be gathered as to the cost of the island to integrate
it back into the community as a more viable situation.
Agenda Item No. 16. Presentation: Zoning Enforcement Regulations.
Mr. Tucker said recently as a result of zoning approvals for sites which
are restricted with specific operating conditions and which may have a history
of violation, the Board has asked staff to consider a system of ongoing
inspection for compliance. It is suggested that staff initiate a procedure
and schedule to actively ensure compliance on a continuing basis. Staff
drafted a response which was carried forward from the October 7tn consent
agenda to this date for discussion.
As the Board is aware, regardless of the staffing or the effectiveness
of the enforcement program, zoning violations cannot be completely eliminated.
The question is: what is the most appropriate method by which we can achieve
the highest level of compliance? Because the zoning application is checked
for compliance when the use first begins, the question is more defined as how
can we best achieve compliance in the long term? Reaching this answer
involves discussion about which zoning applications should be included in this
program - site plans, zoning clearances, home occupation class A and all other
zoning applications, or just special permits? Reaching the decision also
involves ~ssues of procedure and of adequate staffing. Prior to having this
discussion, the Board will need to address whether they wish to change to a
proactive enforcement philosophy.
Presently, for long-term compliance staff rely on applications at a
later date from owners, contract purchasers, leasees, etc., for approval of a
change of owner, change of use and the like, to commence a zoning
investigation. In addition, staff responds to complaints raised by citizens
who have concerns. In these respects, staff is responsive in long-term
enforcemenu. There is no accurate way to measure the number of violations
that are not detected by this program. However, in reliance on the public we
are responding to those items of general nuisance. In addition, staff is
attempting to strike the balance with enforcement as needed. Two continuing
work program items that relate to improving this program are:
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
000078
1. Providing better information to the applicants and public prior to and
during the process through pre-application conferences, handouts and an
application which is explicit as to the regulations. In addition, we are
using approval letters that not only specify conditions but also list other
relevant references such as a Zoning staff contact and deadlines for the
approval.
2. Developing a computer database, tracking system and "tickler" for zoning
applications.
Mr. Tucker said this question about our zoning enforcement program arose
originally relating to a special permit. There have been 883 special permits
approved (excluding mobile homes). Staff has calculated that approximately
10,000 staff hours would be needed to review each of these permits once. This
translates to almost five staff to do special permits alone as an annual
review and it does not account for permits increasing.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends continuing a responsive program under
the current philosophy with the goal of continual improvements in our work
directly with the applicant and with the plan review process, inspection
process and computer tracking system. Staff also recommends that through the
budget process, it inform the Board of staffing impacts for various levels of
service for increased enforcement. Staff further recommends that special
permits not be singled out from the many other zoning permit and plan
approvals if a new program is initiated. Finally, staff suggests that the
number of cases in which conditions specify a review or reinspection period be
limited.
Mr. Martin stated that he has no problem with the recommendation. Mr.
Bowerman agreed. Ms. Thomas said she was glad the regulation was brought to
the Supervisors. They have read it and understand it. Mr. Bowerman commented
that the regulation is very clear.
By consensus the Board supported staff's recommendations.
Agenda Item No. 17. Purchase of Development Rights, Funding Options.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Supervisors that the Development Rights
Committee brought forward a proposal to implement the purchase of development
rights at their September meeting. Staff was directed to present at today's
meeting potential funding sources for a $1,000,000 commitment that was
recommended by the Committee for PDRs. Several options have been considered,
and although there are probably a lot of others, the staff focused on three of
them where significant funding could be considered.
He called attention to the first option relating to the CIP budget of
$400,000 that is used to leverage an additional $400,000 from State highway
funds. However, there are several road projects which w6uld be affected or
impacted if this revenue sharing highway money was shifted to PDRs. The
second option relates to the School Maintenance/Replacement Fund. He
explained that because of the new State school construction funds, monies
could conceivably be shifted that the County has been providing at the local
level for the school maintenance fund, and the new school construction funds
could be used to replace them. He next referred to the third option which
would use $500,000 to $1,000,000 in the Fund Balance. The Fund Balance is
approximately $14,500,000 with available funds of $1,500,000 over the
$13,000,000 required by the Department of Finance for cash flow. The Board
could decide on an annual basis whether to use available one time Fund Balance
revenues for the PDR program, since the Fund Balance moves up and down each
year. If the Fund Balance revenues are positive, it can be decided how much
could go to the PDR fund. However, if these revenues are downward, the amount
could be lessened into the PDR fund. He mentioned that another suggestion for
using the Fund Balance funds would be to allot a specific percentage each year
for PDR funds. He explained that for FY 2000, the $1,000,000 would be
approximately 30 percent of the Fund Balance.
The staff is recommending that these three funding options be considered
for PDR programs. If Option Two is chosen, which is the School Maintenance
and Replacement Fund, staff requests that this decision be deferred until the
Supervisors can study the CIP coming to them in December; because some
szgnificant decisions have to be made at that time. He said using the local
transfer money to the schools has some potential consequences, and a thorough
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
0000?9
review of the CIP is needed before the Board members choose this particular
option.
Ms. Humphris inquired if the tourism funds could be the source of some
monies that would not be quite as significant. This is what tourists come to
Albemarle County to see, but she has no idea about the legal definition of the
use of those funds. Mr. Davis responded that the matter is unexplored to the
extent that there is no guidance on whether PDRs could be considered tourism.
In the past, such matters have been considered on a case by case basis and
particular purchases are examined to see whether they could reasonably be a
tourist or travel related item. The statute is not worded very clearly.
Mr. Perkins remarked that a PDR may be property specific if it is on a
scenic byway, etc.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that greenways and parks would probably also
qualify as a tourism or travel related item.
