HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-05-13May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
May 13, 1987, at 9:00 A. M., Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.
Henley, Jr. and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda.
(Mr. Way left the meeting at 9:06 A.M.) Motion was motion by Mr. Bowie, seconded by
Mrs. Cooke, to accept the items of information on the consent agenda. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
Item No. 4.1. Letter dated April 8, 1987, from the Bedford Hills Homeowners Association
stating their intent to add a well to the existing central well system for this subdivision.
The letter read as follows:
The Bedford Hills Homeowners Association (BHHA) currently maintains a water
system for thirty-two of its members. In the past, the Board of Directors
of the BHHA has had to request that lawn watering be curtailed by users of
the water system during periods of drought in order to insure that normal
household needs could be met. Several of the user members have expressed
the wish to increase the available water supply to the system in order to
permit lawn watering except in extreme drought conditions.
Toward this end, a representative of the BHHA, Mr. Rives Gentry, approached
the Virginia Health Commission to investigate the possibility of the BHHA
obtaining permission to drill an additional well on its property. After
several discussions, two possible sites have been approved by Mr. James W.
Moore, III, of the commission. Mr. Gentry was then informed that before
proceeding further, it was necessary for the BHHA to obtain permission from
the Board of Supervisors to drill the additional well.
Therefore, the BHHA respectfully requests said permission from the Board of
Supervisors before proceeding any further with its plans to drill the said
well. If you should have any questions concerning this issue, please direct
them to Mr. Gentry, or myself. Thank you for your consideration.
Item No. 4.2. Private Well System Completion Report dated April 24, 1987, from the
County Engineer, for Well 98 in Earlysville Forest Subdivision.
Item No. 4.3. Letters received as information from the Highway Department:
a) Letter from Commissioner Pethtel dated May 4, 1987, re: 1987-88 Construction
Allocations, Secondary System.
b) Letter from D. S. Roosevelt, dated April 23, 1987, re:
Road) signs. The letter read as follows:
Route 240 (Three Notch'd
"Reference is made to the Board of Supervisors' request that Route 240 from
its east intersection with Route 250 to Route 810 be named Three Notch'd
Road.
I have attached a copy of a resolution passed by the State Highway and
Transportation Board dated December 18, 1986, approving the request of the
Board of Supervisors. I wish to also advise that the Department has posted
signs along this section of Route 240 indicating its designation as Three
Notch'd Road. The Board of Supervisors has also indicated a desire that
Route 802 and Route 680 from Route 802 to Route 250 be designated as Origi-
nal Three Notch'd Road. Authority to name secondary roads rests with the
County and, therefore, the Board of Supervisors' action is sufficient in
that case. The Department has erected signs along Route 802 and Route 680
indicating these routes are Original Three Notch'd Road."
WHEREAS, the State Highway and Transportation Board is authorized under
Section 33.1-12(4) of the Code of Virginia, as amended, to give suitable
name to State Highways, except such roads as have been or may hereafter be
named by the General Assembly; and
430
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County at its meeting
held on June 4, 1986, did adopt a resolution requesting the State Highway
and Transportation Board to name a portion of State Route 240, between U. S.
Route 250 near Mechum River and Secondary Route 810 at Crozet, as "Three
Notch'd Road";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the State Highway and Trans-
portation Board does concur with the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County in naming a portion of State Route 240, as previously described
herein, "Three Notch'd Road"; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that appropriate signs shall be erected by the
Department of Highways and Transportation, calling attention to this desig-
nation.
c) Letter from D. S. Roosevelt, dated April 20, 1987, re: Board's request concerning
use of revenue sharing funds for the construction of roads under the rural addition policy.
The letter read as follows:
"Reference is made to your letter dated April 9, 1987, concerning Board
actions on April 8, 1987. Specifically I am writing in response to the
Board's request concerning use of revenue sharing funds for the construction
of roads under the rural addition policy.
The use of revenue sharing funds to be matched by state secondary funds for
construction of subdivision streets is not proper unless these streets can
be added under the rural addition section of the Code. I advised the County
some time ago that most subdivision streets are not eligible under the rural
addition policy since the County's ordinance allows the construction of
private streets. Since neither North Berkshire Drive nor Peyton Drive are
eligible to be added as rural additions, they would not be eligible for
matching revenue sharing funds."
Item No. 4.4.
April 28, 1987.
Copies of Minutes of the Planning Commission for April 14, April 21, and
Item No. 4.5. Notices from State Corporation Commission:
a) From Appalachian Power Company dated April 13, 1987, of its application with the
State Corporation Commission to revise its fuel factor and cogeneration tariff.
b) From Virginia Power dated April 16, 1987, of its application with the State Corpora-
tion Commission for approval of a revision in the fuel factor, the establishment of an
interim purchased power capacity rider, establishment of a base rate rider, and a revision in
Schedule 19-Rates for Cogeneration and Small Power Production.
c) Notice from Columbia Gas dated April 10, 1987, of an application filed with the
State Corporation Commission for increased rates.
d) Notice from Virginia Power dated April 16, 1987, stating that the State Corporate
Commission directed Virginia Power to file an expanded Annual Informational Filing in order
to allow the Commission to make a detailed analysis of the financial condition of the
utility, and that a public hearing will be held commencing on September 14, 1987, in the
Commission's Courtroom for the purpose of receiving evidence, etc.
Item No. 4.6. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Report for the Month of March, 1987.
Item No. 4.7. Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation Final Report for the
Community Development Block Grant 84-14, beginning activities February 1, 1985 and last
project on March 6, 1987, from Ronnie L. White, Executive Director was received as informa-
tion.
Item No. 4.8. Annual Work Release Report, dated April 16, 1987, for January, 1984
through December, 1986, prepared by Peggy Duncan, Work Release Coordinator, Regional Jail.
Item No. 4.9.
1987.
County Executive's Financial Report for Period July 1, 1986 to March 31,
Item No. 4.10. Memorandum from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated April 29,
1987 transmitting summary of low-income housing tax credits - Tax Reform Act of 1986, which
read as follows:
"The Tax Reform Act of 1986 provides for credits to owners of residential
rental projects Providing low-income housing units. The credits are taken
annually for a term of ten years, beginning with the tax year in which the
project is placed in service or, at the owner's election, the next tax
year.
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
For developments placed in service in 1987, annual credits are equal to (a)
9% of the qualified basis of low-income units for new construction or
substantial rehabilitation ($2,000 or more per unit) of projects not
federally subsidized or financed by tax-exempt bonds and (b) 4% for other
newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated projects and for the
acquisition of projects.
For projects placed in service after 1987, annual credits are computed
(using a discount rate established by the IRS) so that the present value of
the annual credits equals (a) 70 percent of the qualified basis of
low-income units for new construction or substantial rehabilitation of
projects not federally subsidized or financed by tax-exempt bonds and (b)
30 percent for other newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated
projects or for the acquisition of projects.
An acquisition of an existing project is eligible only if the project was
not previously placed in service by the owner or a related party and is
acquired at least 10 years after the later of (a) the date the project was
last placed in service or (b) the date of the most recent 'nonqualified
substantial improvements.'
Twenty percent or more of the units in the project must be' occupied by
tenants whose incomes are 50 percent or less of the area median gross
income, as adjusted for family size, or 40 percent or more of the units in
the project must be occupied by tenants whose incomes are 60 percent or less
of such area medium gross income, as so adjusted. The owner must
irrevocably elect to comply with either the 20/50 or 40/60 test. The
project must comply with these income restrictions within 12 months of the
date placed in service. Those units which are subject to such income
restrictions are termed 'low-income units.' The owner may designate more
than 20 percent or 40 percent, as the case may be, of the units in the
project as 'low-income units.'
The gross rent (including an allowance for any utilities paid directly by
the tenant) charged to a tenant in a low-income unit may not exceed 30
percent of the maximum qualifying income.
In the event that the income of a family occupying a low income unit
exceeds the maximum qualifying income by more than 40 percent or in the
event that a low-income unit becomes vacant, such low-income unit shall
continue to qualify if no other vacant units of comparable or smaller size
are rented to non-qualifying families.
The project must comply with the income and rent limitations for a period
of 15 years, failure to comply results in a recapture of credits.
An individual with an adjusted gross income of less than $200,000 may apply
credits to reduce taxes payable on up to $25,000 of non-passive income.
The amount of credits that may be applied against non-passive income is
phased out between $200,000 and $250,000."
Item No. 4.11. Memorandum from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated April 29,
1987, concerning the City annexation of Pen Park. The memorandum read as follows:
"You will recall that the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City provided
for the City to petition for annexation of Pen Park without opposition from
the County. A plat of the park property was attached as an exhibit to the
agreement. The City Manager has advised this office of the City's desire
to proceed with that annexation, and has offered to draft the appropriate
documents, and to bear the costs of required publications and filing.
