Loading...
1997-08-06August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 000 9 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 6, 1997, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Public. There were none. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda~from the Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Regarding Item 5.3, Ms. Thomas asked if the $300,000 is the City and County's combined occupancy tax which is then divided by one-half, or if it is possible that the County's would increase and the City's would decrease. Mr. Tucker said the latter situation could occur. This money is being provided as an incentive to the tourism market. Regarding Item 5.5, Mr. Martin asked what the chances are of the grant continuing. Mr. Tucker said this is a three-year grant funded by the federal and state governments, and that there are no local matching funds. Continu- ance of the grant is dependent upon that funding. Regarding Item 5.16, Ms. Thomas wondered if this decrease in collections is a continuing trend. Mr. Tucker replied, "Yes." Ms. Thomas asked if County staff holds the 2.5 percent back from the School system, or if the School system does it automatically. Mr. Tucker said the monies are held back internally by the School system. Regarding Item 5.4, Ms. Humphris said the language in the agreement on page three states that ~this agreement shall expire on June 30th of the year proceeding after the six months notice". She asked that the language be amended to make it more easily understood. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.7, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: School Capital Improvements Program, $908,300 (Form #97001). Based on Board approval on November 13, 1996, the appropriation provides the additional funding in the amount of $908,300 required for the Avon Connector Road. Funding for this amount comes from the reduction of three existing Capital Improvement Program projects totaling $281,079 and the transfer of $627,221 from the General Fund. This amount, along with existing August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Mee~i~i (Page 2) 000230 funds remaining, will be combined in one cost center within the School Capital Improvement Program Fund. Staff recommends approval of the additional $908,300 for the Avon Connector Road as detailed on Appropriation 97001. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: FISCAL YEAR: 1997/98 IffUMBER: 97001 FUND: SCHOOL CIP PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR AVON STREET/ROUTE 20 CONNECTOR ROAD. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1900041022800670 1900041022800955 1900041022800965 1900041022800982 1900041022800988 1900041022999999 UTILITIES ROAD CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC LIGHT SITE TESTING OFF SITE WORK CONTINGENCY TOTAL $5,0OO.OO 723,300.00 33,000.00 15,000.00 40,000.00 92,000.00 $908,300.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2900051000510110 TRA/qSFER FROM G/F BALANCE $627,221.00 2900051000512031 TPJtNSFER FROM G/F CIP BALANCE 281,079.00 Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Virginia Commission of the Arts Grant, $500.00 (Form ~97002) . The Virginia Commission for the Arts awarded Albemarle County a Local Government Challenge Grant for $4,500 for FY 1997/98. The grant is to be distributed evenly between the Piedmont Council of the Arts and the Virginia Discovery Museum. During the budget process, the Challenge Grant was projected to be $4,000 and was included in the original appropriation to Piedmont Council of the Arts and the Virginia Discovery Museum. This additional appropriation reflects the increase in the amount of the grant awarded. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #97002 in the amount of $500, as detailed on the appropriation request. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: FISCAL YEAR: 1997/98 NUMBER: 97002 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADJUSTMENT FOR CHANGE IN A~4OUNT OF THE GRA/ffT FROM THE VIRGINIA COMMISSION FOR THE ARTS. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100079000560401 VIRGINIA DISCOVERY MUSEUM $250.00 1100079000560410 PIEDMONT COUNCIL OF THE ARTS 250.00 TOTAL $500.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100024000240418 COMMISSION FOR THE ARTS $500.00 TOTAL $500.00 August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Me~ing) (Page 3) Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: ooo2a Visitor's Bureau, $150,000 (Form #97004). During FY98 budget work sessions, the Board agreed to place $287,376 of new transient tax revenues into the newly created Tourism Fund for tourism related projects. Subsequent to the budget adoption, City and County officials negotiated an agreement with the Tourism Council to approve an additional $300,000, which would require a $150,000 contribution from the County to the Visitors Bureau budget for tourism-related projects. The appropriation form allocates the County's $150,000 share to the Visitors Bureau for tourism-related projects that are expected to promote and increase tourism activities and, therefore, generate additional tourism revenues to the area. · The Visitors Bureau contract between the County, the City and the Chamber of Commerce revises the funding responsibility language to reflect the additional tourism dollars that will go to the Visitors Bureau from the newly generated tourism revenues. The funding formula for the Visitors' annual budget is the same as it has been in the past, which is the Visitors Bureau non-chamber budget divided by the City and the County with the County's share (and likewise the City's share) based on a ratio of the County sales tax divided by the combined City and County sales tax, plus the County lodging tax divided by the total County and City lodging tax divided by two or the average of the two factors. In addition to the old funding formula, the City and County have now agreed to provide an additional $150,000 each to tourism development with an increasing annual allocation based on the percentage increase or decrease in gross occupancy taxes collected over the base year. The Chamber's contribution is based on an amount equal to 100 percent of the membership dues, less the base membership fee, from its members in the hotel/motel category, 20 percent of the membership dues in the restaurant, caterers and winery categories, and ten percent of the dues from the Univer- sity of Virginia and members in the retail fuel, gift shops and antique dealer categories. The contract also continues the existence of the Charlottesville Regional Tourism Council. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #97004 in the amount of $150,000 and authorizes the County Executive to sign the revised Visitors Bureau contract. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: FISCAL YEAR: 1997/98 NUMBER: 97004 FI/ND: TOURISM PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO VISITOR'S BUREAU. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1181072030568905 TOURISM PROJECTS ($150,000.00) 1181072030568900 VISITOR'S BUREAU 150,000.00 TOTAL $0.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 Item No. 5.4. Authorize County Executive to execute Revised Agreement for Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and Visitors~' Bureau. By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute the following agreement: August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Mee~ihgi (Page 4) 000232 CHARLOTTESViLLE-ALBEMARLE CONVENTION & VISITORS' BUREAU AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of July 1997, by and among the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "City" herein), the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivi- sion in the Commonwealth of Virginia (the ~County" herein), the CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (the "Chamber" herein), and the UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA (the "University" herein), for the purpose of maintain- ing and operating the Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and Visitors' Bureau (the "Bureau" herein). The purpose of the Bureau is to promote the Charlottesville-Albemarle area as a desirable tourism destination; to provide information about the area to visitors who come to the Bureau; and to provide tourist information to potential visitors; to assist group tour planners in arranging local itinerar- ies; and to provide meeting planners with information on meetings and confer- ence facilities and services within the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. WITNESSETH: NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the following mutual covenants, promises and conditions, the City, County, Chamber and the University (the "parties",) herein agree as follows: [1] The parties shall operate the Bureau within the Charlottesville- Albemarle area to enhance tourism with the primary purpose to develop the tourism economy and to assist the individual tourist. The Bureau shall be an unincorporated association of the parties under the control of a Management Committee. [2] The Management Committee will manage the Bureau by: (a) hiring and reviewing the Bureau Director and the Director of Tourism Development's performance. (b) giving advice and direction to the Bureau's Director and Director of Tourism Development. (c) approving the annual budget of the Bureau before it is trans- mitted to the parties for final funding; and (d) approving all operation policies including other fund raising. [3] The staff of the Bureau shall be considered City employees and operate under the City's personnel-payroll system and its policies. [4] The Bureau headquarters and tourism development and assist opera- tions shall be located in the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation building located on Route 20 adjacent to Piedmont Virginia Community College. [5] The Management Committee shall meet quarterly or more often if required. The Management Committee shall be comprised of one representative from each of the Funding Members. The initial members of the Management Committee shall be the President of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, the Charlottesville City Manager, and the Albemarle County Executive. The Executive Vice President of the University of Virginia also shall serve as a non-voting, ex officio member of the Management Committee. The Committee may, if it so chooses, adopt bylaws not inconsistent with this agreement. [6] The Management Committee shall provide the parties with an annual accounting of the Bureau's funds and an annual report of the Bureau's activities. [7] The funding formula for the Bureau annual budget shall be as follows: (a) The City and County shall each contribute an amount based on the formula spelled out in section © below which added to the amount provided by the Chamber shall constitute the funds necessary to meet the annual budget requirements as approved by the City Council, the Board of Supervisors, and the Executive Committee of the Chamber of Commerce. August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Mee~g) (Page 5) 000233 (b) The Chamber shall contribute an amount equal to (I) 100% of the membership dues (reduced by a dollar amount, per member, equal to the Chamber's base membership fee, which is currently $195, for basic membership services) received from its members in the "Bed & Breakfast","Campgrounds & RV Parks," "Hotels", and "Historical Places" categories, plus (ii) 20% of the membership dues received from its members in the "Restaurants", "Restaurants & Caterers" and "Wineries" categories, plus (iii) 10% of the membership dues received from the University of Virginia, and, its members in the "Retail Fuel Oil", "Gift Shops", and "Antique Dealers" categories. For purposes of this calculation, receipts of membership dues for each calendar year shall be determined as of December 31 of the previous year. (c) The City and County contributions are derived by computing a percentage figure based on: CITY'S CONTRIBUTION SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: City Sales Tax Combined City and County Sales Tax City Lodging Tax + 2 Combined City & County Lodging Tax COUNTY'S CONTRIBUTION SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: County Sales Tax Combined City and County Sales Tax County Lodqing Tax + 2 Combined City & County Lodging Tax [8] In addition to the operational funding of the Bureau, the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle agree to provide $150,000 each for a total of $300,000 in FY 97-98 for tourism development. The twelve month period of calendar year 1997 will be considered the base line year for computing increases over the life of this contract. The $300,000 development appropriation will be changed each year by the percentage increase or decrease in gross transient occupancy taxes collected by the City and County in each successive twelve month calendar cycle over the gross collection in the base line year. Marketing budgets in years subsequent to the base line year will be submitted and approved by the management committee along with the Bureau's budget. [9] Additional responsibilities of the parties and/or Bureau; (a) The Bureau is hereby authorized and directed to provide to all Chamber members, regardless of whether such members are located in the City, the County or elsewhere, the same benefits provided to all City and County businesses. Any funds contributed by the Chamber pursuant to the funding formula may be expended for marketing and promotional projects to increase the number of visitors to, and extended stays in, the area. (b) Absent of council dues collection, the Chamber agrees to provide financial and administrative support to the Council for its effective operations. (c) In addition to its direct financial commitment, the Chamber agrees to provide services and coordinate projects which will support the Bureau's goals at the request of the Bureau but which cannot be performed by the Bureau due to staffing or other limita- tions. Any Chamber staff time and out-of-pocket expenses devoted to such services and projects shall be provided as agreed by the Chamber. [10] This agreement shall be for a three year period beginning July 1, 1997 and renewing each three years thereafter unless one of the parties gives at least six months notice prior to any July first that it does not wish to continue. If such notice is given, then this agreement shall expire on June 30th of the year proceeding after the six months notice. [11] The parties financial obligations hereunder are subject to annual appropriations by their respective governing bodies. [12] This contract continues the existence of the Charlottesville Regional Tourism Council (the "Council" herein) consisting of a Board of Directors of 15 August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Mee~ngi (Page 6) 0002.34 people appointed by the unanimous consent of the Management Committee. The Council Board of Directors will provide business leadership and enhance the economic climate of the tourism industry in the Charlottesville, Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa, Madison, Nelson and Orange Region by: (a) promoting cooperation, coordination and communication within the regional tourism industry; (b) facilitating cooperation and cross-promotion between regional tourism entities; (c) creating a better understanding of tourism's contribution to our regional economy; (d) acting as an advisory council to the Bureau to provide support and assistance. The Council Steering Committee may establish as many subcommittees as it deems necessary to carry out this mission. The Council has no authority to make policy or financially or otherwise obligate the Bureau. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is entered into on behalf of the parties on the date first above written by: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE CF_ARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA Item No. 5.5. Appropriation: Victim Witness Assistance Program Grant, $84,773 (Form #97005). This grant will expand the Albemarle County Police Department Victim Witness Assistance Program from a one person operation to a three person operation. The additional personnel will increase the amount and quality of services to victims particularly in the area of property crime. It will also assist with implementation of the Crime Victim's Rights Act. The grant totals $84,773. It will be funded with $67,818 in federal and $16,955 in state general funds. There is no local match. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation $97005 in the amount of $84,773. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: FISCAL YEAR: 1997/98 NLTMBER: 97005 FUND: VICTIM WITNESS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VICTIM WITNESS GRANT AWARD FOR 1998. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1122531012110000 1122531012210000 1122531012221000 1122531012231000 1122531012241000 1122531012270000 1122531012350000 1122531012520300 1122531012520302 1122531012550000 1122531012550100 1122531012550400 1122531012550600 1122531012580000 1122531012580100 1122531012600100 1122531012800200 SALARIES FICA VRS HEALTH INSUR3LNCE LIFE INSURANCE WORKER' S COMP. PRINTING & BINDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS LONG DISTANCE TRAVEL TRAVEL-MILEAGE TRAVEL - EDUCAT I ON TRAVEL- SUBS I S TENCE MISC. DUES & MEMBERSHIPS OFFICE SUPPLES FURNITURE & FIXTURES $44,561.00 3,409.00 5,174.00 4,126.00 156.00 80.00 3,000.00 2,550 00 318 00 499 00 545 00 1,585 00 3,740 00 440 00 350 00 1,200 00 5,200 00 (Page 7) 1122531012800700 1122531012800710 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT SOFTWARE TOTAL O00ZBS 7,000.00 840.00 $84,773.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2122524000240500 STATE GRANT FUNDS $16,955.00 2122533000330001 FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS 67,818.00 TOTAL $84,773.00 Item No. 5.6. Resolution supporting the use of Safety Funds for Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) lane restriping and Route 631 (Rio Road) installation of guardrail. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) is proposing to use $594,000 in Hazard Elimination Safety Improvement Funds for two projects: 1) the restriping of Hydraulic Road, from Route 29 to Whitewood/Lambs Road intersection to five lanes; and, 2) the installation of guardrails on Rio Road immediately north of the Agnese Street intersection. These funds are appro- priated in the District's Primary Road Funds and do not count against the County's Secondary Allocation. The five-lane restriping project on Hydraulic Road would be completed in FY97-98. This project is scheduled to cost $248,000. The road is now marked as a four lane undivided road. The existing road is wide enough to allow a fifth, center turn lane to be provided. Therefore, no construction or modifications are required other than resurfacing of the road. This improve- ment was identified in the 1995 Transportation System Management and Func- tional Classification Study, due to the high level of accidents experienced along this segment of road. In 1996, there were 28 accidents between Route 29 and Swanson Drive, the second highest road section total in the County. The most accidents occur at the intersection of Route 743 and Route 29 (a total of 30). A similar level of accidents also occurred in 1995. Based on the high level of accidents along this segment of road, the improvement appears warranted. The Rio Road project includes the installation of a guardrail on the west side of Rio Road, along the steep drop-off near the Agnese Street intersection this fiscal year. This project will also widen shoulders, improve horizontal alignment, and construct turning lanes. It is scheduled to cost $594,000. This will be accomplished by shifting the road to the east (the inside of the curve) far enough to allow sufficient space to install the guardrail securely adjacent to the road. Currently, there are no guardrails in this area because there is insufficient shoulder area to install them. VDoT has not finalized the construction traffic management plan for this project. Therefore, when construction will begin, how long it will last, and how traffic will be managed during construction have not been finalized. Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse a resolution support- ing the use of Hazard Elimination Safety Improvement Funds for these two projects. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, held its regular meeting on August 6, 1997, in Meeting Room 241, on the Second Floor of the County Office Building; and WHEREAS, the following Board of Supervisors' members were present: David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas WHEREAS, the following projects have been approved by FHWA as part of the Hazard Elimination Safety Improvement Program for Federal Fiscal Year 1997/98: August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 000 36 Route 631 (Rio Road) - Albemarle County From: Route 768 (Pen Park Road) To: City line Widen shoulders, construct turn lanes and install guardrail Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) - Albemarle County From: Route 29 To: Route 1455 (Whitewood Road) Restripe roadway to incorporate a five-lane section and appropriate intersection signal modification NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors does go on record as approving these two projects for addition to the Six Year Secondary Road Plan for Fiscal Years 1997/98 through 2002/03, so that preconstruction development can begin as soon as possible. Item No. 5.7. Resolution to accept Towe Lane in Village Square Subdivi- sion into the State Secondary System of Highways. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution: The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 6th day of August, 1997, adopted the following resolu- tion: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, a street in Village Square Subdivision (SUB 12.233) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated August 6, 1997, fully incorpo- rated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation has advised the Board that the street meets the requirements estab- lished by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road in Village Square Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR- 5(A) dated August 6, 1997, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unre- stricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Towe Lane from Station 5+25, end of State Route 1045, 938.41 lineal feet to Station 14+63.41, rear of cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 1/9/86, in Deed Book 864, pages 350-3, with a right- of-way width of 40 feet, with additional plats recorded on 5/16/97, in Deed Book 1612, pages 205-6. Total Length - 0.18 mile. Item No. 5.8. Proclamation designating August 26 through August 31, 1997 as "Albemarle County Fair Week". By the above recorded vote, the Board deferred this item until August 13, 1997. Item No. 5.9. Copy of Final FY 1997-98 Construction Allocations for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systems, Public Transit, Ports and AUgust 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000237 (Page 9) Airports, and updated Six Year Improvement Program through FY 2002-03, was accepted as information. Item No. 5.10. Comparison of FY 1996-2002 and FY 1997-2003 Final Allocations for Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systems Albemarle County projects, was accepted as information. Item No. 5.11. Copy of Final Secondary Construction and Unpaved Road Allocations for FY 1997-98 for each jurisdiction in the Secondary Roads System, was accepted as information. Item No. 5.12. Copy of letter dated July 7, 1997, from Mr. Arthur D. Petrini, Executive Director, Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, to Mr. Jimmy T. Mills, State Location and Design Engineer, Department of Trans- portation, re: possible impacts to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir as a result of construction of Route 29 Bypass project, was accepted as informa- tion. Item No. 5.13. Copy of final version of bylaws for the Thomas Jefferson Venture, was accepted as information. Item No. 5.14. Copy of Thomas Jefferson Venture Strategic Plan, adopted June 26, 1997, as developed for the VENTURE by The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, was accepted as information. Item No. 5.15. Report on attendance of County appointees to JAUNT Board, was accepted as information. Item No. 5.16. May 1997 Financial Report, was accepted as information. General Fund revenue projections were last revised in December, 1996. Preliminary receipts indicate that tax collections will be somewhat less than projected. General Fund expenditures have not been revised at this time. School Revenue projections were revised to exceed budget by $139,254, or 0.21 percent. School expenditures reflect a 2.5 percent holdback policy. Item No. 5.17. 1997 Second Quarter Building Report as prepared by th~ Department of Planning and Community Development, was accepted as information. Item No. 5.18. 1996 Development Activity Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics and Information Resources, was accepted as information. Item No. 5.19. Update on Juvenile Detention Facility and Proposed Juvenile Detention Commission, was accepted as information. Item No. 5.20. Copy of letter dated July 9, 1997, from Ms. Sara Genthner, Town Administrative Official, Town of Scottsville, to the Honorable Terry Hawkins, Sheriff, expressing appreciation for the working relationship between the Sheriff's office and the Town of Scottsville, was accepted as information. Item No. 5.21. Copy of Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) monthly Bond and Program Report for the month of June, 1997, was accepted as information. 5.22. Copy of notice of application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Appalachian Power Company for approval of an alternative August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) 000: 35 regulatory plan and for a general increase in electric rates, Case No. PUE960301, was accepted as information. 5.23. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board for April 10 and May 8, 1997, was accepted as information. 5.24. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for April 30, May 22 and June 19, 1997, was accepted as information. 5.25. Letter dated August 1, 1997, from Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, responding to transportation matters discussed at the June 4th and July 2nd Board meetings, was accepted as information. "We have the following comments regarding transportation matters that were discussed at the June 4th and July 2nd Board meetings. The Department is meeting with homeowner representatives from Forest Lakes North, Forest Lakes South, and Hollymead to discuss traffic calming measures and other transportation related issues. Widening of the South Pork Rivanna River bridges will in- volve reconstruction of the northbound lane bridge only. The existing southbound lane bridge will be widened, not recon- structed. Two lanes of traffic in each direction will be maintained throughout the project. The Department is monitoring Route 643 (Rio Mills Road) for the necessary regular maintenance attention. We will review with County Staff the need to place this section of roadway on the secondary six year plan priority list for improve- ments. Please find attached a copy of the recent legislation which requires a resolution by the local governing body in order that WATCH FOR CHILDREN signing be reviewed by the Depart- ment. A public hearing for the improvement project at Route 809 (Canterbury Road) and Route 250 west will be held on Tues- day, September 16, 1997, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Jouett Middle School. Media releases should indicate Canterbury Road in addition to Route 809. A privacy fence in front of the trailer park will be in- stalled by the property owner on Route 631 (Rio Road). Only after completion of the grading needed for the Rio Road improvement project can the fence be installed. A traffic signal head will be adjusted over the far left through lane for southbound Route 29 traffic at the Route 631 (Rio Road) intersection. A speed study has been conducted on Route 850 {Chris Greene lake Road) to determine if a reduction in the existing speed limit is warranted. The 85th percentile speed recorded was 45 mph. Forty six percent were traveling over the present 40 mph speed limit, 86% were traveling over 35 mph, and 99% were traveling over 30 mph. Accident data revealed that no acci- dents have occurred from 1/1/92 to present. Based upon the data presented the speed limit should not be lowered at this time. We are installing an additional 40 mph speed limit sign on the eastbound lane approximately 90' from the lake en- trance. By copy of this letter we are notifying the County Police of our findings. 000239 August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) Please share this information with the Board members. If there are any above issues I will be prepared to discuss them at the August 6th Board meeting." Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: October 9, 1996 and June 11, 1997. Mr. Martin had read his portion of the minutes of October 9, 1996, and made the following minute book correction: On page 31, paragraph 6, add a sentence (Note: The noise was perceived to be low by the members of the Board of Supervisors.) Ms. Thomas made the motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve the minutes with the corrections noted. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7a. Other Transportation Matters. Ms. Humphris said that the Board appreciated VDOT's and the Police Department's efforts to ensure the Georgetown Road safety improvements. noted that traffic is now moving much slower in this area. She Ms. Tucker said she had no updates to provide since her August 1, 1997 letter. Ms. Humphris asked if Ms. Tucker's update letters could reach the Board no later than the Friday Board packets are to be delivered, so the Board would have more time to review the items. Ms. Tucker said she would make sure the Board begins to receive them sooner. Ms. Thomas asked when the public hearing on the Bellair intersection will be held. Ms. Tucker responded that it is scheduled for Tuesday, Septem- ber 16, from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m., at Jouett Middle School. Mr. Marshall said there has been a rash of vandalism to street signs in his area. He has alerted the Chief of Police, John Miller, and he is asking that VDoT repair the signs. Mr. Marshall complained that the intersection of Route 20 south and the road to Monticello High School is creating a hazardous condition. He asked that a traffic light be installed. Ms. Tucker said she will work with the County to see what can be done to ensure appropriate sight distance is available. Ms. Humphris asked how VDoT will be able to manage two-way traffic while the South Fork Rivanna bridge is being replaced. Ms. Tucker said VDoT is still in the planning stages of this project, but two-way traffic in both directions has been guaranteed. Responding to a question from Ms. Humphris regarding legislation pertaining to "Watch for Children" signage, Ms. Tucker said the legislation calls for the local governing body to pass a resolution prior to VDoT allowing the signs to be installed. Ms. Tucker said the Board has to approve requests, and that VDoT has budgeted for some County signs. Mr. Bowerman suggested requests for signs be put on the consent agenda. Ms. Humphris mentioned that a plan for the Bellair improvement project now includes Canterbury Road, as well as Route 809. Ms. Tucker said that she has not seen a draft of the advertisement yet. 000240 August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) Ms. Humphris thanked VDoT for approving the Board's request for the installation of a privacy fence on Rio Road, and for moving the traffic light head at the Rio Road intersection. Regarding Item #41 in the Six-Year-Road Plan, pertaining to engineering on the segment north of Airport Road, Ms. Humphris said she thought the Commonwealth Transportation Board had said they would delay action on this item until the Route 29 corridor study was completed. Mr. Cilimberg said that VDoT wanted to use the study recommendations when considering improvements north of Airport Road to Greene County. Ms. Humphris thanked staff for their work on comparing information on the two Six-Year-Road Plans. However, she questioned the costs given for the Western Bypass. The figure provided does not include the North Grounds Connector and the purchase price of rights-of-way. Ms. Humphris asked staff to discuss this with VDoT to make sure they are using correct figures. Regarding Item No. 5.12, Mr. Perkins had pointed out that, although Mr. Petrini's letter said that the County did not need to worry because runoff from construction runs off to the East, and not into the Southfork Watershed, the County should still take runoff into consideration, because it ends up somewhere. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board should write a letter to VDOT to make it clear to the public that BMP's practices should be done on the entire project, not just what is going into the reservoir. It was the consensus of the Board to send a letter to VDoT emphasizing that Best Management Practices should be implemented for the entire Route 29 Bypass project, not just the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Petrini's letter read as follows: "Your letter dated June 12, 1997, concerning your progress on addressing RWSA concerns for possible impacts to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir as a result of the construction of the Route 29 ByPass project has been received and reviewed. The letter does address our concerns as previously stated, and we thank you for that. In order for both of our needs to be satis- fied in a timely manner, I suggest two actions: 1) I would like a set of plans sent to Mr. David Hirschman, Department of Engineering, 401 Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902, so that he and others in the County ofice could review the plans for erosion control features and the design of the permanent storm water facilities. 2) I would like to set up an arrangement where an employee of RWSA Or Mr. Hirschman who works out of the County Engineering Department would be allowed to inspect the erosion control and storm water facilities during and after construction, with the understanding that any concerns owuld be directed to VDOT for discussion and/or reso- lution." Ms. Thomas asked that a copy of the Route 29 Corridor Study Resolution be distributed to the Board. Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal, Decision of the Architectural Review Board (ARB), re: ARB-F (Sign 97-3) Pantops and (Sign 97-4) Berkmar. (Deferred from July 2, 1997). (Note: At 9:30 a.m., Mr. Bowerman excused himself due to an ongoing business relationship with the applicant and his family.) Mr. Ben Blankenship, Development Review Manager, said that, at the last meeting during which this item was discussed, the Board had asked staff to conduct additional research on a group of signs that the applicant had suggested set a precedent that would suggest the Architectural Review Board's 000241 August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) (ARB) decision should be overturned. Referring to a report that had been distributed to the Board, he said staff reviewed 20 existing signs to see whether the ARB has been consistent in its decisions. Of the 20 signs pointed out by the applicant, 17 were not reviewed by the ARB. They were either approved before the ARB was created, or they were approved administratively under the delegated authority of the ARB. Three other signs had been re- viewed. They included signs for Taco Bell, Moore's Lumber and Blockbuster Video. The Taco Bell sign was one of the earliest sign reviews conducted by the ARB, in 1991. No one had yet come up with the opaque backing idea. The Moore's Lumber sign was to replace a non-confirming cabinet sign, and the Board considered the improvement to be a step in the right, direction. The Blockbuster Video sign was similar to the item currently before the Board. The sign was approved under the condition that the background area was masked with an opaque material, so that it would not be illuminated. Mr. Blankenship spoke with the Senior Zoning Inspector to make sure that condition was complied with. There was a misunderstanding regarding how to apply the condition to that sign, which is made up of several different sections of canopy, only one of which contains lettering. Only the section that contains the lettering is illuminated. The intent of the ARB was that the background area within that section be masked. Zoning Inspection staff is working on the issue. Mr. Blankenship said the the conclusion of staff is that the cases brought forward by the applicant do not in any way erode the consistency of the ARB. In the cases where they have reviewed internally-lit cabinet wall signs, they have consistently, since 1993, required that the signs be masked with an opaque backing so that, when the sign is illuminated, only the message of the sign is lighted. The background area should all be dark. Ms. Humphris said the Board's position is not to regulate the content of the signs, but to regulate the way in which they are lit. The opaque backing must be present, signs bearing other content shall not be illuminated, and there should not be any wall wash from the signs. Mr. Blankenship agreed, saying that the content of the signs was approved by the ARB with conditions. Mr. David Pettit said he was present to speak on behalf of Mr. Franzini, the applicant. He said the existing Sign Ordinance does not confer on the ARB the broad authority it exercised in this case. He referred to additional research done to prior sign approvals, and he interprets the findings quite differently than Mr. Blankenship. The administrative approvals that are given by the authority delegated by the ARB are, nonetheless, actions of the ARB. It may have delegated authority to an administrative arm, but the actions of that administrative arm are the actions of the ARB. Mr. Pettit said there is a long list of items, in category two, of signs approved administratively, and under the authority of the County Sign Ordi- nance, which are similarly, and functionally identical, for the purposes of this inquiry, to this sign. Administrative approvals constitute a precedent the Board must look at in determining whether the Sign Ordinance is being uniformly enforced, just as much as in the cases heard by the ARB. The ARB stated conditions under which certain signs could be approved administra- tively, and he asked how some signs can get administrative approval that would not meet ARB standards. He did not know how it is determined which signs go to the ARB, and which are approved administratively. He suggested that there may be inconsistent application of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Pettit referred to photographs of signs that predate the creation of the ARB. Many are completely illuminated or wall-mounted with no opaque backing. There are hundreds of signs that are free-standing, internally lit, with no opaque backing, and which are lit from top to bottom. There is a significant number of wall-mounted signs that do not have an opaque backing and that are lit from top to bottom, both in the City and the County. He said the Fisher Auto Parts sign is a good example of existing signs on Route 29 North. Allstate's sign predates the creation of the ARB, as does the Schewell Furniture sign. The remainder of the pictures are of signs approved either administratively or by the ARB, subsequent to the creation of the ARB. These include the two Merchants Tire signs and an AMOCO sign. He said the latter is an interesting example, because there is a picture of this facility and its sign in the County's design guidelines as an example of a good application of architectural design criteria. This type of signage exists on both Route 29 August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) .' · 000242 North and Route 250 East. This sign is similar to the applicant's sign, not only because the word ~AMOCO" is lit, but the bright lines around the canopy are lit as well. The Eways Fine Floors sign was administratively approved. It was not to replace a previously existing sign, it is completely lit, and has no opaque backing. The 7-11 sign is completely lit. The Mattress King sign in the same area is completely lit, and was administratively approved. The same holds true for the Moore's sign. There is downwash from the lighting under the canopy immediately behind the sign. Regarding the Taco Bell sign, the band around the perimeter of the building is completely lit, plus there is substantial downwash. The Classic Furniture sign is in the same general area, with the same character as the proposed sign. Mr. Pettit said he believes consistent application of the County's Sign Ordinance and design guidelines require approval of the applicant's sign, since the signs that are functionally identical to the applicant's are being approved. If signs that are functionally identical are receiving inconsistent treatment at the ARB level, perhaps the guidelines must be reconsidered in order to provide more specific guidance for its application. It would be unfair to this applicant to receive different treatment from others proposing what are substantially identical signs. Ms. Humphris asked staff what determines whether a sign in the Route 29 corridor will be approved administratively or by the ARB. Mr. Blankenship said ARB policy authorizes staff to approve signs administratively under certain circumstances. He was not sure how that was done in the past. Mr. Davis said the previous Development Review Manager reviewed applications with the ARB, and then, with the Board's consent, handled the certificate of appropriateness administratively. Mr. Davis agreed with Mr. Pettit's statement that approvals are made by the Board through the ARB, and administrative approvals cannot be ignored as being actions of the ARB. However, the Board is not bound by prior decisions. The Ordinance is not static. It can be interpreted over time on a case-by- case basis, as to whether or not a particular sign is appropriate for the corridor, given the location and the character of that particular part of the corridor. Consistency is important if the situations and the circumstances are the same. He did not know whether or not these locations have differences which would justify different treatment. That would be important if the Ordinance is to be consistently applied. The fact that there a~e many other signs on Route 29 that do not comply with ARB guidelines does not mean the Board has to apply the guidelines any differently than what is being suggested by the ARB. He added that there are a lot of non-conforming signs. The planning theory is that over a period of time, all those signs will eventually come down and be replaced with signs which are consistent with the corridor. The appearance of the corridor will improve over time and be consistent with what the Board would like. Approving signs today because there are non-conforming signs out there that look different is not a good reason to stray from the guidelines. The Board of Supervisors needs to determine whether the guide- lines support the ARB actions, and whether or not that is in the best interest of protecting significant architectural features of this area with the restrictions on signs. If the Board makes that finding, it would be supported and upheld by the courts. If the Board feels the signs, as proposed by the applicant, would not detract from the entrance corridor and are consistent with other signs that have been approved, that would be a valid decision, as well. However, the Board has the discretion to apply the guidelines, which are very broad. Contrary to what Mr. Francine argued at the last meeting, the Board has the ability to apply the guidelines in a way in which, in the Board's judgement, and supported by the facts, is consistent with protecting the historical significance of the corridor. Mr. Martin said he was on the Board when the Sign Ordinance was passed, and Mr. Davis is correct in saying that the Board could not go back and tell current sign owners what they could do, but from that day forward there was going to be consistency as to new signs. If through administrative or other methods the Board has been approving certain signs since that day, on ten different occasions, he does not believe the Board can now say that is a terrible idea that should not be approved. He never understood why it was so important to have lights one way or the other, based on looking at the examples of what is already out there. That was an insignificant issue. August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) 000248 However, it is very important that, if since that time ten other people have done something a certain way, the Board must be consistent. Mr. Marshall said if the Board approves a sign administratively, and then if someone on the ARB comes back on another occasion, and for some reason does not like a particular company or individual business owner, he or she can succeed in having a sign disapproved. This would not be consistent. He does not want to put ARB members in that position. It is important to strengthen the Ordinance to maintain consistency and provide staff better guidelines, if they are going to be in a position to approve signs. He supports the appli- cant's appeal. Ms. Humphris said it is important to know whether the ARB is exercising its power correctly, whether they are following the Board's guidelines, whether the design guidelines are what the Board of Supervisors want, and whether the ARB had the authority, under the guidelines, to make the decision they made. She disagreed with the applicant's position. However, it is unfortunate that there have been other approvals administratively that are contrary to the ARB decisions. However, she said that is not the issue at the moment. The Board is dealing with this decision made by the ARB, under their guidelines, regarding whether these signs should have the opaque backing, that there be no wall washing, and that there be no signs advertising particular projects. She agrees with the ARB's interpretation and thinks the Board should support the decision. She does not believe any individual on the ARB would base a decision on his/her personal feelings toward an applicant. She hopes the Board will uphold the ARB's decision and keep faith in them, as they are doing an excellent job. Mr. Marshall said he did not mean to imply that there was an individual on the ARB with a grudge against the applicant. The ARB needs to maintain consistency, and when one examines what staff has done, the ARB has not been consistent with staff approval. Mr. Martin said a vote to overturn the ARB decision would not be a vote saying that they did not exercise their power appropriately. There is a bigger picture here. The Board does not have to base its vote on whether or not the ARB exercised their power appropriately or not. The ARB obviously has the power, but needs to be consistent. Ms. Humphris said that was the major point being made by the applicant, who said the ARB did not have the right to deny the request. Mr. Marshall said he agreed with Mr. Pettit's observation that it is important that the Board maintain consistency. With that in mind, the Board needs to revisit this matter and draw up better guidelines for the ARB so that they can maintain consistency. Mr. Martin said the Board was all over the place on this matter. They had asked the ARB to maintain historical integrity. "Historical" means non- conforming signs. Then the Board instructed the ARB to maintain historical integrity, except when it comes to signs. New signs must be maintained according to new standards set by the Sign Ordinance. The Board must maintain its integrity and consistency. If something was approved after the Sign Ordinance, whether administratively or by the ARB, it should serve as an example to the next applicant of how signs should look. It is not fair to say an applicant cannot promote historical integrity because there is a Sign Ordinance. They cannot be then told they cannot use signs approved after the Sign Ordinance was passed as an example, just because the Board erred. That would be completely and blatantly unfair. Ms. Thomas said the legislative intent of the entrance corridor was to upgrade the corridor area. Historically that means upgrading the appearance of the community, not looking at the worst examples of the past. She admitted that some of the signs presented as examples at this meeting are bad. However, just because ugly signs were approved in the past, and particularly if there are ugly signs in the City, does not mean ugly signs should be approved now. Channel lettering is the way most signs in the corridor are being presented these days, with a lighted background. This could be an administrative decision, or one that occurs because "high class" organizations are moving toward these signs. This shapes the character of the corridor. She is disturbed by the inconsistency of staff and the ARB, but feels they are moving in a consistent direction to reduce garishness. August 6, 1997 (Regular~Day Me'eting) (page 16) 000244 She said Jiffy Lube may feel the brunt of the decision to not have extraneous signs lit up at night which