Ms. Humphris commented that perhaps the Board should examine the tourism
fund as a means for PDR programs. She said she feels so strongly that however
the acquisition of easements or the purchase of development rights is
accomplished there should be a steady and firm stream of funding. It should
not be a doubtful situation depending on who is sitting on this Board at the
time. This has been universally accepted in places around the country, and
other counties are passing enormous bond referendums with enormous majorities
because people are very willing to understand the value of open spaces to
their life style.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he does not like the idea of spending
$20,000,000 over 20 years just to pay interest. Unless this is a useful
application of the tourism tax, which could be supplementary, all of the
options are taking funds from somewhere else to pay for the PDR programs. He
suggested that if there is serious support for this concept in the community,
then Albemarle County officials should consider a tax referendum. He said a
tax referendum could be approximately two cents on the tax rate, and whatever
it generated each year, would go into this program to purchase development
rights under a set of criteria that is clearly articulated. If the public
agrees with this concept, they will approve it, and those funds would be
forever dedicated to purchasing development rights. If the state changes the
enabling legislation and the County gets money from the state, there are
different ways with which to deal with the situation. Any subtraction from
the schools capital projects, or any other capital projects, does not seem to
be a serious enough commitment to this concept. He recalled the revenue
sharing agreement, which passed by 63 percent. It was articulated, the
members of the public accepted it, and they committed to it. This concept
might also have overwhelming support.
Mr. Martin remarked that he thinks a tax referendum is a good idea, but
he also likes the idea of using funds from the tourism tax. He suggested that
the County could also make a commitment for PDR programs such as a reduction
in the overall budget by a small percentage. He said he would not like to ask
taxpayers, who are already paying taxes, to vote for a tax increase without
the leaders in the County showing their support. It would be good to be able
to show County citizens a certain level that has already been established
possibly through the tourism tax and/or some other mechanism. He noted his
surprise at seeing the specificity of these recommendations, and he reiterated
his feelings that the matter needs to be considered in terms of a percentage
of the regular County budget.
Mr. Bowerman stated that a program could be initiated, and it could be
noted that the success of the program over time is dependent upon a constant
stream of revenues. He added that the Supervisors could indicate their
willingness to allocate funds to start the program, and they could indicate
their strong feelings about the PDR programs, as well as their idea that the
public feels just as strongly, which is the reason they are proposing a tax
referendum. The item can be put on a ballot, and this will show how the
public feels. It will be a commitment on the County leaders' part, and the
public decides whether it should be a part of the overall plan with a
consistent flow of funds that grows over time. He added that if it is tied to
a cent or two cents of the tax rate, as the County's real estate values
increase, the County's ability to purchase property will increase, and it will
be an outright purchase. He is unsure if the mechanism developed by the
Committee members is the same in terms of the priorities to be applied to this
O000SO
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day ,Meeting)
(Page 38)
type of situation. The priorities might shift, because the County would be
buying less land each year. However, it would be an outright purchase.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Bowerman was speaking about not purchasing
developmentrights.
Mr. Bowerman answered that he is talking about purchasing development
rights, but the manner in which the funds are Supplied would change. He
suggested that perhaps the manner in which the formula was derived for
figuring out priorities would have to be adjusted, based on the funding
mechanism. He noted that this would allow moderate income people such as
farmers, to be able to receive some income if the County did not buy their
whole property in one year, but committed over time to do so. He emphasized
that he is not suggesting how this should be done, but he is suggesting it
would change the actual concept with which this Committee worked.
Ms. Thomas concurred that the 20 year concept was not popular. Mr.
Bowerman said he was displeased with the interest aspect of the concept.
Ms. Thomas stated that Virginia Beach City Council voted to add a penny
and one-half to their tax rate to dedicate to this project, but they did not
have a referendum.
Mr. Davis commented that because Virginia Beach is a city, it can borrow
money and incur debt without a referendum, and that is what it has done with
the PDR program. He explained that the one and one-half cents of Virginia
Beach's tax rate is used as a revenue stream for zero coupon bonds. The bonds
are purchased, and the interest is paid to the landowner~ over a 20 year
period. The problem is that a County is unable to do that.
Mr. Perkins concurred with Mr. Bowerman's remarks, but he feels
something is needed to get the program started now. It should not wait until
there is a referendum. Mr. Bowerman agreed that the program needs to get
started quickly. Mr. Marshall noted that he, too, thinks something needs to
be done right away, and he asked if anyone wanted to make a motion.
Mr. Perkins inquired if County officials usually budget $500,000 of
highway funds, even though they have to wait to see how much is available from
VDoT. Mr. Tucker answered that the County usually budgets between $400,000
and $500,000 of matching highway funds.
Mr. Bowerman indicated that he did not want to take any funding away
from the school system. Mr. Tucker responding that he was only suggesting
supplanting the funding.
Ms. Thomas wondered if there is approximately $200,000 in the tourism
fund. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively.
Mr. Bowerman stated that if the County is getting $400,000 more from the
state, he would like to keep the County's commitment, along with the State
money. Ms. Thomas noted that there are groups of people who are meeting with
legislators and inquiring as to how to get state money for purchase of
development rights. Mr. Bowerman said perhaps these two situations could work
together.
Mr. Martin commented that he still feels the importance of getting the
private sector interested in purchasing development rights. Mr. Marshall
agreed. That is why he is willing to support a tax referendum. He again
asked for a motion. Ms. Humphris inquired if a motion was needed at this
meeting. Mr. Tucker replied that it was not necessary. Mr. Marshall stated
that it is important to get some funding started for the program today. Mr.
Bowerman said the Committee should first be given the ideas from the
Supervisors at this meeting.
Mr. Tucker agreed that the Committee still has work to do, and it still
has to identify the eligible areas. He noted that the Supervisors can use the
Tourism Fund and the Fund Balance this year, if they so desire.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that $100,000 could be taken from the highway
funds. He added that usually $500,000 is put in the budget, but sometimes the
State cannot make that much of a match. Mr. Bowerman said some of this money
could be used.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Ms. Humphris suggested that the difference between what is requested of
VDoT for revenue sharing and the actual amoun5 the County gets could be used
for the PDR program. She thinks another report from the County Executive is
needed indicating the Board members' suggestions today, as well as the steps
that need to be taken to develop a plan that coordinates with the Committee.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Board is not willing to commit any funding
today for PDRs.
Board members indicated that they were willing to commit to the PDR
program, but they will first need some more information.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like feedback from the Committee members
about the Supervisors' suggestions at today's meeting.
Agenda Item No. 18. Draft 1999 Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission Legislative Program, Presentation by Bonnie Fronfelter.
Ms. Thomas suggested that if Board members have read the report, perhaps
they can ask Ms. Fronfelter questions, rather than havin$ a full presentation.