After consultation with George St. John on the matter, I have requested the
City to proceed with the drafting of the necessary documents for presenta-
tion to you for your review and concurrence.
The documents to be drafted will be pursuant to a section of the State code
which provides for a city and county to change or relocate a common boun-
dary line by agreement that requires publication of the new boundary line
and filing of a petition in one of the local circuit courts. A second
procedure provided by State code, which could be used, provides for the
City Council to initiate annexation, and for the State Commission on Local
Government to investigate the matter, hold a public hearing, and make
written recommendation to a specially convened three judge panel for a
decision on the matter. The City is requesting the procedure of County/
City agreement and decision by the local circuit court. Further details on
the matter will be presented when the draft documents are in hand."
Item No. 4.12. Letter from Senator Paul Trible, dated April 17, 1987, advising that the
Department of Labor is conducting a Davis Bacon Wage Survey in Albemarle County.
Item No. 4.13. Letter from Senator Paul Trible, dated April 21, 1987, transmitting
response by the Department of Housing and Urban Development on the Moderate Rehabilitation
Program.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: June 12, 1985; February 12, February 19,
March 5 (Afternoon), March 5 (Night), December 3 (Afternoon), December 10, December 17, 1986;
March 4, March 9, 1987.
432
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of February 19, 1986, Pages 1 - 10 (ending at Item 98)
and the minutes of March 5, 1986 (afternoon) and found them acceptable. Mr. Bowie then
offered motion to approve same. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Discussion - Six-Year Secondary Highway Improve-
ment Plan. (Mr. Way returned to the meeting at 9:10 A.M.) The following memorandum and
staff report from Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development, dated
April 23, 1987, was presented:
"Enclosed you will find a staff report that was provided to the Planning
Commission concerning the Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan. As
noted on page one of that staff report, the staff of this Department and
Department of Transportation are recommending a two year review cycle for
the Six Year Plan with review this year acting as an update as opposed to
a full scale review. At their meeting of April 21, 1987, the Planning
Commission endorsed this planning process and recommends the process to
the Board of Supervisors for formal adoption. The remainder of the staff
report deals with informational items to keep the Commission and Board up
to date of activities the Department of Transportation as they relate to
the implementation of the plan.
I would like to request that the Board of Supervisors review this staff
report and endorse the planning process referenced on page one of the
report. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me."
"On May 21, 1986, the Board of Supervisors adopted a priority list of 31
projects to be included the the Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan as
funding was available. The Board of Supervisors has received a detailed set
of recommendations from the Planning Commission, which were adopted after a
series of work sessions. The purpose of this staff report is to update the
Planning Commission on the current status of implementation of the Six Year
Plan.
The Code of Virginia requires that the plan be readopted every two years.
The Board of Supervisors will continue to adopt an annual budget for six
year plan funding. The staff of Virginia Department of Transportation and
the Department of Planning and Community Development propose that the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors review the progress of the
plan in this interim year, and propose that the Commission conduct of full
scale readoption next year. This pattern of review will continue to be
the policy of the Department unless the Commission desires another pro-
cess. Again, the priority list and six year plan will be adopted for a
two year period. Interim years will be used to review the plan, and make
minor adjustments within the plan, and provide direction to the staff.
Only major changes in circumstances will cause the actual addition of
projects or readjustment of priorities in the interim year.
This review schedule will also hopefully allow the Planning Commission to
complete work on the Comprehensive Plan, in which the staff (and Trans-
portation and Public Utilities Subcommittee) are recommending a criteria
based rating system to set priorities for road improvement projects.
Completion of this system will assist future reviews of the Six Year Plan.
With the foregoing as a basis, this report will focus on four items: 1)
Funding; 2) Major construction projects; 3) Surface treatment (gravel
road) projects; and 4) County-wide plant mix projects.
1) Funding: Estimated funding available to the Six Year Plan in
Albemarle County has increased from $6,055,726 to $22,371,535 because of
the recent General Assembly actions. This is an increase of approximately
370 percent. Attachment A shows the new estimated annual allocations.
Attachment B is a priority list, funding schedule, and status report from
Virginia Department of Transportation which reflects this new situation.
At previous funding levels, approximately 23 of the total 31 projects were
to be funded within six years with no major construction projects being
funded. It is now anticipated that all 31 projects will be funded within
the six year period. This will enable Virginia Department of Trans-
portation and the County to make significant progress towards addressing
the major roadway needs of the County within the foreseeable future. It
will, however, place considerable pressure on the Virginia Department of
Transportation staff to ensure that projects are ready to construct as
funding becomes available. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervi-
sors will also need to be ready to give local staff and Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation staff direction on a timely basis. The following
items will solicit this direction from the Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors.
2) Major Construction Projects: The first non-bridge major road con-
struction project in the current priority list is the Meadow Creek Parkway
(project 22). This is followed by the 5th Street Extended relocation (24)
and the Rio Road widening from Route 29 to Route 650. (Note: The Board
of Supervisors removed all improvements to Rio Road west of Route 29
during their review of the priority list last year.) Due to possible
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Pa~e 5)
continued delays to the Meadow Creek Parkway project and the need to have
projects available to expend the increased funding, the Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation has stated that the 5th Street and Rio projects
could quite possibly be constructed prior to Meadow Creek and in the near
future. VDoT has always stated and the County has endorsed the policy or
constructing projects as soon as all the engineering and right of way work
are completed, even if the priority list cannot be strictly adhered to in
all cases. It is not necessary that the priority list be amended at this
time to reflect the above. Virginia Department of Transportation intends
to proceed with plans on Fifth Street and Rio, with possible amendments to
the priority list being addressed next year. The Commission and Board
should be aware of this situation and provide any direction to staff that
they deem appropriate.
3) Gravel Road Projects: Attachment C is a letter from Mr. Roosevelt
which notes that the allocation for gravel road surface treatment has also
increased dramatically. By 1989-90 the County will need additional
projects in this category. The Planning staff has not evaluated the three
projects for which right of way is now available. Based on the existing
Board of Supervisors policy, they would seem to be eligible for inclusion
in the Plan. The Planning staff agrees with Mr. Roosevelt that the Plan
does not need to be amended at this time. It is clear, however, that
somewhat more emphasis will need to be placed on identification Of pro-
jects in this category during next year's full review of the plan.
There is a section of the Code of Virginia that allows a County to trans-
fer funds from gravel roads to new construction (See Attachment D). If it
is determined that new construction funds in a given year are inadequate,
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors may wish to exercise this
option. The County currently has 161.89 miles of eligible gravel roads.
It appears, therefore, that a reduction of one mile from the eligible road
mileage would not have a serious long term effect on the gravel road
funding. There are various fiscal and policy ramifications of this option
which the staff will explore more thoroughly prior to next year's review.
4) County-Wide Plant Mix Projects: Project 20 in the current priority
list is a general category used for minor improvements. One type of
improvement funded in this category is the overlaying of existing paved
surfaces with bituminous concrete, which strengthens the roadway surface
and effectively expands the usable portion of the roadway. Funding
available for this use has also increased. Due to this increased funding
this fiscal year, the Board of Supervisors endorsed two such projects for
funding this year recommended by Mr. Roosevelt: Route 810 from Route 789
to Route 614 and Route 635 from Route 250 to Route 637 (See Attachment E).
Mr. Roosevelt's letter refers to various improvements which will be
necessary with the opening of the new Southern Regional Park. Most of
these improvements would involve new plant mix and shoulder improvements.
Attachment F is an excerpt from the staff report on the park which identi-
fies these improvements. The Planning staff has also discussed the need
for this type of project on Sunset Avenue south of the City. Attachment G
is Mr. Roosevelt's 1987-88 plant mix schedule. Staff does not propose
that the Commission take action on this list during this review. Mr.
Roosevelt has other suggestions for these types of projects. The Commis-
sion should begin to think of this type of project more actively and
provide the staff with suggestions. For the full review next year, staff
will attempt to work with Virginia Department of Transportation to provide
full recommendations."
Mr. Fisher asked if redesign and reconstruction to the bridge at the Moorman River at
Millington will affect access to the river. Mr. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, said
he does not think the access will be affected. (Mr. Way left the meeting at 9:19 A.M.) Mr.
Fisher asked if the bridge over Buck Mountain Creek is within the impoundment area for the
proposed water impoundment dam. Mr. Roosevelt replied no. The impoundment is southeast of
the location. (Mr. Way returned to the meeting at 9:22 A.M.)
Mrs. Cooke asked what is proposed to be done with plant mix on Carrsbrook Drive. She is
concerned about the present surface condition of the road. The last time when the surface
treatment was done, the pavement separated and slid. Mr. Roosevelt said a weakness in the
base under the roadway or bad materials could have caused the separation. The Department
will be looking to make sure that the base and surface are well patched before putting the
plant mix down and doing the remainder of the roads in Carrsbrook. Mrs. Cooke asked what
improvements are proposed for Rio Road from Route 29 to Route 650. Mr. Roosevelt said the
plans presently are to widen the road to five lanes, two lanes in each direction, with a left
turn lane within the existing right-of-way. No signal lights are planned.