allow wall wash. She believes the Board has been fair. The present Jiffy Lube sign, with the tilted arrow, is a choice that they have made in the past that is an identifiable sign, but it makes a lot of sense to consider all three parts of what the ARB said on this issue, which is not to have a lot of extraneous signs illuminated at night, and that the cabinet should not allow wall wash, which greatly enlarges the size of the sign. She encouraged the Board, if it felt the opaque backing was not necessary, to still consider the other two aspects of the decision. Mr. Martin said he has no problem with requiring an opaque backing, if the Board is prepared to say, ~from this point on, that is what we are going to require." He does have a problem with decisions having been made since the Ordinance and new applicants being told they cannot install similar signs, if they are duplicating what has been done in the past. Similar signs ought to be in compliance with the Ordinance. Perhaps the first two years after the Ordinance was adopted could be termed "evolution". If he was to go out and found anything that was built after the first two years, he ought to be able to use it as an example or model, in making his proposal. If he cannot, there needs to be another identifiable time he can go to in order to decide how to imitate what is already there. If the Board wants to make today that time, and say that after today there will be no more signs without the opaque backing, then after today anyone can go out there and imitate anything that has been done after this date and know they have been in compliance. But, to have a situation where, in order for an applicant to follow this Ordinance, he cannot go out and imitate something else that was passed after the Ordinance had been adopted, that is not logical, and it is unfair. Mr. Perkins agreed with Mr. Martin. This is a matter of fairness. This application could have, in fact, been approved administratively. Almost a year ago a sign was approved that is almost exactly the same as the One in this application. He said that perhaps the Ordinance should be changed so that applications of this nature are not brought before the Board in the future. The Board could specify exactly what is expected. Ms. Humphris asked how the Board should deal with situations where administrative approvals do not seem to run parallel to ARB approvals. Mr. Davis said it has been pointed out that ARB guidelines pertaining to signs are very general, and if there are specific characteristics of signs that the Board has now identified as desirable since the ARB guidelines were adopted, staff should work with the ARB to amend the guidelines to address signage in a more specific manner, so that the guidelines are applied consistenty in every instance. Then, when administrative approvals are made, staff will have specific guidelines to follow to ensure they are being applied consistent with ARB approvals. It would be his recommendation that, regardless of the decision today, the ARB revisit the guidelines pertaining to signs and, in an expedited manner, bring back to the Board for approval amended guidelines for signs. Mr. Marshall asked if the Sign Ordinance should be changed. Mr. Davis said the Sign Ordinance applies throughout the County. If these guidelines are expected to be applied throughout the County, the Ordinance should be changed. However, if these guidelines are to be applied to entrance corridors only, that should be stated within the guidelines. Mr. Marshall said if guidelines are going to be put into effect, the Board should revisit the Sign Ordinance. Ms. Humphris said the Board was only talking about entrance corridor protection, and did not need to go to the extent of changing the Sign Ordi- nance for every sign in Albemarle County. She said there is a rationale for doing it in the entrance corridor to protect the historic aura of the County as visitors enter the area. Mr. Marshall said that is where the signs are, so the Ordinance should be changed. Mr. Blankenship said Mr. Davis had followed up on the recommendation that this matter be addressed by the ARB. He discussed the matter with the ARB at a meeting after the appeal was filed, and they will take the matter up with the new Design Planner once the position is filled. Everyone acknowl- edges that there has been a lack of communication between staff and the ARB on this issue in the past. The ARB is interested in clarifying its policy and bringing it before the Board to ensure that everyone agrees on what it should be. August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) 000245 Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve the appeal of ARB-F (Sign 97-3) Pantops and (Sign 97-4) Berkmar, eliminating condition #1 and affirming conditions #2 and #3 as follows: (1) (2) (3) thc ulgns .......................... cpaquc ..... i~, signs bearing other content shall not be illuminated, and the cabinets shall be closed at the bottom to prevent the wall- wash. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: Ms. Humphris and Ms. Thomas. ABSTAINED: Mr. Bowerman. Ms. Humphris asked that staff address the problem since there have been two difficult appeals on decisions pertaining to signs. Mr. Davis said it is important that the record reflect the discussion from the past two meetings. The Board supports the ARB's attempt to preserve the historical nature of the corridor, and that these conditions are essential to do that. Ms. Humphris agreed that consistency and fairness is the issue. Ms. Thomas said everyone who was in favor of the motion agreed that the guidelines should be changed, as opposed to saying this is upholding a decision on the merits of the desirability of that particular application. Ms. Humphris added that there was no approval of the merit of this particular type of lighting. Mr. Martin noted, however, neither had there been disapproval. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned at 10:15 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 8. Request to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B1, for W. J. Kirtley, Jr. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant, Mr. W.J. Kirtley, Jr., requests Jurisdictional Area designation for water and sewer to provide sewer service to property located on Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B(1) (See Attachment A). This would require access to the Crozet Interceptor which crosses at the front of the applicant's property. The applicant's property consists of 3.25 acres and is located outside of the designated Development Area on Route 250 West in the Ivy area. It is also located in the Albemarle County Service Authority service area for water only and a portion of the property near Route 250 West is designated for water and sewer. In 1984, the Board established a policy regarding properties in this area with preexisting zoning that sewer service should be provided only to portions of the properties which could be served by gravity flow and which drained away from the South Fork Rivanna River watershed. This action added that portion of this parcel that drained away from the South Rivanna River Watershed to the service area for sewer. There are four buildings located on this property. A realty office is located near Route 250 West and is within the designated water and sewer area. Three warehouses are located near the railroad tracks and are located in the water only designated area. The applicant has stated that the drainfield serving the three warehouse in the rear of the property has failed to the extent that the septic field needs to be pumped weekly. The applicant hired a soil scientist to explore the possibility of locating a new drainfield to serve these building, but there may not be an adequate area on the parcel due to extreme rock formation to provide an approved drainfield. The Health Department has indicated that the system may be in the early stages of failure, although at the time of the inspector's site visit the system was functioning satisfactorily. One alternative location for a new drainfield would require the abandonment of an existing well. A second alternative site is an "uphill" location which would require pumping and would also take up some of the reserve septic site for another building on the property. The subject property for this request is not within a Development Area. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning water service in the Rural Area: August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) 000246 General Principle: Utilization of central water and/or sewer systems or the extension of public water or sewer into the Rural Area is strongly discouraged except in cases where public health and safety are at issue. Recommendation: Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Area boundaries in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health or safety is endangered. The Crozet Interceptor runs along the front of the property on Route 250, so the application meets the adjacent line requirement. With the applicant's septic system backing up, the request meets the health and safety criteria. However, the warehouse site drains toward the water.supply watershed and, therefore, does not meet the Board's policy for providing sewer service to this area. This request is consistent with the strategies of the Comprehensive Plan for the provision of service outside designated Development Areas if further information were to be provided to substantiate the failing condition of the of the existing septic system. Regarding the policy for areas draining to water supply watershed, provision of sewer service may be necessary in this particular case due to the apparent failing system and lack of an adequate replacement site. Sewer service may need to be provided in order to allow continued use of the buildings. Staff recommends that the Board proceed to public hearing to consider amending the jurisdictional area map to allow for limited sewer service to the existing warehouse structures. The public hearing should be scheduled when the applicant has provided further verification of system failure. Ms. Thomas said businesses should not be able to grow as the result of connecting to a sewer line. She noted that there are two businesses on this property and wondered if there is an agreement that the buildings cannot be enlarged. Mr. Cilimberg said when existing structures are affected, the Board can put language into the action, but that is not the action taking place today. Mr. Richard Carter, representing the applicant, Mr. Kirtley, said Mr. Kirtley has dealt with problems for over a decade. This application meets the requirements set by the Board because 1) the property is adjacent to an existing line, and 2) the public safety and health endangerment issue. He disagreed with the Health Department, saying that the drainfield is far beyond the early stages of failure. It had to be drained 24 times in the past 26 months. He is not asking to expand to the building; he simply hopes to resolve a health and safety problem. Ms. Thomas noted that the drainfield is located beneath a gravel parking lot area, which she believes may lead to failure. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to set a public hearing for September 3, 1997, to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for limited sewer service to the existing warehouse structure only, on Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B1, for W. J. Kirtley, Jr. This public hearing is set with the understanding that if staff does not get the additional information it needs, it can move this date. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Agenda Item No. 10. 10:15 a.m. - Public hearing on a request to amend service area boundaries of Albemarle County Service Authority for water service only to TM62, Ps35(A),37&49K & water service only to existing struc- tures on TM62, P37A. Parcels located adjacent to Key West & Cedar Hills Subds. (Advertised in the Daily Proqress on July 21 and July 28, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg said the applicants, Key Commercial, Inc. and the Albemarle County Service Authority, are requesting jurisdictional area designation for "water only" for four lots located on Tax Map 62, Parcels 35A (2.5 acres), 37 (2.001 acres), 37A (5.956 acres), and 49K (2.092 acres). All the lots contain homes. These parcels are located adjacent to the Key West August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) ooo 47 and Cedar Hills subdivisions, but are served by the Key West community water system. The lots are located in the Rural Area. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on May 7, 1997, approved amending the ACSA jurisdictional map to provide "water only' to all lots located in the Key West and Cedar Hill subdivisions. This action was necessitated by the contamination of the primary wells serving the subdivisions. On June 6, 1997, a letter was received from Bill Brent, ACSA Executive Director, that indicated that the ACSA engineers had inspected the Key West water system with water company representatives and discovered that some properties outside Key West and Cedar Hills subdivisions are served by the community water system (See Attachment D) . As such, these parcels were not advertised as part of the Key West and Cedar Hills ACSA jurisdictional map amendment request. The Board of Supervisors is now being requested to hold a public hearing to consider "water only' designation to include these parcels that were inadvertently omitted from the odginal application. The subject properties for this request are not within a Development Area. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning water service in the Rural Area: General Principle: Utilization of central water and/or sewer systems or the extension of public water or sewer into the Rural Area is strongly discouraged except in cases where public health and safety are at issue. Recommendation: Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Area boundaries in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health or safety is endangered. The subject property is not located adjacent to an existing water line, but will be within close proximity of the new line serving Key West. The nearest existing line (Pantops water line) is located approximately 6,000 feet south of these parcels (Panteps water line). The new line will run along Route 20 North, then follow Key West Drive into the subdivision. Endangerment to public health and safety was verified as a part of the original Key West/Cedar Hill jurisdictional area consideration. The Virginia Department of Health-Office of Water Programs confirmed ground water contamination of the Key West community wells and indicated that the best alternative to serve the homes on the water system is a connection to the Pantops water line. Because these homes are currently provided service by the Key West water system, staff believes that it would be reasonable to provide these properties the same jurisdictional area designation for public water as has been provided to Key West and Cedar Hills. Three of the four lots (TM 62, Parcels 35A, 37 and 49K) requesting an amendment do not have any division rights. Therefore, staff believes that the effect on the intent of the Comprehensive Plan of designating these parcels for "water only" is minimal since no additional lots can be created. Therefore, staff recommends proceeding to public hearing to consider amending the jurisdictional area map to allow for "water only" designation for the lots located on Tax Map 62, Parcels 35A, 37, and 49K. The lot located on TM 62, Parcel 37A does have division rights (for one additional lot). By designating this parcel for" water only' may more easily allow for additional development of this parcel that may otherwise not be possible if public water was eot available. Typically, when public water has been granted in the rural area, it has been limited to existing sb'uctures only. Because this parcel is outside of the Key West subdivision and has a division right, to be consistent with other rural parcels it is recommended that this parcel proceed to public hearing for "water only to existing structures. Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing. As no one was present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water service only to TM62, Ps35(A),37&49K and water service only to existing structures on TM62, P37A. August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) AYES: NAYS: 000248 Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. (Note: At 10:30 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:44 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 11. 