Ms. Humphris commented that she had mentioned to Nancy O'Brien once
before that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Legislative
Program always looks the same as it did the year before. Ms. Humphris added
that if she was a state legislator and was given this report to read, it
probably wouldn't make much of an impression. She then called attention to
the paragraphs where there are statements such as, "we support" or
oppose." She would love to see the format changed to separate the items of
support and the items of opposition to make them clearer and to have the
explanatory material come after the items. She said it could be scanned very
quickly whereas a lot of the legislators will probably not bother to read all
of this material. She emphasized that the content is excellent.
Ms. Fronfelter mentioned the four items that Roxanne White forwarded to
VACo on behalf of Albemarle County. They are: to conform the meals tax
provisions to that of cities; the 599 funding, VDoT towers on state property;
and state funding for a PDR program. She said all four of these items are
included in the Planning District's Legislative Program as new items. She
mentioned that the HB 599 funding has its own position paper, and
Charlottesville and a number of towns also get 599 funding. She referred to a
comment by Ms. Thomas that the position paper does non include a comparison of
sheriff department funding to some of the high growth localities in terms of
ratio of deputies and citizens. Ms. Fronfelter said this would be very
revealing particularly for Albemarle County.
Mr. Bowerman agreed that it would show taxpayer equity and what they are
actually getting.
Mr. Tucker told Ms. Fronfelter that he has the information if she wishes
to include it. Ms. Fronfelter stated that she has a copy of the letter
relating to this matter, and she has shared it with representatives of
Fairfax, Prince William and Henrico Counties last Friday. They were very
impressed and wanted to pursue this argument with their legislators.
Ms. Humphris called attention to the first section of the Planning
District's Legislative Program dealing with land use and growth management
where it states, ~We support expanded authority through enabling legislation
to give local governments the tools to manage growth, including transfer
development rights (TDRS), purchase development rights (PDRs), impact fees and
adequate public facilities ordinances." Albemarle County already has the
authority to purchase development rights, and she wondered why the other
localities would not be in this same position. Mr. Davis verified that all
jurisdictions have this authority.
Ms. Thomas suggested that the wording be changed to, ~We support
expanded authority,- at the beginning of the sentence to'which Ms. Humphris
referred. Some of these items need authority and some need support.
It was the consensus of the Board to accept the 1999 Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Legislative Program.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
(The next two items were heard together.)
Agenda Item No. 19a. Discussion: FY 1998/99 Revised and FY 1999/2000
Estimated General Fund Revenues.
Agenda Item No. 19b. Discussion: FY 1999/2000 Budget, Allocation of New
Revenues.
Mr. Tucker said in October of each year, the Department of Finance
prepares preliminary revenue projections for the upcoming fiscal year, which
form the basis for the recommended budgets to come before the Board of
Supervisors in, March. In November, the Board of Supervisors traditionally
allocates these revenues to committed expenditures, General Government and the
School Division.
Based on recent revenue projections from the Department of Finance,
property tax revenues are expected to increase by approximately $1.99 million
over the current year. This increase reflects an anticipated 2.25 percent
reassessment increase and $100,000,000 in new construction value, as well as
increased vehicle sales and values. Other local taxes are projected to
increase by $1.98 million, reflecting increased food and beverage sales,
recordation and business license taxes.
The attached information (on file) allocates these new revenues to
committed expenditures, General Government and the School Division. The $3.97
million overall increase in local tax revenues is shown at the top of the
sheet, followed by the reductions required to fund revenue sharing and the
transfer to the Tourism Fund, for a net increase of $3.62 million. Increases
in committed expenditures are presented next, and total $733,339.
Based on the remaining $2.89 in uncommitted revenues, 60 percent, or
$1.73 million, is allocated to the School Division, and 40 percent, or $1.16
million, is allocated to General Government. This allocation provides an
increase of approximately 3.5 percent in local revenues to the School
Division, and a 3.3 percent increase in local revenues to General Government,
to address baseline costs, fixed costs and additional operating costs
associated with capital projects.
Mr. Tucker said 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. These projections reflect more current information
than was available for the March 1998 estimates. He has provided for the
Board's information the revised projections for FY 1998/1999 and estimates for
FY 1999/2000 General Fund revenues.
The revised projections for FY 1998/1999 exceed the appropriated budget
by $641,686, 0.64 percent. The excess revenues are due to increased food &
beverage, real estate, business license, and recordation taxes offset by a
decrease in personal property taxes. The decrease in personal property tax is
due to the continued slower growth in both vehicle sales and values. It is
anticipated that this slowdown will begin to reverse itself beginning with FY
1999/2000. The increase in state revenues and the decrease in federal
revenues reflect a re-allocation of social services revenues from less federal
to more state revenues for social services, as reported by the Department of
Social Services.
The estimated revenues for FY 1999/2000 exceed the current year budget
by $4,152,800, 4.14 percent. Real estate tax represents 41 percent of the
increase due to an anticipated 2.25 percent reassessment increase and
$100,000,000 in new construction value. Additional revenues are expected from
increased vehicle sales and values, food & beverage, sales, recordation, and
business license taxes. Social services revenues are responsible for the
continued reversal of state and federal revenues.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed FY
1999/2000 allocation of new revenues to the School Division and General
Government. Mr. Tucker said he or Mr. Breeden would be happy to answer
questions. /
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
O000S3
Mr. Bowerman noted that Revenue Sharing was not included under the
category of Committed New Expenditures. Mr. Tucker responded that this item
is shown in the Revenues section, and it could not be counted twice.
Mr. Marshall called attention to the 2.25 percent reassessment increase.
He has heard people say that Albemarle County officials are not increasing
taxes, but taxes are increasing by 2.25 percent because of the increase in
reassessment. Mr. Bowerman noted that every year the same percentage of
taxable income is paid to the state, which is an increas~ in taxes, but it is
not pointed out to taxpayers. He said the County has to have a public hearing
before it can increase assessments.
Mr. Martin stated that real estate is most people's most valuable
investment, and he does not mind paying extra taxes because his property is
worth more. This is beneficial to him, although he understands people on
fixed incomes have a different situation.
Mr. Marshall commented that he does not want to create the impression
that taxes are not being increased when, in fact, they are being increased.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the Code makes it very clear that a public hearing
has to be held. Ms. Thomas noted that the County also has to put an ad in the
newspaper to that effect. Mr. 'Bowerman said the state doesn't have to do
anything as far as letting taxpayers know.