Mr. Roosevelt said of the 30 projects in the Six-Year Plan, eight have been completed
and three of the projects are on-going with no completion date. He anticipates four more
projects will be under construction by the end of this year and an additional nine to go to
construction between January 1 and July 1, 1988.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to accept the recommendations in the Staff Report as outlined
above. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
434
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Work Session - 1987-88 Secondary Improvement
Budget. The following letter dated May 1, 1987, was received from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer:
"Attached you will find my recommendations for projects to be included in
the 1987-88 secondary improvement budget for Albemarle County. I request
that this matter be placed on the Board's agenda for a work session and
that the Board members be supplied with this information.
You will note that the anticipated allocation for 1987-88 is $3,378,780.
This is more than three times the base allocation for last year which was
approximately $1,050,000. I have attempted to tailor the allocations in
this year's budget to cover anticipated costs which will occur during the
fiscal year. All projects listed are included in the County's approved
secondary six year improvement plan.
Once a work session has been held, I will request the Board to set a public
hearing date for this budget. Since the budget must be approved and
submitted prior to July 1, 1987, I request early scheduling of the work
session."
1987-88 SECONDARY IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
PROJECT
Plant Mix Schedule (See below)
New Pipe
New Signs
Seed & Fertilize
Traffic Signal 743/Commonwealth
Operate Hatton Ferry
Survey & PE
631 & 659
631 & Agnese
654 & 656
631 & Pen Park (768)
656 Georgetown Road
631 Two bridges
727 from 627 to 795
678 from 250 to 0.1 mile North
652 Old Brook Road
671 Bridge at Moorman River
631 Fifth Street Extended
631 Rio Road from 29 to 650
777 from Orange County Line to Dead End
693 from 635 to 695
660 Bridge at South Fork of Rivanna River
TOTAL
ALLOCATION
$ 335,900
10,000
10,000
7,000
50,000
10,000
10,000
62,000
23,600
24,900
88,400
100,000
24,700
517,000
414,100
146,100
15,000
275,080
1,200,000
15,000
10,000
30,0.00
$ 3,378,780
PLANT MIX SCHEDULE
ROUTE FROM TO TON ALLOCATION
9655 Albemarle High School Entrance
743 Jacobs Run 641 2350
660 676 661 2620
854 1419 1428 1515
1427 631 854 1970
1428 631 854 2410
768 631 Dead End 485
738 250 679 660
$ 3,000
14,000
86,500
50,000
65,000
79,600
16,000
21~800
$ 335,900
REMARKS
Trench Widen
Carrsbrook Drive
Northfields Road
Huntington Road
Pen Park Entrance
Mr. Roosevelt provided the following information on the projects included in the Secon-
dary budget:
New Pipe - County-wide items done annually.
New Signs - County-wide items done annually.
Seed & Fertilize - County-wide items done annually.
Traffic Signal at the intersection of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) and Commonwealth
Drive.
Operate Hatton Ferry - Ongoing charge.
Survey & Preliminary Engineering - To work on projects not in the plan.
631 & 659 - Rio Road at Woodburn Road; safety improvements.
631 & Agnese - Rio Road at Agnese; safety improvements.
654 & 656 - Turn lane on Barracks Road at Georgetown; safety improvements.
631 & Pen Park (768) - Rio Road at Pen Park; safety improvements.
656 Georgetown Road - Improvements between Inglewood and Old Forge Road.
631 (Old Lynchburg Road) two bridges - Widen road at two bridges so two-way traffic can be
maintained on two bridges south of Charlottesville.
727 from 627 to 795 - Hard surface improvement.
678 from 250 to 0.1 mile North - Connection at Ivy in conjunction with construction at
Meriwether Lewis School.
652 Old Brook Road - Connection between Fieldbrook and Raintree Subdivision.
671 Bridge at Moorman River - Planning funds to get project started.
631 Fifth Street Extended - Widening and relocation of Fifth Street from end of four laning
south of interstate to a point south of sharp curve at Sunset Avenue.
435
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
631 (Rio Road) from 29 to 650 - Hope to get project to construction stage within a year.
777 from Orange County Line to Dead End - Gravel road improvement.
693 from 635 to 595 - Gravel road improvement.
660 Bridge at South Fork of Rivanna River - Planning funds to get project started.
Mr. Roosevelt said this budget includes financing for every project still remaining to
be completed in the Six-Year Plan. It attempts to allocate money to the projects in accor-
dance with what the Department thinks can be spent between July 1, 1987 and June 30, 1988.
He recommends acceptance of the proposed budget.
Mr. Bowie said if a project comes up at the public hearing that the Board would like to
include in the Plan, how would it be handled. Mr. Roosevelt said there are no additional
funds other than what are shown on this list. The Board would have to reduce the allocation
shown on some project in order to add an additional project.
Mr. Fisher suggested that a public hearing be set for June 3. Mrs. Cooke offered
motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to set a public hearing on the 1987-88 Secondary Highway
Improvement Budget for June 3, 1987. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher recognized the following students from Western Albemarle High
School who joined the Board members for Youth in Government Day: Jason Overstreet, Raymond
Katte, Daniel Huff, Tracy Pleasants, Jennifer Berg, Clarke Abell, Timothy Gerhardt, Blair
Towe and Dana Steiger.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Appeal-Merchant's Outlet Mall Site Plan. (This
appeal was brought to the Board by letter dated April 1, 1987, from Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr.,
Attorney for Lloyd Hyde, President Empire Management and Development Company, Inc.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
Proposal: To locate a 114,450 square foot one-story mall with 30 shops, to
be served by 489 parking spaces.
Acreage: Total site area equals 9.508 acres. Parcels iA and lB equal
9.631 total acres; less dedication and proposed parcel B, plus portions of
two adjacent lots for stormwater detention and buffer.
Zoning: HC, Highway Commercial
Location: On the north side of Route 649 (Proffit Road) and east of Route
29 North, adjacent to 84 Lumber Company. Part of this property is known as
the previous Ewing Ford Site. Tax Map 32A2, Parcels lA and lB. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Staff Comment: This site plan was originally submitted March 3, 1986. It
was indefinitely deferred to allow time to respond to site review comments
of March 20, 1986. The revised plan was again heard by the Site Review
Committee on February 5, 1987.
This site plan proposes the addition of a portion of parcel lB to parcel
lA, leaving a residue of 0.933 acres for future development. This residue
lot will be served by the 50 foot joint access easement serving 84 Lumber
Company and the proposed Merchants Mall. A 0.771 acre portion of parcel
20A4 and a 0.092 acre portion of parcel 20, both zoned Rural Areas, will be
added to parcels lA and lB (part) for the stormwater detention pond and
landscape buffer. A temporary grading easement has been obtained from 84
Lumber. In addition, an approximately 50 foot by 35 foot perpetual ease-
ment has been granted by 84 Lumber, to be used for a portion of travelway
and a dumpster pad.
Section 21.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20 foot undisturbed
buffer adjacent to residential or rural areas districts. The applicant
requests a waiver to allow grading for the construction of the stormwater
detention pond. The owner of the two adjacent rural areas parcels has
written that he has no objection. A double row of staggered evergreen
trees 15 feet on center will be planted in a 20 foot "buffer area" around
the proposed stormwater pond to supplement existing hardwoods and cedars.
This "buffer area" will be within that acreage to be added to the Mall
property.
This plan proposes a right-turn and left-turn lane into the site. The
third lane across this property will be continued to Route 29 to allow for
two outbound lanes at the intersection of Routes 29 and 649.
The Route 29 North Corridor Study shows an interchange at Routes 29 and
649. It appears that the proposed building is in the area required for the
construction of the interchange. The CATS shows this section of Route 649
as a four-lane, divided roadway from the intersection of Route 29 North to
the connection with McIntire Road extension. Planning staff has been
advised by the County Attorney's Office that we cannot require the
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Paqe 8)
reservation of right-of-way and additional setback if no time schedule has
been established for the construction and funding of these improvements.
In ZMA-85-20, Hollymead Land Trust and Tri-Ton, Inc., Proffer #3 states:
"A road shall be constructed at a later date, size and exact location to be
determined by the County. This road shall link Access Point 2 to Access
Point 5 .... " Based on approval of this plan, the entrance location for
said road shall align with the entrance for the Merchants Outlet Mall
proposed on the opposite side of Route 649. The applicant for ZMA-85-20
has been notified of such.