10:30 a.m. - Public hearing on proposed amendments to Chapter 10.1 of Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to require applicants for concealed handgun permits who reside in Albemarle County to submit to fingerprinting & to provide personal descriptive information to the Sheriff in order to determine suitability for concealed handgun permit. The fingerprints and personal descriptive information would be submitted by the Sheriff to State Police & FBI for national criminal history records check. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 21 and July 28, 1997.) Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Joe Flamini, an instructor at the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club, said anyone carrying a gun should know how to handle it. He said ~suitability for carrying a concealed weapon" is determined by an NCI computer check, which is not sufficient. If someone has no criminal record or is not mentally ill, there is no reason they would not be able to obtain a permit. There is also a limit imposed on fees, so the extra $24 this will cost cannot be passed on to the individual; it is paid by the County. Mr. Davis provided the Board with additional background information. As of July 1, 1997, a local ordinance is required for the permitting process to require that fingerprints be taken and sent for a federal records check. In the past, this was done at the state level. This Ordinance will continue the status quo of what was being done prior to July 1, 1997. It does not change anything else. The law has additional protections regarding fingerprint records. Once the records are processed, they are returned to the local sheriff's department and then the records are destroyed. Mr. Marshall asked if fingerprinting could no longer be done if he opposed the ordinance. Mr. Davis said if the ordinance is not passed, it is correct that fingerprinting can no longer be done. The ordinance is required in order to do what has been done in the past. Standards are not being changed. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the County was being charged by the FBI prior to July 1, 1997. Mr. Davis said the County charges a $15 application fee, plus a $30.00 fee after training. Part of that fee is sent to the FBI. The statue now specifies the amount of the fee that goes to the FBI, which has not changed~ Mr. Tom Hill, a City resident, said the effect may be to intimidate law- abiding people. The FBI fingerprinting process costs $24. Because the maximum fee mandated by the state is $50 per applicant, any excess processing fee will have to be picked up by the County. Fingerprint records may not be copied by anyone and must be returned to the County to be returned to the applicant within 21 days, which is another administrative function. The state mandates that permits be issued within 45 days. He pointed out that felons would not request permits, so this is a bureaucratic attempt to harass law- abiding citizens. Mr. Doug Lukas expressed opposion to the amendment. Criminals will not apply for a concealed weapon permit. The County should reduce government bureaucracy and use valuable law enforcement resources to protect life and property. Mr. Jim Lark asked why this was discussed at a day meeting instead of a night meeting to allow more public input. He wanted to know the explicit language of the text pertaining to personal information. Mr. Martin said the Board did not think it was a controversial item or they would have presented it at an evening meeting. Mr. Eric Stresbeck spoke against the amendment. When fingerprinting is associated with law-abiding behavior, he is concerned. The current processes August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) 000249 are in place. The proposal will divert police efforts and money from more important activities and will harass law-abiding citizens. Mr. Marshall said he carries a handgun because he deals with legal drugs, and has been held up while working late. He now has a permit so that he can protect himself. He will not support the motion because he is a member of the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club, and the members unanimously opposed the amendment. No law-abiding citizen will be denied a permit and felons will not apply. He asked if any law-abiding citizen would be denied a permit if the Board did not approve the amendment. Captain Lugar, of the Sherif's Department, said the County now relies on applicants' information being accurate, and fingerprints'make sure it is. The Sheriff supports the amendment because his office has to make recommendations to the judge on each application. Law-abiding citizens will not be denied a permit, and this is not an additional layer of information requested. Currently a social security number is required information on an individual, but an officer cannot prove the identity of the person. Mr. Martin pointed out that people can get fake identifications. Mr. Marshall said that addi- tional information should be required. Captain Lugar said there is no investigation. When courts do not send the correct information on to other resources, fingerprints are an extra protection. Captain Lugar was unsure of what the FBI's fees are now, but said the Circuit Court collects a one-time fee of $50. Mr. Tucker said the County already funds this, and there will be no additional charge to the applicant. Captain Lugar said the process would not be a deterrent to law-abiding citizens. One criminal was discovered out of 4,500 applications in Fairfax County, implying that criminals do not apply for permits. The Sheriff's Department already does this work every day. Judge Peatross has not indicated whether he is in favor of the amendment. He told Captain Lugar he would rely on the Sheriff and Captain to make a recommendation because he relies on them to know what is best. Mr. Martin said this is no different from what the County is doing now. He believes there must be access to state and federal records. Mr. Martin made the motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to amend Chapter 10.1 of Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to require applicants for concealed handgun permits who reside in Albemarle County to submit to finger- printing and to provide personal descriptive information to the Sheriff in order to determine suitability for concealed handgun permit. The fingerprints and personal descriptive information would be submitted by the Sheriff to State Police and FBI for national criminal history records check. Ms. Thomas said this will not require additional time from the Sheriff's Department, will not prevent law-abiding citizens from getting a gun, is using the same process as was used before July 1, 1997, and fingerprinting will be a deterrent to criminals. Mr. Bowerman said if the elected law enforcement officer recommends the amen.d, men. t and says that without the amendment~safety is jeopardized; it is~ ~nfc?Y~r~c. ila supports the amendment because it is not changing anything and does not add a burden to the Sheriff's Department. It does not deter law- abiding citizens from obtaining permits and might deter criminals from applying. Ms. Humphris agreed with Mr. Bowerman. The Board must do what is in the greater public's interest and provide the Sheriff's Department with the ability to conduct its checks. Mr. Marshall said the County is not relying only on federal government checks. Mr. Perkins asked what would happen if the Board did not approve the amendment. Mr. Davis said fingerprints would not be collected, FBI records checks would not be run, and the Sheriff's Department would have to simply rely upon the applicants telling the truth about who they are and then relying upon a state records check. Mr. Marshall said nothing says the permit has to be issued. Mr. Davis replied, byes, it does." Under the law now, unless there is a finding that one of these six or seven things that disqualify you from carrying a gun permit are discovered, the court is obligated to issue the August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) 000250 permit. Mr. Marshall said the Sheriff's Office already has six or seven items they can check; they just need to check them out. Mr. Davis said those are not subjective things. They include convictions of certain crimes, certain restraining orders, illegal alien status, convictions of drunkenness or mental incompetency. If those findings are not in the record, the court must issue the permit. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Mr. Marshall. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 97.10.1 (1) AN ORDINAlqCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 10.1, LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 10.1, Law Enforcement is hereby amended and reordained by adding section 10.1-4, Concealed Handgun Permits, as follows: Sec. 10.1-4. Concealed Handgun Permits. AS a condition for issuance of a concealed handgun permit pursuant to section 18.2-308 of the Code of Virginia, and in order to determine the suitability for a concealed handgun permit, any applicant for such permit who resides in the County of Albemarle shall be fingerprinted by the Sheriff and shall provide personal descriptive information. The fingerprints and personal descriptive information shall be forwarded by the Sheriff through the Central Criminal Records Exchange of the Virginia State Police to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a national criminal history record check. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of five to one, at a regular meeting held on August 6, 1997. Agenda Item No. 12. Presentation on proposal for biological inventory of Albemarle County, by Tom Olivier, Citizens for Albemarle. Mr. Tom Olivier, representing Citizens for Albemarle, and Mr. John Hermsmeier, presented a proposal for an inventory of Albemarle County's biological resources. Mr. Olivier said he was present at the request of the Planning Commis- sion, who saw the presentation at a work session on the natural environment section of the Comprehensive Plan update on June 17, 1997. The staff report for the work session had recommended that a biological inventory be conducted in the County. The Commission showed a strong interest in the proposal, and staff have been instructed to investigate experiences of other communities with such inventories. Some of the Commissioners suggested that the Board of Supervisors might wish to have input into the handling of the proposal. His intent is to deliver a compressed version of the presentation provided to the Commission, and ask that the Board encourage the Commission and staff to vigorously explore means of implementing the inventory now. The Piedmont Environmental Council and Virginia State Forestry Department supports the recommendation, as well. In the 1994 Planning Needs Survey, protection of open space and natural resources was found to be a top priority of residents, but the Planning District's information showed that, if current trends continue, these re- sources will disappear. The County needs to survey its biological resources. Some work has already been done. There has been a study of water resources, and the County now has a Water Resource Manager. An Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee has been created. The County has inventoried its histori- A%lgust 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000251 (Page 23) cal resources and created a Historic Preservation Committee. There was a highly detailed soil survey conducted. There is an Infill Committee and a Purchase of Development Rights Committee. However, the County has not yet surveyed its biological resources, nor has it created a Biological Resources Advisory or Protection Committee, which is a dangerous omission. Things are becoming extinct on earth, and the County has not escaped reductions in its biological resources. Trends and their causes were reviewed in the publication "Protecting Our Biological Heritage" last year. The need for an inventory has been recognized previously in the Open Space Plan, which was adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. It called for such an inventory and use of the data in inventory and planning processes. However, the inventory has not yet been carried out. Mr. John Hermsmeier, Program Director of the Environmental Education Center and a member of the Board of Directors of Citizens for Albemarle and the Biodiversity Committee, read Professor Mike Mellon's presentation, in his absence. Citizens for Albemarle is proposing a multi-level proposal whose long-term goal is to encourage Albemarle County to conserve areas of forest and other landscapes and natural habitats. This will ensure that these habitats are protected and preserved from future commercial and residential development. He then said that healthy landscapes provide free services that are essential to humans' well-being, although we take them for granted. Non- agricultural, healthy landscapes consist of forest, marshes, wetlands and grasslands. Human beings extract raw materials from the landscapes. It costs $33 trillion to provide the essential services of the world's ecological systems, yet they are often given too little weight in policy decisions. This neglect may ultimately compromise the sustainability of humans in the bio- sphere. Albemarle County citizens are concerned about the preservation of its natural landscapes. The County's essential ecosystem infrastructure system is being eroded piecemeal at what will surely be a devastating economic and cultural cost to the County and its citizens. He asked who would pay the half million dollars it will lose in essential services by the destruction of over 200 acres of woodlands in order to accommodate the Route 29 bypass. He urged that this protection be encompassed in the new Comprehensive Plan that will guide the decisions of County planners for the foreseeable future. Mr. Olivier then summarized the major points in a document on the proposal for the protection of biodiversity in the County. The County should create a Biological Resources Advisory Committee, composed of residents who would oversee the establishment of biological conservation as an element in local planning processes. There should be an inventory of the County's biological resources and a means to identify areas with such resources. Criteria should be developed to identify parcels of land suitable for long- term protection to foster biodiversity. Recommendations should be developed for hiring a staff conservation biologist. The proposal is to begin the inventory in January, 1998, finishing by January, 1999. The Forestry Depart- ment and faculty from the Environmental Sciences Department at the University support the recommendation, and several persons have offered assistance. The survey, which will not be intrusive, should be conducted in association with other regional, state and national projects. The geographical information system in the County should provide a framework for management of the data. He proposed that the results of the preliminary inventory be used for four purposes: 1) ranking land areas of high diversity biodiversity value, 2) identification of areas that should be avoided for conversion to more intensive uses such as growth areas, 3) development of criteria for acceptance of parcels in long-term protection programs with financial incentives, and 4) provide a starting point for the development of a more complete and refined inventory of the County's biological resources. The refinement of the inventory would be the responsibility of the staff biologist. It would allow a better understanding of the needs of the County's ecosystems and identifica- tion of restoration possibilities, and clearer targets for kinds, locations and areas of lands to be accepted into long-term protection programs. Mr. Olivier said he had not attempted to estimate the cost of the proposal. Instead a method was developed, which, in manhours, required a modest investment. Mr. Tom Smith, Director of Virginia's Natural Heritage Program, told him that inventories his division performed for Virginia Beach and other localities cost roughly $90,000 to $100,000 each. Costs will vary, however. Mr. Smith and Mr. Steve Pike, Director of the Virginia Museum of August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) 00O252 Natural History, indicated a willingness to discuss being a consultant to the County. Mr. Olivier suggested that