Mr. Perkins stated that he knows of some properties that have increased
in price, and there are some that have decreased. He asked if the Supervisors
will get a report on the reassessments.
Mr. Marshall said in his district there were some people who had an
eight percent increase.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, responded that there are some
areas where the seven and eight percent increases will be seen, but overall
most of the residential properties are not showing this type of increase. He
went on to say Albemarle County cannot have a big increase because it is
already close to market value. If the reassessment was just beginning now,
with some of the things being seen in the real estate market today, there
would probably be some big increases.
Mr. Marshall inquired if Albemarle County is 97 percent of assessed
value at the present time.
Mr. Breeden answered that the sales state ratio studies shows Albemarle
County to be 97 or 98 percent of assessed value. Albemarle County is in the
top percentile of the state, and final numbers will be available by the end of
December. Overall real estate assessment increases average between two and
one-half to three percent. He mentioned that Albemarle County has been used
to 10, 15 and 20 percent increases over a two year period. He noted that real
estate is about the only source with any room to fluctuate.
Mr. Marshall stated that he thinks Albemarle County is fortunate to have
the 2.25 percent reassessment increase, because he knows of some areas in the
State that have had decreases in property value. Mr. Breeden concurred. He
said real estate is the County's only significant source'of increase, and
there is a 2.50 percent inflation at about the same rate. He referred to the
Board's discussion of the PDR funding. He thinks funding for this item will
be hard to find unless some sort of rate increase is considered. He cautioned
the Board members that they need to get through the budget process, before
they start thinking about money for some of the other programs.
Ms. Thomas stated that there used to be eight or ten percent tax
increases, but if the rate is not changed, Albemarle County is not essentially
having a tax increase, since inflation is at about the same level. She said
Albemarle County has gone from a situation where it was being praised for not
having tax increases, and there were, in fact, tax increases. Now this is not
a tax increase by anyone's definition.
Mr. Marshall said this is the point he really wanted to make. He
recalled when Albemarle County was taxed at 60 percent of assessed value, and
there was a lot of room to increase, which is exactly what happened. He said
now at 97 percent, there is no room to increase.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
000084
Mr. Bowerman inquired about the estimate of the amount of money the
meals tax would generate the first year. Mr. Tucker replied that the
estimated amount of money from the meals tax was $2,300,000. Mr. Breeden said
the estimate was correct.
Ms. Humphris stated that when budget work sessions are held, Board
members are very careful to acknowledge that there is an actual tax increase
even in those years when there is not an increase in the rate. The media
reports it that way, but the headline writers indicate there is no tax
increase. She added that this causes people to be angry with the Supervisors
for something they didn't say. Mr. Tucker pointed out that County officials
indicate that there will be no race increase. Ms. Humphris said headline
writers translate the fact that there is no rate increase to mean there is no
tax increase. The Board of Supervisors bear the brunt of this error, and she
hopes this can be dealt with over time.
Agenda Item No. 21. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 12:15 p.m., Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board go into executive
session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia; under
Subsection (1) to consider appointments to Boards and Commissions; under
subsection (3) to discuss the acquisition of property for a public road; under
subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific
legal issues relating to an interjurisdictional service agreement; and under
subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending
litigation regarding the denial of a special use permit.
Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
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. 22. Certify Executive Session
At 2:45 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms.
Humphris, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each
Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from
the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and
identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard,
discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
None.
Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 23. Appointments.
Ms. Humphris moved the following appointments:
Marcia Joseph to the Architectural Review Board, with term to expire on
November 14, 2002;
Elizabeth A. Isley to the Public Defender's Office Citizens Advisory
Committee;
William B. Harvey to the Advisory Council on Aging, to fill out the
unexpired term of Nancy Barnette, to expire on May 31, 1999;
Bruce Kirtley to the Piedmont Housing Alliance, with term to expire on
January 2, 2002; and to represent the PHA on the Housing Committee, with term
to expire on December 31, 2001;
Mr. Perkins moved the reappointment of Albert Humbertson, Jr., to the
Equalization Board, to represent the White Hall District, with term to expire
on December 31, 1999.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
000085
Ms. Thomas seconded the appointments.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
None.
Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Ms. Thomas said she wanted some guidance from staff, on whether the Board
should continue receiving the requests for Child At Play signs. She feels
that if people do not see children, they will stop paying attention to the
signs.
Agenda Item No. 24. Recess and Reconvene in Room 235.
Agenda Item No. 25. 3:00 p.m.
Meeting.
Joint Board of Supervisors/School Board
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Dianta H. McKeel; Mr. Jeffrey D.
Joseph (arrived at 3:32 p.m.); Mr. R. Madison Cummings, Jr. (arrived at 3:43
p.m.); Mr. Stephen H. Koleszar (arrived at 3:05 p.m.); Dr. Charles M. Ward;
and Mr. John E. Baker.
ABSENT: Ms. Susan C. Gallion.
OTHER STAFF PRESENT: Dr. Kevin C. Castner, Superintendent; Mr. Frank E.
Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services; Ms. Diane T. Ippolito,
Assistant Superintendent for Instruction; Mr. Michael R. Thompson, Director of
Human Resources.
Item No. 25A. Call to Order.
The Board remained in session, with Mr. Martin present.
Board was called to'order at 3:05 p.m.
The School
Item No. 25B. Compensation Study (Consultant's Report).
Mr. Michael Thompson, Director of Human Resources, Mr. Gene Poindexter,
Senior Vice President with Aon Consulting, and Mr. Jim Mullis, Vice President
and Senior Practice Leader, summarized the staff report, which is on file in
the Clerk's office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board.
The following statement is included in the Vision for Albemarle County,
adopted in 1994:
"A highly recognized, satisfied and well-compensated workforce exists in
Albemarle County."
This statement is consistent with research indicators for both the
public and private sectors, which show that employee salary and benefits
consistently rank as the two most important factors to individuals considering
a job offer. A strong compensation and benefits program is of significant
value to the County in attracting and retaining top-quality employees and
improving employee commitment.