As a result of this design, there are several complications to on-site and
off-site circulation. These items are summarized as follows:
1. Access Around the Building: The plan proposes one-way travel looping
around the building for employees, the handicapped and delivery/service
trucks. The applicant's planner has worked with Planning and Engineering
Staff to ascertain that the turning radii meets the minimum for
semi-tractor trailers around most of the building. Because truck access is
not provided completely around the building, ~2 "Truck Exit" is necessary.
The employees and the handicapped will exit onto the main mall road approx-
imately 45 feet from the entrance to Proffit Road. More than two vehicles
cued to exit the site may effectively block this exit from the loop road
around the building.
Loading spaces will be parallel parking adjacent to the building.
2. Truck Exit: Trucks will exit by a separate truck exit road controlled
by an electronic access gate. This truck exit road west of the main mall
road is located in the 50 foot joint access easement with adjacent Parcel
1, previously developed as Monticello Home Builders Model Home, but which
is presently vacant. The truck exit lane will be separated from the
entrance and exit lanes for Parcel 1 by a median, to prohibit entrance to
the mall at this location. Signage and pavement markings will be important
to reduce the confusion for vehicles entering the site or exiting the loop
around the building.
The Zoning Ordinance discourages one-way travel (Section 4.12.6.2). It is
difficult to enforce and can complicate emergency access. As a general
rule, the Planning Commission must specifically approve one-way travel.
The applicant proposes the following measures to facilitate this circula-
tion: (a) Signage "Employee, Loading and Handicap Only" around building;
(b) Pavement markings showing travel direction; (c) Electronic control
access gate for truck exit.
To our knowledge, an entrance/exit design of this type has never been
approved before.
3. Parking Lot Discharge Points: In accordance with staff's recommenda-
tion, the plan was revised to reduce the number of parking area discharge
points onto the entrance road. These discharge points are off-set, and not
aligned. Direct alignment would reduce short, confusing turning movements,
but may not be possible due to the number of spaces required on this site
for a building of this size.
Regarding these circulation issues, the County Engineer has commented and
the Virginia Department of Transportation will comment at the Planning
Commission meeting. Planning staff concurs with the County Engineer that
by relocating the building and utilizing the lot proposed for future
development, circulation could be substantially improved. These issues
were not emphasized at the first plan review, and since that time, the
applicant has had the building designed and has proceeded in good faith
based on staff comments.
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve one-way circulation, staff
recommends approval of this plan subject to the following:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
Se
County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and
computations;
County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and
computations;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit;
Issuance of an erosion control permit;
County Engineer approval of retaining wall design;
County Engineer and Planning staff approval of pavement markings
and signage directing circulation;
Recordation of plat which:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
combines parcel iA with portion of parcel lB,
adds portion of parcels 20 and 20A4 for stormwater pond and
landscaping,
dedicates Route 649 right-of-way,
shows permanent sight easements, and
shows perpetual easement on Tax Map 32A, Parcel 2-1C;
437
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
he
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans;
Fire Officer approval;
Planning staff approval of plan revision to eliminate off-set
parking discharge points, where possible.
A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval;
b. Planning staff review of screening in buffer strip adjacent to
rural areas-zoned properties.
Addendum: This site plan was deferred from the March 10, 1987, Planning
Commission meeting. Prior to the vote for deferral, the Commission had
voted 3/3 for approval, and 3/3 for denial, neither of which carried. The
discussion included concerns about one-way circulation around the building,
the one-way truck exit, and the location of handicap parking spaces which
necessitated travel around the building.
On March 16, the applicant met with the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation, Planning and Engineering staff members. The applicant resolved
to provide minor amendments to ameliorate some issues, but not to consider
a major redesign of the site. These amendments to the plan are as follows:
Relocating two and deleting three handicapped parking spaces
which had necessitated travel around the building.
A portion of proposed 0.95 acre Parcel B is now utilized to
provide 19 parking spaces. This design permit parking lot
discharge points to be aligned. These previously off-set dis-
charge points were staff's point ~3 in complications to circula-
tion in the original staff report."
Mr. Horne said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 31, 987, voted to
deny (4/3) this site plan. The denial was based on the following reasons: too intense, too
many traffic safety questions; applicant has not demonstrated that building cannot be shift-
ed, and questionable emergency access. If the building could be shifted slightly, adjust-
ments could be made to get either two-way circulation around the building or get to a point
where there woUld not be truck access. The appeal was filed by Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr.,
Attorney for Lloyd Hyde, and did not state the reason for the appeal.
Mr. Horne said the staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission was for approval.
Although the staff felt the circulation issues were important, they did not feel they consti-
tuted grounds for an actual denial of the site plan.
In reply to a question from Mr. Bowie concerning reservation of right-of-way for an
interchange at Route 649, Mr. St. John said this can only be done where a county has a plan
which is more definite than the Comprehensive Plan. The centerline of the road has to be
surveyed and marked off precisely, and a timetable set for the improvements.
Mr. Bowie asked how much of this parcel would be expected to be taken for an interchange
at this location. Mr. Horne said he has no idea, but would expect it to be a significant
portion. He said that on a related, but separate issue, Proffit road is shown as being-the
terminus of the Meadow Creek Parkway, so would be changed to a four-lane, divided highway at
this point, which is also a major expansion of the right-of-way, and that would take a
significant portion of this parcel.
At this time, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Present to speak for the applicant
was Mr. Bill Roudabush. Mr. Roudabush said the initial deferral requested by the applicant
was to allow him time to acquire additional land to meet staff concerns, and to acquire
easement necessary to negotiate with the other property owners for the widening of Route 649
which is proposed to be a 60-foot right-of-way adjacent to this property. Mr. Roudabush said
the site plan was revised several times. The staff did express a concern to the Planning
Commission about the one-way traffic around the building. He said that one-way traffic is
not prohibited by the ordinance.
Mr. Roudabush said that the Planning Commission's denial was based on four items. 1)
The Development is too intense. He said the site plan meets all the criteria set out in the
Site Plan Ordinance with respect to setbacks, parking requirements, landscaping, open space,
and all other criteria. The site has 17 percent open space, and the ordinance only requires
ten percent as a general rule. 2) Too many traffic questions; Ms. Diane Linderman of Wilbur
Smith Associates will speak about the traffic safety. 4) Questionable emergency access. He
said that he has spoken with several fire officials, and their response was that any place a
trash truck can go, a fire engine can go. They also indicated that the turning radii shown
on this site plan should be adequate for any of the fire vehicles in the County, with the
exception of the hook and ladder truck which they say cannot maneuver on most city streets
anyway. 3) It was not demonstrated that the building cannot be shifted. Mr. Roudabush said
there are deeded easements going through this site, and there is no way the building could be
relocated without abolishing the access to 84 Lumber Company. All three of these sites have
been denied direct access to Route 29 North. This is the only location without off-site
construction further to the east that adequate sight distance can be obtained. Mr. Roudabush
said this site plan is before the Board because of the one-way traffic circulation around the
building. He turned the presentation over to Ms. Diane Linderman.
Ms. Linderman said the developer had asked her to review the site plan. They had made
calculations to be sure that a truck would be able to negotiate the one-way access even if
there are trucks loading and unloading around the building. It is not felt that the general
public will get into the one-way system because they would normally stop and park soon after
438
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
coming in off of Proffit Road. Ms. Linderman said as to the question of emergency access,
fire trucks actually need less turning radius than a large truck. One other item of concern
was the exit of employee vehicles at Proffit Road. Most of these vehicles will be making
right turns so will not interfere with the public traffic parking in the lots. Also, em-
ployee schedules are staggered so they do not leave work during peak shopping time. That
also will minimize conflicts.
Mr. Bowie asked the distance between the building and the property line. Mr. Roudabush
said it is 50 feet between the building and the edge of the outside curb. Mrs. Cooke asked
why the parking spaces were not put in on an angle for easier access, and to eliminate such
wide spaces. Ms. Linderman said not as many spaces can be put in linearly as with angle
space. Mrs. Cooke asked the number of parking spaces in this area. Mr. Roudabush said there
are 62. Mrs. Cooke asked if these spaces are for employees only. Mr. Roudabush yes. Mr.
Fisher asked if these space will also be used by 84 Lumber. Mr. Roudabush said no. Also,
the delivery vehicles will have come and gone before the opening of the stores.
Mr. Lloyd Hyde, the developer, said they have spent about two years on this site plan
which has come about through negotiations with County staff over this period. He said they
do not expect to be a major impact on traffic on Route 29 North. They will carry no hard
goods on site, so the delivery trucks will be smaller. He feels the one-way traffic pattern
around the building will be an advantage, because all of the cars are going in one direction,
and it will be a little harder to get in that line of traffic. Mr. Hyde said he would answer
questions.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks that if the employee parking were diagonal instead of perpen-
dicular, that and would solve some of the concerns expressed. He asked if there were a
reason this is not being done. Mr. Hyde said it just never came up, but he agrees. Mr.