Planning staff, in the course of consider- ation of an inventory by the Commission, could work on the development of realistic cost figures, so that if this comes to a public hearing, an accurate estimate of costs would be included. He said the survey would not be intrusive, and methods proposed fell within the envelope of legal precedent and accepted past practices. For example, the soil survey in the County, included the collection of soil samples from around the County. Concerns expressed about intrusiveness are largely misplaced. Residents of the County attach a high value to its natural resources and open space. The natural resources have aesthetic and economic value. Some are necessities of life. In the face of growth, the County will be left with less open space, unless additional steps are taken to protect it. The County cannot determine which open space merits long-term protection unless it knows which resources are available. In adopting the Open Space Plan five years ago, the County recognized the need for a biological inventory in its Open Space Protection Strategy. He asked the Board to encourage the Commission to give full and careful consideration to the proposal. Mr. David Tice said he was not prepared to speak for or against the proposal, since it was now before the Commission. However, having worked with biological inventories, he addressed some questions that frequently arise. He said the survey would not be intrusive on people's property rights. Invento- ries are only conducted after permission has been obtained from property owners. Additionally, an inventory would not mean that someone could not have reasonable use of their property. He specializes in the management of properties that have rare and endangered species on them. Identification of a heritage resource does not preclude a reasonable economic use of property. It does, however, result in some changes in how the property may be managed. He thinks it is better to know in advance where these resources are and how they can be managed than to be halfway through a project before discovering a problem. That is when it becomes costly. The Commission believes there is a great deal of merit in the proposal, but it is a new element in the Comprehen- sive Plan. The Commissioners hope the Board will provide direction. Ms. Karen Dame said it has been asked why this is a County government issue. This is new territory in the Comprehensive Plan. Referring to an article in the Board informative packet on values, she said the article states that it is trivial to ask what the value of the atmosphere, rocks or soil infrastructure are as support systems to humankind. It is meaningful to ask how changes in the quantity or quality of various types of natural capital in the ecosystems services may have an impact on human welfare. Changes to ecological systems will alter the costs or benefits of maintaining human welfare. Some argue that valuation of ecosystems is either impossible or unwise. The article states that no value can be placed on intangible bene- fits. However, she said, humans do so every day when setting construction standards for highways, bridges, etc. As long as choices must be made, there will be a process of valuation. The cost of maintaining human welfare is a County government issue. It is a County government issue to the ~xtent that the County supports committees that work toward making decisions for the community. The County has recently applied to the State as a central player in a strategic plan where the number one priority item in that plan is preservation of the beauty of the area by identifying and describing the areas to be protected and the mechanisms to preserve them. The definition of beauty in the article is ~'natural beauty, rural environment, natural resources and natural environment". Having the County conduct the inventory will give tools to the people who are trying to do the other initiatives such as the Infill Committee, etc. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Cilimberg to provide a brief overview of where the Commission and staff are in regard to the Comprehensive Plan, specifically as it relates to biodiversity. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission has been reviewing components of the natural environment section. There has been one work session. There will be an environmental section added to the Comprehensive Plan when it is completed, an action agenda for things to be done beyond approval, as well as recommenda- tions. A public hearing will then be held on the full section of the Plan, and it will be forwarded to the Board for a public hearing. August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 000253 Mr. Marshall asked if this was to incorporate all the plans, including the Open Space Plan, the Meadow Creek Parkway, etc. Mr. Cilimberg said the Environmental Section will bring all the data together. Mr. Marshall expressed concern about how this will be funded. Someone has to pay for this, and he asked if the Board is creating an environment where people cannot afford to live in the County because of the costs. Although it is the duty of the Board to protect resources for the citizens, the citizens must be protected too. He objects to taking anyone's land from them. Mr. Olivier said the direct costs to the County would be modest, due to cooperative agreements with other people. Aesthetic beauty is often what attracts people, and protection of these resources is fundamental to human life. His group is concerned about the impact of many policies on low-income residents. However, the County must protect natural resources or there will be no quality of life. Rules impact human life, and the benefits must be weighed against the costs. Mr. Marshall said he was referring to people who own property that may be taken from them "for the good of everyone else". He said there is no money available to buy the land and wondered where it would come from. Mr. Olivier said the information would be used as other information is used. There will be no new level of intrusion, and no land would be taken from anyone. He added that Mr. Perkins has already said that money must be found to protect resources. The County has to establish criteria to protect everyone. Ms. Humphris pointed out that the Board was only being asked to provide guidance to the Commission to examine the proposal. Mr. Marshall argued that, if there is a cost to the protection somewhere down the line, the Board needs to know what the cost will be. Ms. Thomas said the County is learning how to deal with issues of protection, and it must first define what "protection" means and identify what is to be protected. Mountaintop protection has delineated ridges along with a plan which is being more widely accepted in the community because people can see what is being discussed. An inventory of biological resources is needed to overcome people's fears. If people feel the Board is going to block out areas in the County that are to be left alone, there will be fear. The County should first define the resources, and then determine how to protect them. Mr. Marshall said the Board has to approach its citizens and ask them how much they are willing to pay to preserve resources. Ms. Thomas said there are volunteers, but it will require staff time to conduct an inventory, and it has been included in the Open Space Plan for years. Eventually resouces will be lost if something is not done soon. Information from such an inventory will be useful to the County as it plans for the future. She said the County must be more aggressive in getting this moving, but wondered how to tie this information into planning efforts. Mr. Cilimberg said Planning can make recommendations, but eventually the Board will have to determine how much staff time and expense is going to be expended. Ms. Humphris said that the public will be given an idea of the cost of such an effort during the public hearing. Mr. Bowerman said the Commission must make a recommendation as to whether to move forward with the inventory, and how it will be conducted. There is a lot of expertise in the County, and it should be taken advantage of. This could perhaps come from volunteers' contributions. He said there needs to be some overarching authority, such as a consultant, to coordinate volunteer and staff resources, satellite imagery, etc. A consultant could pull things together to prepare a report to ensure the appropriate things are measured. The County can then move forward with the Open Space Plan, the Natural Resources Protection Plan, the Mountaintop Protection Plan, etc., and the Board can then set priorities. Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, said Planning has put many manhours into this project and is ready to move forward. Staff needs to know how to prioritize this in with other projects, and needs guidelines from the Board as to its expectations. Mr. Perkins said a lot of this work has probably already been done. August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) 000254 It was the consensus of the Board that this item come back as part of the Comprehensive Plan review. Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Citizens Request for Meals Tax Referendum. Mr. Tucker said at its May 7, 1997 meeting, the Board approved a resolution in support of a Citizens-sponsored initiative for a meals tax referendum to be placed on the November ballot. The ~Vote Yes" campaign sent a letter, which is on file in the Clerk's office, indicating the "Vote Yes" group has only collected 2,500 signatures and will not have the required number of signatures in time for the November election. Ms. Gerke, representing the "Vote Yes" campaign was present to answer questions from the Board. The letter does request that the Board place the meals tax referendum on the November ballot. Should the Board wish to vote for a referendum in the November election, the time line for filing with the Circuit Court requires a decision no later than August 28, 1997. This would allow time to prepare the court order and have it entered by the court 60 days prior to the November 4, 1997 election. No public hearing is required. Mr. Marshall said that if the Board had the power to implement a Meals Tax, he would support it, because the County either needs to implement such a tax or raise taxes on real estate. However, the Board has put the meals tax to referendum twice and it has been defeated twice. Enough signatures could not be obtained because the overwhelming silent majority will not support the tax. He does not want to put it to referendum a third time to have it defeated. He would support the tax if there is a strong organization that advertises the tax and educates the public. If the information is presented properly to the public, he believes the tax would be passed in referendum. The Board does not have the funds or legal ground to support the tax without this support. He said he would therefore oppose the tax. Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with Mr. Marshall, but is willing to support the tax if someone else comes forward to pledge support. The Restaurant Association opposes the tax and was organized in their efforts to oppose the tax, resulting in the demise of the last meals tax referendum. There was no organized support from the organizations who supported the tax. He is willing to table the motion and set a public hearing for August 20, 1997. If, at that meeting, there were groups that said in public they support the referendum for the Meals Tax, and who said they would pledge support for $15,000 to mount an effective media campaign to educate the public, he would support the tax. If the money was not pledged, he would not vote to put it on the ballot a third time. Ms. Humphris said the Board had been promised that support before, but it never materialized, in the face of a $10,000 media campaign. The estimate should more likely be in the $20,000 range now. She supported the idea of a public hearing on August 20, 1997 to see if there is someone willing to take this idea to the public. If no one steps forward at that time, the tax would be doomed to fail. Ms. Thomas said one of the hidden factors against the successful passage of the meals tax is the fact that Mr. Tucker does such a good job of present- ing budgets each year. The argument that the County is short of money and will need additional revenues for legitimate projects and services that the community counts on, is hard for the public to believe. Real estate assess- ments have grown in the past, resulting in no need to increase the tax rate. Now that the Board says the money is needed, people are not certain that is true. She said one question that must be discussed at the public hearing is whether this item should be put on hold until after seeing next year's budget. The downside of that means that the County would need to hold a special election, which has a price tag. Some people have said the County should not pay for special elections, so she is hesitant to do that unless the public is convinced the money is really needed. Ms. Humphris said that is why the Board needs the $20,000 pledge to reach the public. It is either pay us here or pay us there, if the public expects to continue receiving the same level of service, pay for the new high school, the Juvenile Detention Center, the new jail, etc. August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) 0002 Mr. Martin said it is important to him that there be a wide variety (15 to 20) of groups in support of the tax, not just one group with 100 people, representing different segments of society. Ms. Humphris noted that groups would have only two weeks to get orga- nized and to raise the money, which is a key element to ensure a good media campaign. Mr. Marshall commented that the Chamber of Commerce already supports the Meals Tax. Mr. Bowerman said he supports the meals tax, but the Board is not going to drive the effort. The meals tax is a viable alternative to raise $2.5 million rather than raising the real estate tax. This may not be the entire solution for the next year, but it is part of the solution. It is less of a financial burden on County citizens tO have a meals tax than to raise real estate taxes. Someone in the public must step forward to manage the public effort. He will personally and publicly support the meals tax, but the Board cannot use any County money to do so. Mr. Bowerman said the Board could prepare a brochure laying out the facts, but it cannot market the meals tax. Ms. Humphris said that Board members have individually supported the meals tax. In 1991 there were two Board members who heavily campaigned for the meals tax, and it passed in those magisterial districts. It took a huge personal effort, and that is what has to happen now. Materials need to be prepared, there must be a media campaign, etc., or the tax will not be passed. It is in the best interest of County citizens to have a meals tax. Ms. Thomas asked whether the groups would rather have a referendum in November or wait until they saw next year's budget in March. Ms. Humphris said groups could voice their opinion at the public hearing. Mr. Marshall added that there is a tremendous advantage to having the public hearing in November because the County could then benefit from a six-month windfall from January through July. Mr. Bowerman said it would be too late to have identified the problem and actually be dealing with the budget, to get the meals tax on the ballot in March. A special election could be held on another date, but Mr. Marshall again stated the County would lose the windfall from January through July. Mr. Perkins said something this important should not be decided in a special election. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to set a public hearing for August 20, 1997, to solicit public comment on whether the Board should put a meals tax referendum on the November ballot. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Development Areas Initiatives Scope of Work. Ms. Elaine Echols, of the County Planning staff, said a Request for Proposal (RFP) was developed, interviews held, and the selection committee has recommended that C.H.K. Architects and Planners be hired as a consultant. Several members of the selection committee were present. Ms. Echols distrib- uted copies of highlights from a Work Plan Summary outlining a plan for the project, which includes development strategies for infill, as well as fringe areas where urban neighborhoods meet the rural areas. The work plan would begin in September and conclude in May, with significant citizen involvement in the form of surveys, focus groups, eight citizen meetings, ten work sessions with the steering committee, and an all-day charrette to develop the citizens' preferred method of build-out for the urban neighborhoods. Staff's recommendation is that the Board appropriate $150,000 for the project and authorize the County Executive to sign a contract with C.H.K. Architects and Planners. $147,104.50 would be paid to the consultant and the August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~6 (Page 28) remaining portion would be used for mailings, copies of the final report and public meeting expenses. Mr. Bowerman asked if staff had developed a planning budget for the upcoming year, anticipating this cost. Mr. Tucker recommended that the Board review the $150,000 appropriation on August 20, 1998, to allow time to see what the carryover and fund balance is at that time. In response to a question from Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Tucker said no monies have yet been budgeted because the RFP has not yet gone out. Ms. Thomas thanked the citizens for their efforts on this matter. If the County succeeds in finding an optimal urban area design, it will be more than most counties have done. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to authorize the County Executive to enter into a contract with C.H.K. Architects and Planners and to appropriate $150,000. (An appropriation request will be included on the August 20, 1997 agenda.} Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms~ Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: Wireless Telecommunications Task Force Report. Mr. William Fritz, of the County Plannig staff, said recommendations were divided into three groups: those to be addressed by the consultant, to be addressed by the Board, and two recommendations the Board did not endorse. In some areas it is difficult to identify who could best address the recommenda- tion. In some cases, the County has to do work before the consultant can begin, and then there must be feedback provided to the County. Staff recom- mends adoption of a policy developed with the Zoning Administrator that can be used to approve temporary mobile communication sites. Staff has also provided information on siting on publicly-owned land from the City of Bloomington as well as information from other localities regarding co-location, inventory and setbacks. In the event of a major emergency, Ms. Humphris said there is the need for temporary mobilization communication sites. The criteria in the recommen- dation are comprehensive, and she recommended a motion be made to adopt the policy. She also thanked staff for breaking out those items to be addressed by a consultant from those to be addressed by staff. She said staff will have to work closely with the consultant. Mr. Tucker said the County can develop an RFP to include these items to let staff begin working on the implementation plan, to get some idea of the cost and the impact on other projects under consideration. If this is to be considered a high priority, the Board will need to determine what happens to other projects. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is now working to identify upcoming new projects. Ms. Humphris said she did not know if this was a high priority item, and that the number of projects will continue to grow. As other companies come into the area, there will be a need for staff to address them, so this must move ahead soon. Ms. Humphris asked who comes up with a definition of "adequate service". Board members said they determine the definition. Mr. Davis said the courts may help with this definition as they deal with lawsuits. Mr. Tucker said the consultant could also assist. Ms. Thomas expressed her frustration that private companies have a lot of this information but are concerned about sharing it, due to competition. She asked whether the Board could set application fees at any level. Mr. Davis said fees have to be set at the level necessary to cover the County's cost in processing the application, including part of the consul- tant's cost. She asked if the consultant could be asked to do more, if the companies do less, which will result in higher fees. Mr. Cilimberg said there are two levels of consultant's work. One is to create the data base of where service is needed, for which the cost probably could not be charged to the applicant. The other is to assist in reviewing an August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) 000257 application, for which the County could charge a fee. Mr. Fritz said Roanoke County utilizes an outside engineer, and they have charged this cost to applicants. Mr. Tucker said staff needs to develop the RFP, finalize the staff work program for the next couple of years, and examine the fee for applications. Mr. Martin said he has mixed feelings about the priority given to this item. Identifying resources is helpful, but if the Board is going to judge these items on a case-by-case basis, he was not sure it was necessary to go to such lengths. He questioned whether the money would be well-spent for a consultant to provide guidelines and recommendations, unless the Board is willing to allow some things by-right. Then specific guidelines would be necessary. Ms. Humphris said the Board does not get clear answers from applicants on all applications regarding inadequate service or inappropriate- ness of locations of towers. Since the federal law requires that all criteria be considered, the Board must be able to support all decisions with facts. She said the County may have to pay for information. Federal law requires that adequate service be provided, regardless of neighborhood sentiment. Ms. Humphris said Planning staff will have to advise the Board how this item fits into the work program. Mr. Tucker said the Board will be advised if some things would have to be moved off the priority list in order to attend to this item. Mr. Martin said if staff cannot get to this item in the next two years, hiring a consultant is essentially a moot point, because the damage may have already been done. Ms. Thomas agreed. (At this time, Ms. Thomas began discussing the following item.) Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Legislative Requests for the 1998 Legislative Session. Ms. Thomas noted that there is enabling legislation which says the County can require affordable housing units in return for certain density credits. She said that Mr. Davis interprets this to mean that it is uncertain how much this could be applied. Loudoun County had some other things they wanted to do with the legislation, and therefore pursued additional enabling legislation from the General Assembly, getting it without much controversy. She suggested the County consider pursuing such legislation. Mr. Davis said there is a lot of ambiguity on this subject, and he has asked the Attorney General's office for clarification. He said perhaps other counties may wish to pursue such legislation as well. Loudoun County piggybacked onto what Fairfax County did before, and Albemarle County would probably be successful at piggybacking onto the previous effort of those counties. (At this time, the Board then returned to discussion on the Wireless Telecommunications Task Force Report.) Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt a policy on the placement of temporary mobile telecommunication sites. It was also the consensus of the Board that staff identify funding for the consultant and determine the priority for incorporating staff work in the Development Department's Work Program. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following policy: POLICY GOVERNING THE PLACEMENT OF TEMPOR3kRY MOBILE TELECOMMLINICATION SITES BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby adopt the following as a policy concerning the placement of temporary mobile telecommunication sites: The Zoning Administrator may issue a zoning clearance for a temporary mobile telecommunication site when the following criteria are met: August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) Approval shall be obtained prior to the placement of equipment on site except in the event of a disaster; Approval shall be limited to a maximum of seven (7) consecutive days for special events. The time period for approval in the event of a disaster shall be at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator; No site shall be used for a temporary mobile telecommunication site more than twice a year for special events. Use of a site in the event of a disaster shall not be counted towards the yearly limit; and 4 o Sound from any generator equipment shall comply with the provi- sions of Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Ms. Humphris mentioned the NACO award given to Albemarle County in recognition of its weather busters program. She said she hopes the County provides more NACO entries next year. Ms. Humphris mentioned that it will cost $10,000 for Board meetings to be televised. Mr. Tucker said additional information will be provided to the Board at a later date. Mr. Bowerman moved, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve payment of $81,300 to complete the purchase of the Keyes property acquired by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority in July of 1992, pursuant to the County's agreement with Rivanna for the construction of the Lickinghole Creek Project. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 18. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 12:55 p.m. Mr. Bowerman made the motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, for the Board to go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to discuss appointments to Boards and Commissions and to discuss a personnel matter relating to the appointment of a department head; under Subsection (3) to discuss the acquisition of property for a drainage facility; and Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion, specific legal matters relating to a law enforcement agreement, and probable litigation relating to claims for attorneys' fees. Roll was called and the vote was recorded as follows: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 19. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session. At 4:05 p.m. Mr. Bowerman made the motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to reconvene and 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, and to begin the joint meeting with the School Board. Roll was called and the vote was recorded as follows: August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) 000259 AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 20. Appointments. Ms. Thomas made the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to appoint: - Ms. Kathy Ralston as Director of Social Services, and - Mr. David Pastors to the Community Criminal Justice Board Jeffer- son Area. Roll was called and the vote was recorded as follows: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 21. 4:00 P.M., ROOM 235 - Joint Meeting With School Board. School Board members present: Ms. Susan Gallion, Mr. Russell Madison Cummings, Jr., Dr. Charles Ward and Mr. Stephen Koleszar. Absent: Mr. Jeffrey Joseph, Mr. John Baker, and Ms. Karen Powell. School staff present: Dr. Kevin Castner. Other staff present: Mr. Robert Brandenberger and Mr. Frank Morgan. Agenda Item No. 2la. Call to Order. At 4:06 p.m., Ms. Humphris reconvened the Board of Supervisors, and Dr. Ward convened the School Board. (At this time, the Boards decided to go to Item 21C.) Item No. 21C. Presentation: Pay Scale Compression Status Report. Mr. Huff presented the pay scale compression status report. He said it was the product of work by a dedicated committee that put a lot of thought and discussion into what has turned out to be very complex issues. The work team had a specific charge of: 1) identifying the extent to which compression affects existing employees whose salaries are close to the bottom of the scale and close to the salaries of new hires, 2) identifying the extent of compres- sion around any point on the salary scale by employees with various years of service, and 3) examining the current promotional and reclassification policy and the extent to which it contributes to compression. The committee con- sisted of individuals from the School Board and County government as well as a private sector human resources individual. The committee found that compression is not unique to government. Mr. Huff showed a salary/midpoint ratio chart, which demonstrated that one problem is that new hirees and those with years of service can make close to the same salaries. The committee conducted research by surveying 28 jurisdictions/school divisions to ascertain promotion/reclassification policies, scale adjustment policies, longevity vs. merit reward systems and decompression methodology, if applicable. Recommendations include: Scales should not be adjusted more than there are funds available to move everyone on their scale a similar amount, so as not to reduce their salary/midpoint ratio; 2 o A portion of the available compensation funds should be used each year to adjust the scale to reduce the need for large jumps and to avoid compression at the bottom of the scale; August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) 00O260 3 o Separate employees who are compressed based on years of service and merit; 4. Formula caps should be at the 75th percentile; 5 o A 30-increment-scale for employees, except public safety employees, who would use a 25 increment scale; Ten increments to mid-point, 20 beyond (15 for public safety employees); and Change the current promotional policy from a fixed ten percent to a policy of supervisory discretion up to ten percent. Mr. Huff then showed a chart demonstrating decompression for a police officer grade 11 position. The formula takes into consideration the number of years of service in the employee's current job at a one-for-one count, plus the number of years entirely with the County at a one-for-three count. The data base does not yet capture the number of years an employee has served in their current position, with the exception of the Police and Finance Depart- ments, so figures are not complete. The estimated cost of this plan is $2,250,000 to $2,500,000 for full implementation. (This is an estimate only. Full data is not available to give a more precise estimate). Of the 1450 classified employees, about 600 to 700 would be affected. The committee made no recommendation regarding implementation, but there were members who felt the problem needs to be addressed as soon as possible. There were other members who did not feel as strongly. The committee needs to know if this philosophy on decompression meets the Boards' ideals before it gathers more data. Test runs seem fair and that the recommendations would address the problem. Employees will become addressed along the scales, with an effort to maintain salaries at their mid-point ratio. Also included in the executive summary are recommendations on lessening future compression. Ms. Thomas asked if compression is affecting morale. Mr. Huff said it is clearly a much bigger morale problem in the Police Department, but the problem runs throughout the organization. It is a problem that needs to be fixed, but it may not be the biggest problem facing the County. The number of employees whose pay was raised to the minimum by the Hendricks Study is higher in the public safety field than elsewhere. When the pay structure for bus drivers was examined eight or nine years ago, the number of years someone had been employed was not considered. Mr. Martin wondered, if nothing was done because the whole scale could not be moved, if dealing with only one thing concerning salaries would create problems in another area. The County cannot continue to have studies to resolve problems, make changes, then create more problems. Mr. Huff said there will always be problems with pay and classification, and that it is a matter of perception. Mr. Martin asked if fixing the current compression problem will eliminate future compression problems. Mr. Huff said he thought it would eliminate almost all of the problems, but he added that promotions for long-term employees are not compression problems. One concern that may still be remain is whether the County can remain competitive with the market- place. The committee concluded it is more important to treat existing employees fairly than to continually bring new employees in at higher sala- ries. Mr. Marshall asked if $2.5 million would be enough for today. Mr. Huff said