Mr. Poindexter said that in FY 1995-96, Local Government and the School
Division collaborated with an independent consultant, Charles Hendricks, on a
comprehensive compensation study. The Board of Supervisors and the School
Board adopted and implemented many of the changes recommended through this
study in FY 1996-97. The most significant change as a result of this study
was to move away from the traditional step structure for classified employees
and to adopt a system of competitive pay ranges with minimum, midpoint, and
maximum salaries for each position. In addition, a merit-pay formula based on
evaluation scores was adopted for classified employees. This kind of
structure is prevalent in private industry and is becoming more widely
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
utilized in the public sector. The School Division has continued to maintain
a step structure for teachers, as recommended in the Hendricks study. However,
the teacher scale was expanded to 30 steps to make it more competitive,
especially for more experienced teachers.
Mr. Poindexter said that in FY 1998-99, both the School Board and Board
of Supervisors provided funding for the first phase of a three-phase plan to
reduce salary compression for specified classified positions and employees.
In FY 1998-99, both Boards also provided funding for a ode percent adjustment
in classified pay ranges.
Mr. Poindexter said that in August 1998, the County selected Aon
Consulting to assist in revisiting and reviewing the competitiveness of its
salary and benefits structure. This study was not designed as a reclassi-
fication study but rather as a study to refine the structure already in place.
In this study, Aon analyzed selected benchmark positions in order to
accomplish the following:
II.
III.
determine market competitiveness for these positions;
make recommendations concerning internal and external equity; and
make recommendations concerning salary administration guidelines
and policies.
Mr. Poindexter said through discussion with administrators and
department heads, 26 benchmark positions in Albemarle County were chosen for
review. Aon analyzed the job descriptions for these positions, related
organizational charts, and salary administration policies and guidelines.
Mr. Poindexter said Aon 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 more regional
or statewide. In analyzing market data, Aon used a professionally accepted
practice of ~aging" data to reflect the current time period and a ~geographic
assessor" to adjust salary data to the Charlottesville and Albemarle
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and labor market.
Mr. Poindexter said these recommendations are presented to both Boards
to consider for the FY 1999-2000 budget preparation. It should be noted that
all recommendations are subject to and based upon available state and local
revenues.
Mr. Jim Mullis reiterated much of what Mr. Poindexter said, but he
highlighted many of the positions studied and noted in the Compensation Report
(on file).
Mr. Marshall asked about the supply-and-demand ratio relative to
employment data. He noted Charlottesville/Albemarle has low employment.
Often, we have to pay more to attract candidates for some positions. In some
positions, we have too many people applying, and other positions we cannot
fill. Mr. Mullis said this area is not the only area in the country with this
type of situation. Everywhere he goes, this type of labor market problem is
an issue. It tends to be driven by what happens with new hires. The new hire
salary goes up (experienced new hires, new college and high school graduates,
new trade school graduates, etc.). However, the bulk of people's salaries
remains the same, so the average salary will decrease. There needs to be a
structure in place that allows flexibility to make market-competitive hiring
decisions. A variety of factors other than salary can be considered, such as
the attractiveness of an employer, physical location, competing labor markets,
benefits package, staff development, etc. The employer needs to look at the
individual specifics of the people who apply and at the job itself in order to
obtain the best return.
Mr. Baker asked how the positions to be evaluated in the study were
determined and if these positions were a residual of the Hendricks study. Mr.
Poindexter said after receiving information from the department heads and
school officials, the positions denoted in the report were selected to be
evaluated in relation to the relative job market. Mr. Baker then clarified
his earlier question and asked if the department heads and in some cases the
individuals felt that they (their positions) were not at the proper grade
level. Mr. Huff said these positions were determined by department heads who
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
000037
had identified these areas as hard-to-fill positions in terms of salary in the
marketplace. Therefore, this study was not derived necessarily from the
Hendricks study. Mr. Morgan said these positions may have been fine three
years ago, but because the market has changed, the dynamics of recruzting
these individuals needed to be reevaluated.
Mr. Mullis then highlighted individual positions as noted in the plan
that were comparable with market midpoints, positions in which the market data
suggests a new range, and the "across the board" versus ~pay for performance"
salaries. He noted the positions in which the market data suggests a new pay
range, in particular the Office Associate II and III, the Office Associate I,
IV, and V will also need to be reviewed due to overlap. The
Programmer/Analyst needs to have flexibility in recruitment due to market
competitiveness for this type of position.
Mr. Perkins said information on page 5 and at the top of page 6 appears
to be inconsistent. At the top of page 6, it is recommended that managers be
allowed to hire to the midpoint. He feels that this is sending the wrong
message because people would be hired at the market rate. Managers are
already authorized to hire someone above the minimum. He suggested using a
figure such as hiring someone at 90 percent of midpoint. Mr. Mullis said
discussion did occur about the manager of the department being responsible for
his or her budget, with guidance from human resources, which would not create
an atmosphere of hiring at midpoint but would allow flexibility in meeting the
marketplace, in particular in the recruitment of experienced hires. Managers
would have to request that hiring at or above the midpoiht be done, and it
does not necessarily allow them the authority to hire at market. He realizes
there are provisions already in place to allow this type of situation, but
more flexibility is needed. Mr. Perkins said he brought this issue up because
many employees do not understand the salary structure. What they are striving
for is the midpoint, and they may work 40 years and still not receive the
maximum. He is not sure how this should be communicated to employees. Mr.
Mullis said the county has been off the ~step" schedule for the past three or
four years. In a step schedule, you expect to move up to the maximum range.
What the employee tends to forget is that once he or she is at the maximum
range, he or she does not receive any more money unless the maximum range is
adjusted. What we have now is a ~dynamic" system with a structure that allows
competitiveness in the market. Few employees are paid at the maximum end of
the scale.
Mr. Mullis said based on the aforementioned process, Aon recommends that
both Boards consider the following recommendations for the FY 1999-2000
budget:
Based on available local and state revenue, increase the salary
plan four percent through the following:
Adjust the salary scales by three percent for both
classified employees and teachers and adjust salaries of
both groups in order to maintain the salary to midpoint
ratio.
Adjust the salary plan an additional one percent to be used
for step zncreases for teachers, for classified employees
under the minimum of their pay range, for promotions, and
for other appropriate pay adjustments. Some of this amount
could also be used to provide a "bonus" pool to recognize
employees with outstanding performance, since employees
would not be receiving a ~merit increase.-
2 o
Move the pay ranges for the following six position classifications
identified in the report (funding for this recommendation would
come from the one percent adjustment noted in item lB above):
Custodian, Office Associate II, Office Associate III, Police
Officer, Management Analyst II, and Programmer/Analyst.