Horne said he is not sure there are any excess spaces on the lot, and to make that change
they would drop below the required number of spaces. Mr. Roudabush said it was agreed at the
last meeting with County staff that if it became necessary to make any change in parking
patterns, they would go to a parcel near the entrance and create additional parking in that
area.
Mrs. Cooke said her only concern is having a traffic pattern to facilitate emergency
vehicles. Also, in reply to Mr. Bowie's comment, she wondered if the Board could put a
condition on this site plan to prohibit such a practice. Mr. Hyde said he would not mind
having such a condition placed on the site plan, although it is not their intent to do so.
Mrs. Cooke said her main concern is with emergency vehicles having access.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said in
reply to the statement that this site plan has been the subject of long negotiations, he
knows from past experience that sometimes the staff keeps negotiating, but does not get very
far. Also, in looking at the property, it appears that there are a number of inherent
difficulties because of the right-of-way which is deed through it, and because of the strange
configuration of the parcel. Mr. Fisher said it seems to him that there are other ways the
same amount of building space could have been put on the property without creating all of
these problems. Also, it is 2.6 acres under roof, which is an enormous building for this
size property. Mr. Fisher said he feels it is scrunching too much into too little space.
Mr. Hyde said the building was placed on the lot at every configuration possible, and it came
down to this being the best of all of the alternatives.
Mr. Bob Smith said he is the real estate broker. They had an architect do a study in
order to obtain the percentage of covering that is allowable under ordinance regulations.
Hr. Fisher asked if it was the intent to maximize to the limit allowable. Mr. Smith said
they did not approach it that way; their problem was not having any property with access to
Route 29, all of the access having to be from Proffit Road.
Mr. Bowie said he does see any problem with the parking around the building. He does
~ot think the general public will go out of its way to turn in there and completely ignore a
sign. He asked Mr. St. John if there is any violation of the ordinances in relation to this
~ite plan.
Mr. St. John said he would like to review the process before answering. Under State law
2he sole purpose of a site plan is to see whether a building or site complies with the Zoning
)rdinance. In this case, a part of the "site development plan" section of the Zoning Ordi-
nance comes into play. That section reads: "Every development shall be provided with safe
~nd convenient ingress from, and egress to, one or more public roads .... " Mr. St. John said
if the question is whether this site plan complies with that part of the Zoning Ordinance,
:hat is not a legal question, but one which should be answered by people who are experts on
:raffic management and evaluation. Mr. St. John said the Planning Commission hit on that
~ection of the Zoning Ordinance when it gave its reading. Also, the State Code requires the
?lanning Commission, if it denies a site plan, to cite reasons for the denial. The Planning
2ommission said the use is too intense. If the building complies with the ordinance as has
)een stated, in terms of percentage of lot to building coverage, then that is not an issue.
~he site plan cannot be denied on that ground. The only thing he sees is whether or not
2here is adequate ingress and egress so as to prevent congestion and provide proper ingress
~or police, fire, rescue vehicles. The Board must decide that issue, and it is not a legal
'uestion.
Mr. Fisher said in order to have a complete record, he would like for Mr. Roosevelt,
esident Highway Engineer, to comment about the entrances, exits, and other traffic matters.
Mr. Roosevelt said it does not appear that any of the concerns deal with the State
lighway portions of the project. He thinks the three-lane, left-turn, right-turn, entrance
:onfigurations that are shown on the roadway improvement plans, are sufficient. As far as
:he internal improvements are concerned, he and his staff have not really reviewed those
~oads.
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Fisher asked if there are any waivers of any parts of the ordinance involved in this
request. Mr. Horne said yes; there was a waiver requested of a buffer requirement at the
rear of the property near the detention basin. This was not felt to be a significant issue.
The property is to be graded, then replanted with buffering materials and screening.
Mr. Fisher asked if any requests have gone to the Board of Zoning Appeals, or is any-
thing scheduled to go to that Board? Mr. Horne said he is not aware of any requests.
At this point, Mr. Bowie offered motion that the Merchant's Outlet Mall Site Plan be
approved with the conditions suggested by'the staff, and with the addition of two additional
conditions to which the applicant has agreed. Condition (k) reading: "Diagonal employee
parking will be utilized within the one-way area"; and Condition (1) reading: "No sale of
hard goods that require tractor trailer delivery." Mr. Bowie said he did not want to re-
strict the applicant's business, but wanted to get to the point where there will be no hard
goods sold that require tractor trailer delivery. Mr. Fisher suggested that the condition
read "No goods may be sold that require tractor trailer delivery." Mr. Bowie said he was
agreeable to that condition. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Fisher said after having read the staff report, and the two sets of Planning Commis-
sion minutes, he was convinced that the Planning Commission had done the right thing. After
listening to all of the people here this morning, it is not quite so clear. It seems that
they have utilized every single foot of space that can be used on this parcel. In the long
run, it may make the Board think about whether or not too much is being allowed by Zoning
Ordinance provisions on some of these parcels. However, this site plan does seem to comply
with the ordinance, and he can see no reason to vote to deny it.
Roll was called at this point, and the motion to approve with the following conditions
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and compu-
tations;
b. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and compu-
tations;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit;
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. County Engineer approval of retaining wall design;
f. County Engineer and Planning staff approval of pavement markings
and signage directing circulation;
g. Recordation of plat which:
1) combines parcel lA with portion of parcel lB,
2) adds portion of parcels 20 and 20A4 for stormwater pond and
landscaping,
3) dedicates Route 649 right-of-way,
4) shows permanent sight easements, and
5) shows perpetual easement on Tax Map 32A, Parcel 2-1C;
h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans;
i. Fire Officer approval;
j. Planning staff approval of plan revision to eliminate off-set
parking discharge points, where possible;
k. Diagonal employee parking will be utilized within one-way area;
1. No goods may be sold that require tractor trailer delivery;
m. Relocating two and deleting three handicapped parking spaces which
necessitate travel around the building;
n. A portion of proposed 0.95 acre Parcel B is to be utilized to
provide 19 parking spaces in order to allow parking lot discharge
points to be aligned.
A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval;
b. Planning staff review of screening in buffer strip adjacent to
rural areas-zoned properties.
Mr. Roudabush said he would like to make it clear that the County Staff has been very
cooperative in the whole process. They all sat down together and came up with what was
thought to be the best solution.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Fisher commented that the 45 mile per hour speed limit has been extended on Rt. 250
West past the Flordon entrance.
Mr. Fisher said he received a letter from Mr. Ripley, Department of Transportation,
~tating that in the future the Department would not perform secondary road traffic counts on
roads except those that are gravel and some others selectively chosen. Mr. Roosevelt said
the current traffic count booklet gives a traffic count on every section (distance between
two intersections) of every secondary road in the County. Under the new procedure, since
allocations are no longer made based on traffic counts, the Department has decided to elimi-
mate as many traffic counts as possible. The gravel road monies are still allocated based on
440
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
traffic counts and will continue to be counted every two years as in the past. There are
four or five other sections that are being counted in order to comply with Federal funding
requirements. Beyond that there will be only 55 other counts made on the secondary system in
the County. Last week he reviewed the routes in the County and picked the 55 locations he
wanted counts to be made. Mr. Horne commented that the Planning staff uses the booklet
frequently, and hopefully there will be a quick turnaround when specific information is
needed.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to include Huntwood Subdivision as an
area where dogs are no~ permitted to run at large. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
April 28 and May 5, 1987.)
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Henry Braswell, President, Huntwood Homeowners
Association, said the homeowners have signed a petition (on file) and voted (31-4) at its
February meeting to request this action be taken.
Mr. Mickey Hendrix, a resident of Huntwood, urged adoption of the ordinance. He has
been assaulted by two dogs in the neighborhood and does not want to be confronted by any more
dogs. (Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting at 11:14 A.M.)
The public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to adopt the following ordi-
nance prohibiting dogs from running at large in Huntwood Subdivision:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, that Chapter 4, Article II, Division 2, Section 4-19 of the Albemarle
County Code be amended and reenacted by the addition of the following areas
one of those areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large:
(23) Huntwood Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 728, Page 377 and Deed
Book 728, Page 378.
Mr. Way seconded the motion.
recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Bowie said he has received several complaints from citizens concerning dogs running
at large on private property where there is no leash law. Although he cannot support a
County-wide leash law, he would like to know what cad be done with regard to these dogs,
especially if they attack the citizen's dog. He was informed that the Dog Warden could not
do anything.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to amend the County Code - Real Estate
Tax Exemptions for Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons relating to determination of how a
handicapped person is declared eligible for tax relief. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
April 28 and May 5, 1987.)
Mr. Agnor said this is an amendment of the County Code to align it with the revised Code
of Virginia relating to the determination of how a handicapped citizen is declared eligible
for tax relief. (Mr. St..John left the meeting at 11:15 A.M.)
The public hearing was opened.
was closed.