it would spread people out on the scale and address compression. He added that he did not know where that much money would come from. Mr. Marshall then asked what would happen if the plan was phased in over a three-year period. Mr. Huff said the Board would have to make specific recommendations, but the County might spend the money and still receive complaints. Mr. Martin suggested looking at the three-year phasing of all employee salaries and then examining each department over a period of three years. Mr. Marshall said that would not work. Mr. Bowerman said the methodology was good, since it deals with the compression issue. Committee members say that the decompression issue has negatively affected some staff, and asked that August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33 ) ooo26 this be dealt with now, not later. He suggested that staff bring a proposal to take place over three years with a frontloading on the first year, then deal with the other years. This would be dependent on revenue sources, but it would be a show of good faith to all employees now. Mr. Bowerman said it is important for both the Board of Supervisors and the School Board to have employees say whether this is satisfactory to them. Otherwise, it would not make sense to pursue a tax increase only to have employees complain about the solution, as has occurred in some other locali- ties. A phased-in approach could not occur until at least July 1, and the revenues are not in this year's budget. Mr. Huff said perhaps the County could spend some monies on a one-time effort, but he did not know what the revenues will look like. Some departments represented on the committee, such as the Police and Finance Departments, are much more well-versed than others. Management needs to talk with employees. Mr. Koleszar said departments that do not face compression issues are concerned that they will be penalized. Dr. Ward asked if the one-out-of-three years is the optimal choice. He said he felt that was rather strong and suggested that perhaps it should be one-out-of-five to help keep the cost down. Markets continue to change for all jobs, so the problem will not go away. Mr. Huff said the committee felt the one-out-of-three formula was fair, but did not base it on a great deal of analysis. Ms. Gallion asked how merit pay affects the situation. An employee with fewer years of service, but who is a better performer, may make more money than someone with more years of service. Ms. Thomas said it seems that the formula downplays merit. If you take the three-year average and use it as a multiplier, it is not much of a reward. Because compression is so much of an issue, the committee apparently felt that merit should not be a factor, due to problems inherent with merit-based pay. Mr. Huff said that merit has made a lot of difference already. He asked if the County is prepared to take an employee who is not performing as well as others and move him/her to the top of the scale because of their length of service. Ms. Thomas said that people within merit pay systems are frustrated by them, but the public is almost always in favor of a merit system. If the Board must go to the public to fund another system based on longevity, it will be hard to sell. Mr. Huff said that, of the 28 systems surveyed, those who currently receive cost-of-living increases wish they were merit-based, and merit-based systems want to do go back to a cost-of-living system. Ms. Thomas said public perception is that teachers get raises from year-to-year, based only on longevity. Mr. Bowerman said part of the decompression formula includes the merit in an attempt to deal with this. Part of the compression problem was caused by bringing in new employees. Years of service in a position have to be considered. Once the system is decompressed, it should remain that way, even if some employees receive merit pay based upon job performance, but avoiding "scrunching" people up again, by not having decompressed them. Ms. Thomas suggested an example of an employee whose salary is com- pressed when compared to someone who has been there five years less. If the formula is applied and the ten-year veteran gets a little more money, she questioned what happens the following year. If, as in the first proposal, everyone's salary goes up a little bit, would the County then be back to merit-based pay which would cause the ten-year and the five-year employee to move only slightly on the scale. Mr. Koleszar said that as long as the merit pool amount is greater than the scale increase, employees will be moving up faster than the scale, and there will be new compression. When the scale moves up faster than the merit pool, people begin sliding down the scale. Ms. Thomas said if the scale is not moved up, the County is in danger of not being competitive with the market. Ms. Thomas asked if one proposal is to decompress only to mid-point. Mr. Huff said that is not a proposal from the committee, but he had mentioned it as an option based on what some other communities have done to address the problem. They feel that just creates other problems and does not fix the 000262 August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) morale issue. The committee's recommendation is to reduce compression of the entire scale up to the 75th percentile. Mr. Martin said the cost of the plan, added to expenses for the new high school and reversion is a lot for the Board to consider. There needs to be some opportunity for people concerned about the decompression issue to indicate their support for the Meals Tax in order to try to pay for some of this. Ms. Humphris added that costs for the juvenile detention center and the opening of the new jail are additional increased operating costs. Ms. Thomas pointed out this requires new monies each year. A portion of the $2.5 million has to be added each year in addition to new projects. Increased assessments have taken care of the salary scale increases in the past, but the assessments are no longer increasing. Mr. Huff said it sounds as if there is philosophical agreement. Dr. Ward said he needs more information before going any further. Mr. Huff asked if that meant that the committee needs to go back to staff to explain, gather data, develop phasing alternatives, frontload to the extent it is possible, and have another work session. If so, he will have to get back to the Boards to let them know how long this might take, since gathering and compiling statistics will take time. Ms. Thomas asked about priorities. Employees need to be supportive of the plan before the committee does a great deal more of the technical work. Mr. Huff said it is important to staff to see if years of service neds to be considered in the formula. In conclusion, the consensus of the Board of Supervisors and the School Board was to direct the Compression Committee to educate County employees to determine the level of support for the proposal, to begin gathering the necessary cost data and bring that data back to the Boards with potential phasing alternatives. Staff is to schedule another work session after all the data has been gathered. Agenda Item No. 2lB. Discussion: Health/Dental Care Contract for FY 1997-98. Mr. Bob Brandenberger, Assistant Director of Human Resources, made a presentation on the Health/Dental Care plan recommendation. He requested that the Boards approve QualChoice renewal for medical coverage, award dental insurance coverage to Delta Dental, and approve employee premiums. He recommended the contract be awarded to Delta Dental, with a 6.5 percent increase in cost, and to maintain level employee premiums by increas- ing the Board contribution from $60 to $63 and using $19,522 from medical reserves. He proposed to retain QualChoice and meet increased costs through a $2,000 Board contribution, using $541,564 from medical reserves and changing the benefit design by increasing the emergency room co-payment from $50 to $75 for Point Of Service (POS), establishing the inpatient co-payment at $100 per admission for POS, increasing prescriptions from $5/$15 to $6/$18 for all three plans, and increasing the employee premium share. The County's medical plan is self-insured. ~Claims are claims". There are two caps: high individual ($100,000) and total claims (aggregate cap). The County's past records show deficits at the end of fiscal years 1990- 91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, as well as a surplus at the end of fiscal years 1993- 94 and 1994-95. Recent changes in medical plans include three plans being offered in FY 1990-91 (Keycare I, Keycare III, Comp500), a change from Keycare I to Keycare II in FY 1993-94, a change from Comp500 to Point-of-Service (POS) in FY 1995- 96, and a change to QualChoice in FY 1996-97. QualChoice is essentially the same as the three plans, but POS has a better benefit design. Mr. Brandenburger showed a comparison of Board/employee costs. The Board contribution has increased over the past several years, bringing down employee costs. Current records indicate there are only seven months of good claims experience, claims have been high from February to July, no claims above August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) $100,000 have been filed, total claims will be above the aggregate cap, and total claims experience is impacting renewal for FY 1997-98. He then showed a comparison between Trigon and QualChoice claims from October 1996 to September 1997. Factors impacting higher claims include the fact that QualChoice POS is a 'richer' plan than Trigon POS, there are low employee premiums for POS, there has been a major shift in enrollment, there has been use of the wellness provisions of POS, the County started FY 1996-97 with a low projection, and physician payment rates have been higher than expected. Alternatives considered include further changes in benefit design, an increase in Board contribution, and use of additional medical reserves. Mr. Brandenberger said to recap recommendations on the medical coverage, they include: using approximately $541,000 from medical reserves to offset the increase for next year, maintaining the Board contribution of $2,000, making retiree premiums the same as active employees, and keeping the "Three to Your Health" plan with the three recommended design changes to offset increased costs. This will leave a balance, if all these things occur, at the end of the Plan year, of approximately $570,000. To recap recommendations on the dental coverage, they include: propos- ing the same dental plan, with no changes, a Board contribution budgeted at $63,000, using the one-year rate, taking $20,000 out of reserves to keep premiums level for the employee, and not covering crowns and other orthodontia due to funding constraints. Mr. Koleszar asked about the $300,000 in reserves. Mr. Brandenburger explained that the aggregate cap is based on $10 per member on the plan. The company bases claims projections on that figure; the County would be responsi- ble for any overrun. The $300,000 is an estimate. Mr. Koleszar asked if the $2 million includes estimated reimbursements, less the $300,000, and Mr. Brandenburger replied, ~Yes." Ms. Humphris said the numbers are easily understood, but she wondered if staff got any feedback in terms of the quality of service provided by QualChoice. Mr. Brandenberger said there has been feedback concerning some delays, but there have been fewer complaints than with Trigon. He said his department will survey employees. Ms. Humphris said she has received com- plaints about slow service. QualChoice is a local company, yet there are horror stories. Mr. Brandenberger said that, from an employer standpoint, the County wants to get dentists' perspective from a provider end, and suggested that. perhaps the County should do the same thing with doctors. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) from QualChoice said they have gone to electronic claims processing, which has increased the turnaround time for processing. Mr. Marshall suggested a need to increase the co-payment from $10 to $15 to reduce the number of office visits. Managed health care has increased costs and the individual must become price-conscious. CEO's are going into business, getting customers and then going out of business once they have to pay claims. Physicians are performing medical services they are not qualified to practice. The quality of health care is going to continue to decrease. He said QualChoice is a good organization. Ms. Thomas asked where the projections came from. Mr. Brandenberger said they were provided by vendors. Ms. Thomas said employees are going to face higher premiums and increased co-payments, and it is good to try to soften the impact on employees, unless the County is reenforcing habits of employees going to the doctor because it does not cost much, and it will cost employees more next year. Preventive medicine has kept costs down, but the County has no way of telling whether employees are going to doctors more often than they need to. She does not want to increase the co-payment to $15, since employees are encouraged to go to the doctor before they get very ill, which would be more expensive. Mr. Brandenberger said employees who had not previously participated in this plan moved into it because of good coverage. Statistics are not avail- able to determine what is causing higher use. Ms. Thomas agreed with increas- ing the Emergency Room co-pay to reduce the abuse of Emergency Room visits. August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) 000: 64: Mr. Marshall said the County needs to increase co-payments to make employees aware of the costs of managed care. Mr. Koleszar asked if claims are spot-audited. Mr. Brandenberger said they are not, although it has been discussed. Mr. Koleszar said it would be a good idea to conduct spot-checks. Ms. Thomas mentioned that State Farm shares with employees any reimbursement when errors in claims are found. Mr. Brandenberger said the County has never considered doing that. With Trigon POS healthcare and primary care providers, the patient does not receive a list of services and supplies. Instead, there is a bottom line charge. This keeps costs for the County down because there is less work on a per- capita basis for the carrier. Mr. Bowerman asked if the cost to the County would go down if the co- payment is increased. Mr. Brandenberger said that doing so simply passes the cost on to the employee, but it might reduce the number of office visits if they adjust their behavior. Mr. Bowerman said employee behavior would not be influenced by $5 per visit, but it would reduce the cost of the plan. Mr. Tucker said employees will consider an increase in their co-payment as a reduction in benefits. He asked if the Board should increase reserves by increasing the co-payment by $5 per month. Ms. Gallion said the County should not double-hit employees by increasing co-payments on both prescriptions and doctor visits. Dr. Ward asked who uses QualChoice Options II and III. Mr. Brandenberger said only 50 persons use those two plans, which incur fewer charges than the other plans. Dr. Ward said the $1,000 per year increase on QualChoice II is a huge increase and everyone will probably move to a POS plan. That being the case, he asked why three choices are being offered. Mr. Brandenberger said it is important to offer choices, especially since QualChoice provides good service. These two plans do have higher administra- tive costs, but he suggested waiting one more year before making a decision to drop the other two options. Mr. Bowerman moved, seconded by Ms. Thomas, that the Board of Supervi- sors approve the QualChoice Health and Delta Dental Care Contracts for FY 1997-98, as recommended by staff. Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Mr. Marshall. Ms. Gallion moved, seconded by Mr. Koleszar, that the School Board approve the QualChoice Health and Delta Dental Care contracts for FY 1997-98, as recomended by staff (on file in the Clerk's office). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Koleszar, Mr. Cummings, Dr. Ward and Ms. Gallion. None. Mr. Joseph, Mr. Baker, and Ms. Powell. Mr. Cummings said that he was concerned that this would create another morale issue, but that he could see no other alternative. Mr. Brandenberger said it is likely that more people will move to Point-ofzService care. Item No. 21D. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda. There were none. August 6, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. O00265 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:08 p.m. Approved by Board Date