3 o
Amend the current salary administration policy to allow managers
to offer a starting salary up to the midpoint commensurate with
skills, knowledge, and experience and subject to advance approval
of the Department of Human Resources.
Ms. Thomas asked if the consultant's recommendation was to change the
minimum salary but not the salary grade. She mentioned page 6 (school bus
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 000088
drivers - no change) and page 10 (school bus drivers - with a new minimum)
of the report relative to the recommendations for bus drivers in not
changing the grade but saying the salary is below the minimum point. Mr.
Mullis said some of the positions have a single issue, while others have
double issues that need to be resolved.
Mr. Koleszar asked about compression. The one percent salary
adjustment last year was used to move the salary range. He noted that a
Compression Study was done last year and compression issues are being
addressed. As a result of that study, we did not want to get into a
"lockstep" system because it defeated the Hendricks model and took away the
~pay for incentive." As long as the salary increase percentage is greater
than the salary structure change, existing employees will be compensated at
more than the changing rate. Mr. Mullis said the recommendations were made
based on the understanding that a commitment had been made to address the
compression issue. The data presented today is a level of that commitment.
The three percent is really an across-the-board increase. The "lockstep"
movement and financial restraints also need to be addressed in the near
future. Mr. Koleszar asked if the consultant's recommendation is based on
what the county wanted and not necessarily what the consultant felt it
should be. Mr. Mullis recommended that funding be designated for the
ranges and to address ~pay for performance" issues, reclassifications, and
any variety of issues that translate into using a benchmark of four
percent. The more that is allocated in moving people in the range (three
percent) the less money you have for other issues. His personal preference
is unless the county has a commitment, he recommends using the increase for
the merit budget. However, he noted there were issues that he still does
not grasp. He suggested that both boards question as a group whether to
make a commitment if ~lockstep" can be afforded. Some money could be used
to address the natural increases as a result of the ranges, and the rest of
the money could be spent wisely on those jobs that are recommended for
reclassification, as well as any other salary adjustments as appropriate.
Mr. Koleszar said last year both boards provided additional money to
address the compression issue but that additional funding went into the
merit pool. The range adjustment was a separate issue.
Mr. Mullis said the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has nothing to do with
raises. The CPI and raises tend to both go up and down at the same time.
Some areas are facing deflation, near deflation, or controlled inflation in
regard to the CPI while raises are starting to go up. According to the
CPI, it is erroneous to assume that you are protecting someone's standard
of living because you are protecting his or her buying power. It is the
wrong statistic to use.
Ms. Thomas asked if she could recap some of the discussion. By
comparing our salaries with the competition, Mr. Mullis recommends that we
should raise our salaries by three percent, and within our structure, there
are certain areas that are "out of whack" and that is what the additional
one percent should be used to cover. The equity question about the under-
minimum salary adjustments is also one of those areas that needs to be
addressed. Mr. Mullis said Ms. Thomas' recap is correct with a twist. If
you separate the "lockstep," then the ranges will need to be moved by three
percent. This is what is happening in the marketplace. It will cost
nothing to move the ranges until you start dealing with the salaries of
those people within the ranges. The ranges could be done with the three
percent. However, there is a four percent increase budget; if you are
~stuck" on the ~lockstep," you have just spent three percent of it on the
ranges. If you are not stuck on the three percent, then you have other
options.
Ms. Thomas said based on Mr. Mullis' explanation, ~he would like to
try and recap again. Based on the competition, our salaries are four
percent below what the competition is paying in our community. Mr. Mullis
is recommending that we move our structure, the minimum and maximum, up by
three percent and that we either move people ~lockstep" within that
structure up so that everybody receives the three percent, or we do
something else within that general increase of the three percent structure.
Mr. Mullis agreed with Ms. Thomas' assessment.
Dr. Ward asked how the CPI issue could be subtracted out of the
notion that once we raise our salaries for teachers, then the locality will
raise its. The School Division has been criticized regarding this issue.
Mr. Mullis said the impact is that the wages are raised assuming no
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
000089
inflation, allowing for more buying power. If salaries are increased, then
the CPI may also go up. Different statistics are used. Dr. Ward said with
teachers, sometimes it is hard to get market value. When we raise our
wages, someone else also raises theirs, and you "end up chasing yourself if
you are not careful." Mr. Mullis said it tends to average out partially
when average salary data is obtained; maybe ours is current, but someone
else's may be nine months old, so it averages out. A harder challenge is
dealing with ~pay for performance" when you can only give a six percent
increase to someone who is a superb performer and four percent to an
average performer. To him, this is a more difficult issue to deal with
than the CPI.
Mr. Mullis said although the primary focus of Aon's study is an update
of the earlier compensation study, Aon did include some general comments
related to benefits. Aon's America ® Work Survey, conducted in the spring of
1998, validated the role of compensation and benefit programs in meeting these
three human resource goals: ....
Recruiting and retaining qualified employees
Improving the commitment of employees to their employer
Enhancing employee productivity
Out of 23 benefits, employees rank the following as most important,
listed in order of importance:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Medical benefits
Employer-paid retirement plans
Employer-matched savings plans
Paid vacation and holidays
Sick leave/short-term disability
The ability to choose benefits that best meet their needs
Albemarle County's benefit programs generally meet these needs. The
three major benefit categories, from the standpoint of cost to the employer,
are health care (medical, dental, and prescription drugs), retirement, and
disability.
After several years of stabilized costs, health care is now entering a
new era of increased cost. Prescription drugs lead in causing these increases,
with anticipated "trend" {inflation and utilization) of at least 15 percent.
Medical trends vary by type of program as follows:
II.
III.
IV.
Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs): 3-5%
Preferred Provider Organizations (PP0s): 7-9%
Traditional Indemnity Plans: 10-12%
Dental trend going into 1999: running at 9-10%
Mr. Mullis said the 1998 average retirement costs for local government
employers nationally, as a percent of base payroll, is 9.4 percent, according
to a KPMG study which focuses on retirement plans. This percent is higher, as
a percent of payroll, than private employers pay due in large part to regular
cost of living adjustments found in 74 percent of local ~overnment plans.