There being no one present to speak, the public hearing
Mr. Way offered motion to adopt the following ordinance on real estate tax exemptions
for certain elderly and handicapped persons, to align the County Code with the revised Code
of Virginia relating to the determination of how a handicapped citizen is declared eligible
for tax relief:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Vir-
ginia that Sections 8-26(b) and 8-28(a) of Article VII, Real Estate Tax
Exemptions for Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons, is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
Sec. 8-26. Same--Eligibility; restrictions.
(b) The head of the household occupying the dwelling and owning title
or partial title thereto is determined to be permanently and totally dis-
abled. Such determination must be certified as required by Section 8-28(a).
Further, the director of finance must find that such person is unable to
engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment or deformity, which can be
expected to result in death or can be expected for the duration of such
persons life.
sec. 8-28. Procedure for filing claims.
(a) Annually and between February 1 and May 1 of each taxable year for
which the exemption is claimed, the person claiming the exemption shall file
with the director of finance, in such manner as he shall prescribe, and on
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
the forms to be supplied by the county, an affidavit setting forth the names
of the related persons occupying the real estate for which the exemption is
claimed, their total combined income and their net combined financial worth.
If such person is under sixty-five years of age, such form shall have
attached thereto a certification by the Veteran's Administration or the
Railroad Retirement Board, or if such person is not eligible for certifi-
cation by any of these agencies, a sworn affidavit by two medical doctors
licensed to practice medicine in the state, to the effect that such person
is permanently and totally disabled, such that the person is unable to
engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment or deformity, which can be
expected to result in death or can be expected to last for the duration of
such person's life. The affidavit of at least one of the doctors shall be
based upon a physical examination of the person by such doctor. The affi-
davit of one of the doctors may be based upon medical information contained
in the records of the Civil Service Commission which is relevant to the
standards for determining permanent and total disability as defined in
Section 8-23. If, after audit and investigation, the director of finance
determines the claimant to be eligible for the exemption from real estate
taxes, he shall certify the claimant's eligibility to the county tax asses-
sor who shall exonerate the amount of the exemption from the real estate tax
liability of those persons entitled to the exemption.
(b) Same.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: An Ordinance providing for the establishment of a
Deferred Compensation Plan for employees, the supervision, administration and implementation
thereof. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 28 and May 5, 1987).
Mr. Agnor said in September, 1986, the Board authorized the staff to proceed with the
adoption of a Deferred Compensation Plan for County employees. A Deferred Compensation Plan
is permitted by Section 457 of the United States Internal Revenue Code. This ordinance is
for adoption of a Plan provided by the National Association of Counties (NACo). The staff
recommends adoption of the ordinance. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 11:18 A.M.)
Mr. Bowie asked if NACo will bill the County for administrative costs. Mr. Agnor replied
yes.
The public hearing was opened.
was closed.
There being no one present to speak, the public hearing
Mr. Bowie offered motion to adopt the following resolution and ordinance establishing a
Deferred Compensation Plan for employees, and the supervision, administration and implementa-
tion thereof:
WHEREAS, the County has previously established a Deferred Compensation
Plan to be made available to all eligible County employees, pursuant to
Section 457 of the United States Internal Revenue Code permitting such
Plans; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of the NACo Program, all regulatory, operational,
and administrative and fiduciary responsibilities are assumed by NACo on
behalf of the County; and
WHEREAS, NACo, as plan administrator, agrees to hold harmless and
Lndemnify the County, its appointed and elected officers and participating
emPloyees from any loss resulting from NACo's or its agent's failure to
perform its duties and services pursuant to the NACo Program; and
WHEREAS, the plan previously adopted by the County has never been
implemented, but has been abandoned by both the County and the contracted
plan administrator; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the NACo Program provides
greater benefits to the employees of the County than the previously adopted
plan at no cost to the County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the ordinance for the establishment of a deferred
compensation plan adopted on September 14, 1983 b, and hereby is, amended
and reenacted as shown on the attached page (as follows).
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, that Chapter 15, Article III, Section 15-6, Deferred Compensation, is
hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:
Sec. 15-6. Establishment, execution and amendment of plan.
Pursuant to the Government Employees Deferred Compensation Act, Section
51-111.67:14 et seq. of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the county
hereby adopts and establishes a plan of deferred compensation for its
employees, and, to that end, hereby adopts the National Association of
442
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Paqe 14)
Counties Deferred Compensation Program. The purpose of the plan shall be to
provide for the deferral of compensation to the participants. The plan
shall exist in addition to all other retirement, pension or other benefit
systems available to the participants, and shall not supersede, make inoper-
ative or reduce any benefits provided by any other retirement, pension or
benefit program established by law. It is implicitly understood that, other
than the incidental expenses of collecting and disbursing of the employees'
deferrals and other minor administrative matters, there is to be no cost or
contribution by the county to the program.
On behalf of the employer, the county executive is hereby authorized
and directed to execute, and deliver the plan to the plan administrator; and
he is further hereby authorized to execute for the county, individual
participation agreements with each employee requesting same, and to act as
the "administrator" of the plan representing the county, and to execute such
agreements and contracts as are necessary to implement the program. The
plan shall contain such terms and amendments as the county executive may
from time to time approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by his
execution thereof.
Mr. Way seconded the motion.
recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-87-15. Camp Holiday Trails. Allow fill activity to occur
within the floodway fringe of Moores Creek. Property located at end of state maintenance for
St. Rt 702. Tax Map 75, Parcels 47C and 47Cl. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on April 28 and May 5, 1987.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report:
Petition: Camp Holiday Trails, Inc. petitions the Board of Supervisors to
issue a special use permit in accordance with Section 30.3.6.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow fill activity to occur within the floodway fringe
of Moores Creek. The property is located at the end of state maintenance
on Route 702 near the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. Tax map 75, Parcels 47C
and 47C1. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Character of the Area: The proposed site for the fill activity is pre-
sently being used as pasture and is of relatively flat topography. This
pasture area is located immediately adjacent to and below the dam for the
lake.
Camp Holiday Trails provides summer camp experience for children with
disabling medical conditions.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to fill within the floodway
fringe of Moores Creek in order to provide additional recreational facili-
ties. The facilities to be provided include a softball field, soccer field
and track.
The County Engineer has determined that the fill activity will not have a
significant negative impact to the surrounding area. However, since the
floodway will be pushed toward several adjacent properties by the fill
activity, the County Engineer has requested that approval from the adjacent
property owners be obtained for this proposal. A letter from the adjacent
property owner has been received.
The applicant has also received approval from Virginia Power to place
improvements within a utility easement on-site. A backstop and bleachers
will be located under existing power lines. The design and placement of
these facilities are acceptable to Virginia Power. Staff would encourage
the applicant to provide the maximum separation possible between power
lines and equipment and would recommend the location of these facilities
away from the power lines, if possible.
Staff opinion is that the review of this proposal is primarily technical
since Moores Creek is not canoeable (in this location) or otherwise of
general public interest. Staff recommends approval of SP-87-15 subject to
the following:
County Engineer approval of construction activity in the floodplain of
Moores Creek in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay
District of the Zoning Ordinance.
e
Administrative approval of site plan. Bleachers and backstop for
softball field shall be located away from power lines, if possible.
Location to be approved by the Director of Planning and Community
Development.
Addendum:
The Staff has reviewed the most recent plan with personnel at the Virginia
Power Company. They have expressed some concern with the proposed separa-
tion between the backstop and power lines within the utility easement.
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
Virginia Power has indicated that~ight of separation between the backstop
and lowest power line is acceptable. Therefore, staff recommends that a
condition ~3 be added to the conditions of approval, reading:
Height of the backstop not to exceed 12 feet unless located outside of
utility easement.
(Mr. Henley left the meeting at 11:19 P.M.) Mr. Horne Said the Planning Commission, at
its meeting on April 23, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of SP-87-15 subject to the
three conditions as recommended by the staff.
The public hearing was opened. Representing Camp Holiday Trails, Mr. Mark Keller, of
Gloeckner, Lincoln & Osborne, introduced Dr. Elsa Paulsen from the Board of Directors of Camp
Holiday Trails. The applicants are aware of the conditions and are in agreement with the
conditions. She is present today to respond to any questions Board members may have.
Dr. Paulsen said Camp Holiday Trails is unique to the United States. There is not
another camp in the country that serves kids with a multitude of health disabilities. It has
been determined over the years that the camp is psychologically therapeutic for the children.
She intends to introduce exercise for these children in order to reduce physical therapy and
take less medicine. (Mr. Henley returned to the meeting at 11:22 A.M.)
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
motion to approve SP-87-15 subject to the following conditions:
Mrs. Cooke offered
County Engineer approval of construction activity in the floodplain of
Moores Creek in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay
District of the Zoning Ordinance;
Administrative approval of site plan. Bleachers and backstop for
softball field shall be located away from power lines, if possible.