Mr. Mullis said while a few public and private employers have talked
about combining compensation and benefits under the banner of ~total
compensation" for budget purposes, very few successfully adopted such
policies. In today's tight labor market, it is most important that an
employer's philosophy address each benefit separately due to their importance
in attracting qualified, committed employees. Mr. Poindexter said
realistically, job candidates first look at expected pay as the main driver of
their decisions, with benefits entering into the equation based on individual
need. It is the perception of disposable income versus some unknown future
benefit, such as pension or retirement benefits, that is hard to sell to
employees. Unless the organization has a strong communication effort and
employees buy into the ~total compensation" concept, an employer will be
challenged in finding good applicants and retaining current employees. The
option of choosing a competitor offering more money, higher annual increases,
incentives, bonuses, and possible stock options seem, in their minds, a better
choice than banking on unknown and usually misunderstood benefits looming in
the distance.
Ms. Thomas asked if the county's benefit package was 35 percent of the
total compensation paid to employees. Last year, comparisons were made with
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
000090
other localities to determine if we were market- competitive. The comparisons
indicated that we were markeu-competitive with other localities. She then
asked if the consultants considered benefits when conducting the study. Ms.
Mullis said it was done ~softly around the edges" as a part of the total
benefit package. Mr. Baker asked about the total percentage of the benefit
package and if it was 20 percent or 35 percent. Mr. Thompson said the 35
percent includes vacations, holidays, time off, etc. Ms. Thomas said one of
the facts thaE came up last year is that our benefits package was just not
competitive but "overblown.- She asked if our benefits package separates out
the salary and if it was out of line in any way. Mr. Poindexter said in
relation to other municipalities it was not. Municipalities have a tendency
to put a larger percent of pay into a retirement system, which has become
inherent in most public retirement systems in.relation to cost-of-living
adjustments (COLA). This drives the benefits package higher than what you see
in private industry. The benefits package is competitive in relation to other
public employers' as to how costs are allocated. Mr. Bowerman asked about
local market comparison benefits as far as the value of benefits. Mr.
Poindexter said the benefits are comparable to private sector benefits. The
private sector may have other benefits such as stock options that a public
employer may not have. Mr. Marshall said usually stock options are offered to
higher-echelon employees in this community. Mr. Poindexter disagreed and said
stock options are offered to many employees, even in this community.
Mr. Mullis said Mr. Thompson had background research information if
Board members were interested in obtaining a copy.
Mr. Tucker said it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors and
School Board consider accepting these recommendations for budget guidance in
preparing the upcoming 1999-2000 budget. The recommendations ultimately
included in the budget will be based on projected local and state revenues.
He asked Board members if they had issues that staff could address.
Mr. Bowerman said four percent is equal to approximately $2.5 million,
and, based on the budget projections after factoring out committed
expenditures and other areas, the amount is approximately $2.9 million in
revenues, in excess of revenues this year that have not been committed. Ms.
Thomas said this figure does not include any of the increase in benefits. Mr.
Tucker said it also does not include state revenues for the schools in the
budget at this time. This is a tight budget year, and much needs to be
considered before a decision is made.
Mr. Baker said based on budget considerations, he asked for additional
information about the recommendations relative to specific positions noted in
the report. Mr. Mullis said the data reveals a four percent increase in
salaries, three percent range movement. It is how the Boards choose to spend
the four percent that needs to be discussed. Mr. Baker then asked if
regardless of our financial condition, the information about positions and
ranges, the consultant recommends that we do something with those positions.
Mr. Mullls said yes. The bottom line is the three percent or four percent,
and the Boards need to decide how the four percent ~s spent.
Mr. Baker asked why the Office Associates IV and V were not considered
in the study. He thinks if Office Associates II and III are being recommended
for a change in grade, then the IV and V would need consideration. Mr. Mullis
said sometimes it is the "quirk" in the market comparisons when they are not
compared in the same way, or there was not sufficient distinction between the
positions to merit further study. It does not mean that changes are not
there.
(The next three items were discussed together.)
Item No. 25C. Preliminary Budget Discussion.
Item No. 25C1. Discussion: FY 1999-2000 Budget, Allocation of New
Resources.
Item No. 25C2. Discussion: School Budget Process/Presentation.
Mr. Tucker summarized the information (Item 19b) presented to the Board
of Supervisors earlier in the day. In addition, during the General Assembly
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
00009 .
session, we will find out what the state revenues will be for the school
division. No state revenue has been calculated in the proposed budget. Mr.
Tucker noted that with the consultant report recommendations, it would be
difficult to implement all of the recommendations due to budget constraints.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Baker if he wished to make a presentation. Mr.
Baker then summarized the following information of which a copy is on file in
the Clerk's office:
Public School and Local Gover~_~._ent Collaboration
On November 6, 1998, the subject of the most recent Curry Leadership
Forum will be New Models of Leadership for the 21st Century.Schools. He has
been asked to participate on that panel and will use the occasion to extol the
virtues of the Albemarle' County Government and Albemarle School Division
collaboration as being the most extensive and durable of any other jurisdic-
tion in the Commonwealth. That premise should serve to set the discussion of
our budget deliberations for the coming fiscal year.
The Virginia Institute of Government published a report, Public School
and Local Government Collaboration in Virginia 1997, A Compendium of Existing
Programs. The report was requested by the partnership of the Virginia Local
Government Management Association and the Virginia Association of School
Superintendents.
The report summarizes its findings from some 83 counties, 36 cities, and
one town in 15 functional areas of collaboration. Examples of the functional
areas include Early Childhood Education, Job Training, Parks and Recreation,
Financial Management, Personnel Administration, Information Technology, and
Legal Services. Actually we have other collaborative programs not listed in
the report. Of the 15 functional areas, Albemarle County has collaboration in
nine of them. What is most significant is that eight of the nine areas are at
a Level III--that is, collaborative programs are durable, and pervasive
relationships exist. There is not a jurisdiction in the Commonwealth, of the
120 that are included in the report, that can match this level of program
cooperation between the local government and the school division that we
experience in Albemarle County.
As we approach the formal process of developing the budget for 1999-
2000, he asked that the School Board develop a common me~sage from the two
Boards. That message is that we have demonstrated an unprecedented joint
commitment to fiscal responsibility and a dedication to providing high-
quality service to local government operations and school programs through a
program of cost-saving by sharing functional areas of responsibility, as no
other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia has done. The citizens of
Albemarle County are the beneficiaries of our efforts.
Level III collaboration is described in the report as follows:
"Participants bring separate organizations into a new structure with full
commitment to a common mission. Such relationships require comprehensive
planning and well-defined communications channels operating at all levels.
The collaborative program's structure determines authority, and risk is much
greater because each partner contributes its resources and reputation. Power
is an issue and can be unequal."
Successful collaborations operate in an environment where the political
leaders, opinion makers, persons who control resources, and the general public
support the mission of the collaborative effort. Collaborative members
interact often, update each another, discuss issues openly, and convey all
necessary information to each another and to people outside the group. Trust
exists between the partners.
There are some cautions regarding the obstacles to collaboration.
Ninety percent of the collaborative programs in Virginia were started in an
effort to reduce costs. Many times these efforts have unrealistic expecta-
tions regarding the success of each organization's mission accomplishment.
Collaborative programs are not a substitute for adequate funding. In most
instances, collaborative programs require periodic review to ensure that they
are accomplishing their intended purpose. We are undertaking such a review
today. In doing so, we must not confuse "collaboration" with "commonality."
Using the study on Public School and Local Government as a background,
let us enter into the formal budget process supported by the positive results
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
000092
we have had in the past. The School Board understands fully that while it
does not have funding authority, it has a responsibility to present to the
Board of Supervisors an accurate picture of the Albemarle County School
Division's funding needs. A critical component of the process is your trust
in the School Board that it has, with full accountability, carefully
considered each funding request and weighed it against the reality of
available funds.
The School Board has used several strategies in the past in bringing
projected funding needs to you to demonstrate its accountability to the
community. One approach was to use local government projections for the
coming fiscal year some eight (8) months in advance. However, we have found
that basing a projected budget on projected revenues has proved unrealistic.
Monies and resources estimated in November are arbitrary at best.
Another approach was to "Zero Base" or "Base Line" the school division
operations each year. We then considered an "enhanced" increment of ten
percent above the base and a ten percent "decremented" budget below the base
to anticipate an appropriate level that would meet approval. "Baseline"
budgeting from year to year does not take into account new programs instituted
and mandated by the federal and state governments that were not required in a
previous year. When we used this process, it demanded some six months of
staff time to recalculate and reappear before the School Board to justify
changes.
A third approach was to submit a "Maintenance of Effort" budget that was
predicated on projected revenue figures for a "balanced budget" provided by
the County Executive's office. This approach considered those school programs
and activities that would retain a status quo for instructional, educational,
and operational activities that could not be enhanced or expanded. We found
that it was not consistent with the goals of attaining high-quality education
for all our children.
For the budget considerations for 1999-2000, the School Board will use
all these strategies, because no single approach will fully satisfy a budget
process with an indeterminate funding ceiling and a continuous infusion of
unpredictable funding cuts and additions. We will therefore begin the process
by asking the Superintendent to couch the School Division's needs from the
base documents and tenets of the Division. The Mission and Goals of the
Albemarle School Division, the updated six-year Albemarle County Schools
Strategic Plan, the Individual School Improvement Plans, and the Annual School
Board/Superintendent Priorities will guide us through the budget development
process and will be presented as justification for funding. All these
documents exist now and, when viewed and considered together, should not
present any programmatic surprises for funding support.
The School Division budget development schedule with working sessions,
public input opportunities, and budget proposal dates has been published. It
represents some ten planning and school division department hearings, public
hearings, and another joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors, culminating
with the proposed budget being submitted to the County Executive on February
17, 1999.
The School Board invites your participation in any of these activities
as we deliberaue throughout the process. We ask for your trust in the
sincerity, accountability, and dedication of the School Board in presenting
its budget needs. We welcome the need to make concessions and to compromise
where needed. After all, these have been the hallmarks of the exceptional
collaboration between Albemarle Boards of Supervisors and School Boards, in
the past. Our mutual trust will ensure the continued high-quality service to
the citizens of Albemarle County.
Mr. Baker then provided the Board of Supervisors with a list of their
budget work sessions and public hearings. He invited the Board members to
attend whenever possible.
Mr. Marshall thanked Mr. Baker for his presentation.
Ms. Humphris thanked Mr. Baker for the leadership provided to the
Monticello High School Dedication Committee and noted that his attendance was
missed at the October 25 ceremony.
November 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 000093
(Page 51)
Item No. 25D. Executive Session: Legal Matters.
At 4:13 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms.
Humphris, to go into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the
Code of Virginia under subsection 3 to discuss the acquisition of property for
a school facility. 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. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Motion was also offered by Mr. Koleszar, seconded by Dr-. Ward, that the
School Board go into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the
Code of Virginia under subsection 3 to discuss the acquisition of property for
a school facility. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Baker, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Joseph, Mr. Koleszar, Mr. McKeel and
Dr. Ward.
NAYS: None.
ABESENT: Ms. Gallion.
Item No. 25E. Certify Executive Session.
(At 4:56 p.m., Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin left the Executive Session.
They had previously indicated that they had a meeting of the Development Area
Initiatives Committee to attend.)
At 5:01 p.m., the Board and School Board reconvened in open session.
Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that
the Board of Supervisors certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each
Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from
the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and
identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard,
discussed, or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Joseph, seconded by Dr. Ward that the
School Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board
member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the
open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and
identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard,
discussed, or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Baker, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Joseph, Mr. Koleszar, Mr. McKeel and
Dr. Ward.
NAYS: None.
ABESENT: Ms. Gallion.
Item No. 25F. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
There were none.
Agenda Item No. 26. Adjourn.
At 5:04 p.m., there being no further business, Mr. Marshall adjourned
the meeting on behalf of the Board of Supervisors.
Motion was offered by Mr. Joseph, seconded by Mr. Cummings, to adjourn
the meeting on behalf of the School Board. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
Nove
~(Pag
AYES
~AYS
~E~
Approved by Board
Initials ~
~mber 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
e 52)
:
;ENT:
000094
- Chairman '//
Mr. Baker, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Joseph, Mr. Koleszar, Mr. McKeel and
Dr. Ward.
None.
Ms. Gallion.