Location to be approved by the Director of Planning and Community
Development;
Height of the backstop not to exceed 12 feet unless located outside of
utility easement.
Mr. Way seconded the motion.
recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-86-59. City of Charlottesville. Requests an amendment to a
previously approved condition regarding the starting date for the installation of bank
erosion control structures in the floodway of the Rivanna River at Pen Park. Tax Map 62,
Parcel 22. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 29 and May 6,
1987.)
The following memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive dated April 29,
1987, was presented:
"The City of Charlottesville has requested that the Board of Supervisors
amend condition ~9 of SP-86-59 regarding the construction period of the
riverbank improvement along the Rivanna River next to Pen Park. This
condition requires that improvements of the riverbank be accomplished
between July 1 to January 31, in order to protect the spawning period of
aquatic life in the Rivanna River. All state agencies reviewing this
proposal required that no disturbance to the river occur between February 1
and May 31.
The City is requesting that condition #9 be amended to correspond with the
state agency requirements, i.e., construction may occur between June 1 and
January 31. The one month difference will be helpful in staying within the
time limits for completion of this project which will also affect the costs
of construction, and be helpful to the City to stay within the project
budget.
Staff would recommend amendment of this condition as follows:
Work to be accomplished between the dates of June 1, 1987 and
January 31, 1988."
Mr. Agnor's memorandum was accompanied by the following letter from Mr. Cole Hendrix,
City Manager, dated April 7, 1987:
"I believe that you are somewhat familiar with the City's plans to stabi-
lize the banks of the Rivanna River adjacent to the Pen Park Golf Course
which are in a state of serious erosion. In any case, the County Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors approved the plan that our consultant
had prepared in October 1986. One of the conditions they imposed was that
work had to be done between July 1 and January 31 of the succeeding year in
order to minimize the impact of the work on aquatic life in the river.
444
May 13, 1987 (RegUlar Meeting)
(Page 16)
This condition was more restrictive than the corresponding condition
imposed by the Corps of Engineers, the Virginia Water Control Board and the
Virginia Marine Resource Commission, all of which permitted work to be done
between June 1 and January 31.
The City did not take issue with this condition last fall, but recently as
I have reflected on the degree of construction activity in the region, I am
concerned that the one month differential in time between the starting date
approved by the County and the other permitting agencies could possibly put
the project in a competitive time frame which would likely increase the
cost of work. This is of particular concern because our budget for this
project is limited.
I feel strongly that this work is as necessary and important to the Rivanna
River as it is to the protection of Pen Park. I believe there is general
agreement on this point among our respective staffs.
The City staff is in the process of revising the plans and specifications
for this project so that the work will be performed from the park side of
the river and therefore not require the three causeways across the river
which have been approved by all the review agencies.- This change will
clearly reduce the impact of the work on the river.
Please consider this letter as the City's formal request to the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission that Condition Number 9
in their action on SP-86-59 be revised so that the work could begin on
June 1 consistent with the other approved permits."
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:29 A.M.) The public hearing was opened. There
being no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to
approve amendment of condition 99 as follows:
Work to be accomplished between the dates of June 1, 1987 and
January 31, 1988.
Mr. Way seconded the motion.
recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 11:31 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Leaf Collection/Brush Burning in the Urban Area. The
following memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated May 4, 1987, was
received:
"At your April 8, 1987 meeting you discussed the leaf collection feasibility
study and directed staff to provide the following information:
Draft ordinance(s) prohibiting the burning of leaves/brush
in certain areas;
Enforcement of such ordinance(s);
Landfill implications; and
Information on Service District Tax.
Ordinances
Draft ordinances have been prepared by the County Attorney's Office for your
review. The first ordinance would prohibit the burning of leaves/and brush
in the urban area and the second ordinance would require the licensing of
refuse collectors. This latter ordinance is designed to require that those
trash haulers doing business in the urban area, make provision for the
periodic pickup of leaves. This would avoid the concern expressed of a
monopoly by possibly one hauler, it would insure that leaf collection is
provided in the urban area and should hopefully address the concern that the
task of leaf collection would not become the responsibility of the County.
It should be noted, however, that a provision for disposal of the leaves
must be considered by the County, i.e., a location other than the landfill
where the haulers can dispose of the leaves.
Enforcement of the ordinances would be provided by a combination of depart-
ments. The licensing of haulers would be the responsibility of the Licens-
ing Division of the Finance Department, and the Engineering Department. The
burning laws would be the primary responsibility of the Fire Prevention
Office staff with additional backup provided by the Police Department. No
additional staffing needs are anticipated due to the cyclical nature of the
enforcement. Complaints regarding the burning of leaves and brush have in
recent time been minimal. Last year, the majority of the complaints
revolved around the burning of brush and logs in two specific, recently
cleared areas. One of these locations was within the urban area. Leaf
burning complaints are isolated and have involved primarily isolated respi-
ratory problems of neighbors.
445
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Pa__~7)
Landfill
As mentioned in an earlier report, disposal of leaves at the landfill should
be prohibited. Section 16-12 of the County Code authorizes the County
Executive to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for the proper
operation of the landfill. Staff opinion is that this provision is adequate
to prevent the disposal of leaves at the landfill. Leaves collected in a
trash compacting truck would be difficult to prevent at all times, however.
Service District Tax
The County Attorney's Office has looked into the authority to require a tax
for a specific service within a specified area. This is in lieu of and more
equitable than using the General Fund to benefit only a certain geographic
population group. Unfortunately, there is no State authority for local
government imposition of a service district assessment. Service authorities
under State law are permitted to provide solid waste disposal, including
leaf collection. One alternative suggested is to ask the Albemarle County
Service Authority (ACSA) to handle this matter and bill each household.
This would of course require Service Authority Board approval.
Recommendation
While an ordinance requiring licensing of refuse collectors and mandating
they provide leaf collection may assure this type of service is provided, it
would very likely reduce or eliminate the competition of refuse haulers in
the urban area. Alternatively, an ordinance banning leaf burning does not
guarantee the service will be provided on a continuous basis by the private
sector. This then would fall upon the County to provide a leaf collection
service.
Finally, due to staff assessment of the limited number of complaints or
problems that have been raised concerning leaf burning in the urban area,
staff would recommend that this matter be considered further in order to
determine if adequate need exists to warrant the prohibition of leaf burning
in certain parts of the urban area at this time. Perhaps a series of
informal surveys of certain neighborhoods to determine the magnitude of the
problem would be useful.
Staff would recommend that you authorize a public hearing to consider an
ordinance which would prohibit the open burning of brush and similar materi-
als in the urban area. The attached draft ordinance to Section 9-23.2:1 of
the County code can be amended to cover the burning of brush, logs, etc.
With regard to the service district tax question, staff would recommend that
proposed state legislation be drafted which would allow Albemarle County to
impose a reasonable assessment on citizens who may benefit from a service
not being received by the general population of the County. This could be
developed and made a part of the VACo legislative package in the fall."
Mr. Fisher commented that this complaint has come up in the County every year for at
least a decade and there are certain areas of the County where there have been numerous
complaints. He does not think this should be put off. Mr. Agnor said the complaints re-
ceived by the staff have been so isolated that the staff does not think it to be a broad
public health or safety concern to consider for public hearing. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks
it would be advisable to have a public hearing to give the citizens an opportunity to speak,
then have the Board decide at that point whether to pursue an ordinance. She has received
numerous telephone calls and knows other Board members have received calls. Mr. Bowie said
he can support the hearing, but he thinks that the citizens should be informed that they will
incur the costs, not the general population, if an ordinance is adopted. Also, he will
support the ordinance only if funds come from somewhere other than the General Fund. He
would like to see the County pursue Service District legislation during the next General
Assembly.
Mr. Agnor suggested that the Board wait on the adoption of an ordinance prohibiting
brush burning until after a public hearing is held on leaf burning. Mrs. Cooke offered
motion to hold a public hearing on July 1, 1987 and take general comments on the subject of
prohibiting leaf burning in the urban area but not in relation to a specific ordinance. Mr.
Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 13. Lickinghole Creek Impoundment Project: Presentation of. The
following memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated May 1, 1987, was
received:
"Attached is a report from the Watershed Management Official concerning an
analysis of alternatives for watershed protection measures in the Licking-
hole Creek drainage basin. The analysis examines three alternatives: a
regional basin impounding Lickinghole Creek; subregional basins impounding
tributaries to Lickinghole Creek; and the utilization of existing, on-site
runoff control ordinance requirements.
County staff have reviewed the report and recommended the implementation of
the regional basin alternative for the following reasons:
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
The Crozet Growth Area has been and continues to be a major factor in
growth management efforts of the County, and long-range plans for
Crozet have been based upon the provision of a regional basin;
The total poundage of phosphorus removed from the watershed is highest
with the regional basin, and unit costs per pound associated with that
removal are the lowest;
The developer contribution or cost to homeowners is lowest with the
regional basin;
Maintenance is limited to one basin which is important to the effi-
ciency of the phosphorus removal process;
Only a "one-time" disturbance to the environment and community would
occur to establish a regional basin;
A regional basin would provide stormwater detention for downstream
properties; and
The runoff control permit and review process would be relieved with
the regional basin approach.
With regard to recouping the cost of the basin through developer contribu-
tion, staff would recommend that the County assume some of the cost, due to
the fact that 43 percent of the growth area is considered already devel-
oped. The lower the per acre contribution from others, the less
disincentive for development to occur in the growth area."
Special Report:
ment Official)
Lickinghole Creek Project (W. K. Norris, Watershed Manage-
"The watershed management plan for the South Rivanna Reservoir utilizes a
multiple technique approach to improving water quality in the watershed and
the reservoir itself. Major point source loadings have been or will be
controlled by the Crozet Interceptor. A variety of management practices
has been identified for use in the control of nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion. Included in these are a County-wide Runoff Control Ordinance, a
streambank erosion control program, an Agricultural Best Management Prac-
tice (BMP) Program, a roadway/stream crossing management effort and a
regional sedimentation basin construction concept. With the exception of
the construction of regional sedimentation basins, all of these techniques
have been or are being implemented.
Following the recommendations of the area's Water Quality and Watershed
Management Studies, a multi-use structure identified in the Comprehensive
Plan in the Lickinghole Creek Basin was redesigned and reevaluated for use
as a regional sedimentation basin. This regional basin was designed as a
control facility that would receive all of the drainage from the growth
area of Crozet, plus the drainage from a substantially larger rural water-
shed area upstream. The cost of the Lickinghole Creek Regional Basin,
which was to have a normal pool area of 29 acres and an average depth of
five feet, was estimated at $600,000. It was calculated that such an
impoundment could remove 45 percent of the total phosphorus loading from
the Lickinghole Creek Basin.
When additional unassigned funds became available through the existing EPA
Clean Lakes program being conducted in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
Watershed, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority made an application for
funds for the construction of a regional basin on Lickinghole Creek.
Initially fifty percent funding ($300,000) was approved by EPA for the
Lickinghole Creek Project. However, during the environmental assessment
phase of the project, the County's original cost estimates and design
guidelines were examined by the U. S. EPA and their consultants, and
several discrepancies were discovered. Fundamental differences in the
design approach and construction cost estimates resulted in the total cost
of the Lickinghole Creek Basin, now being calculated as approximately $2
million.
At this point EPA requested recalculation and verification of the original
estimate. A re-examination of the data by County, City and RWSA staff,
suggested that there were some discrepancies and that the cost of the basin
would be approximately $1.6 million. EPA has basically accepted this
revision of the cost for this project, however, they are concerned over the
increase and have indicated that their commitment to the project is only
for the original $300,000 and then only if they can be convinced that the
project is cost effective.
Due to the increased cost estimate, EPA requested that the locality reexam-
ine the regional basin concept and consider alternative measures to control
pollutant inflows to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority staff requested the assistance of the County staff and
the 314 Clean Lakes Project Consultant, F. X. Browne, to examine the
Lickinghole Creek Project and the feasible alternatives.
",447
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
The approaches that have been examined and evaluated are:
1) The use of a single large regional basin.
2) The use of several small subregional basins.
3) The use of the Runoff Control Ordinance limitations only, (on-site
controls).
In order to properly evaluate these alternatives, certain general infor-
mation regarding the Crozet area and the Lickinghole Creek basin were
required. This information is as follows:
A) The Crozet Growth Area
The Crozet Growth area covers an area of approximately 2,266
acres and has an estimated 1,310 acres of developable land
available for residential development. (In addition there are
597 areas of commercial, industrial, and public open space within
the area).
B)
DrainaGe Area
The Regional Basin concept proposed for Lickinghole Creek would
drain approximately 8,340 acres (1,310 acres of developable
residential land, 597 acres of developable commercial and indus-
trial land, 359 acres of developed land, and 6,074 acres of rural
agricultural land). Smaller subregional basins could also be
utilized to control pollutant runoff from the Crozet Growth area.
A number of these small basins would be required to provide
adequate water quality protection. (Four sample basins were
evaluated to generate data for comparison with other alterna-
tives).
If no regional or subregional basin concept is utilized, then the
site controls as required by the Runoff Control Ordinance would
apply to all the developable land area within the drainage area.
c)
DwellinG Units
In order to properly examine the proposed alternatives, estimates
regarding the number of dwelling units in the area were also
gathered. Utilizing a figure of 2.5 dwelling units per acre for
the 1,310 acres of developable residential land within the Crozet
Growth area, a total of 3,275 dwelling units can be estimated for
the area.
D) Cost
The total cost which has been estimated for the construction of
the large regional basin on Lickinghole Creek is $1.6 million,
and for subregional basins is $2.5 million.
Total costs for incorporation of the Runoff Control Ordinance
limitations in the Crozet Growth area are difficult to estimate.
However, by using bonding amounts for existing runoff control
measures, a rough average cost of $500 per acre appears to
reflect current costs for individual on-site controls. This cost
can be reduced by approximately 50 percent by incorporating
controls subdivision wide rather than on an individual lot by lot
basis.
After a thorough review of the available information and much discussion
with the County staff, regarding the Lickinghole Creek Project, the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority conducted their own evaluation of the project in
terms of other urban water projects. The RWSA Lickinghole Creek Project
memorandum dated December 19, 1986 concluded that the regional basin would
have a desirable effect in terms of reducing phosphorus and sediment
loading to the reservoir. However, due to the size of the structure and
the associated cost, the project does not have a high priority in relation
to other urban water projects. In addition, it was recommended that
neither the regional approach nor the subregional approach be implemented
and that the EPA funds be transferred to other local watershed management
projects or returned to EPA.
Following evaluations of the Lickinghole Creek Project memorandum refer-
enced above, the RWSA Board of Directors voted to remove the project from
active consideration.
It would seem prudent in conducting this evaluation to examine the possible
effects of decision on the Comprehensive Plan and the Crozet Growth Area.
The Comprehensive Plan now relies on the ability of the Crozet community to
absorb a significant amount of future population growth. Significant
capital investment has been expended to facilitate that growth. Loss of
the growth potential in Crozet would significantly affect the long term
viability of the current Comprehensive Plan structure.
The shape of the Crozet community is dictated by the drainage basin of the
Lickinghole Creek Detention Basin. The use of either subregional or
on-site basins would dilute the policy rationale for the current community
boundaries. The use of on-site controls, in particular, would also dilute
the policy rationale for the preference given Crozet as a growth area, as
448
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
compared to other areas in the watershed. One distinction that can be
made, hhowever, is the sheer fact that an established settlement exists in
Crozet, which provides a good basic community core for the future popula-
tion. Such a settlement or core does not exist to this extent in other
areas. This fact, along with other technical characteristics, could act as
a valid distinguishing factor in favor of a future growth area in Crozet.
It is apparent from examination of the available data, that a regional
basin located within the Lickinghole Creek Basin would have definite
benefits to the area and to the water quality in the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir."
In response to Mr. Bowie's question on the assumed contribution by developers, Mr. Agnor
responded that the contribution would be approximately $1 million if all of the land were to
be developed. Approximately $300,000 from local sources would not be recovered. Mr. Fisher
commented that the sooner the County proceeds with this project, the more likely it is to get
EPA funding and the more likely the price will not continue to escalate. If the Board
decides to continue the thrust for the regional basin, then the funding mechanism must be
worked out. He thinks that this measure should be continued to protect the water supply and
thinks the Board should accept the report and move forward with the project. Mr. Bowie said
he has a problem with funding particularly through the Albemarle County Service Authority and
asked where the up-front money would come from.~ Mr. Agnor responded that funding would have
to be put in the Capital Program of the Rivanna Authority, and/or County, and/or the City.
His recommendation is that if the regional basin approach is to be retained, the Board
discuss the funding of the project directly with City Council. The Rivanna Authority is
having a difficult time dealing with this in terms of demands it already has for debt service
on projects associated with the treatment of sewage and water.
Mr. Horne commented that now there is a sewage collection system in Crozet, the basin
needs to be in place in order to ask for contributions from developers. The County will need
to reach some decision reasonably quickly. Mr. Tucker said even if the basin is not physi-
cally in place, the County can request contributions from the developer. Mr. Agnor said it
is critical to made a decision from a federal funding point of view because, even though the
funds will not be lost, they could be diverted to another watershed protection program.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to accept the report and the implementation of the regional
basin alternative and requested that the report be sent to the Planning Commission as infor-
mation to reaffirm that there will be a regional basin constructed in the Lickinghole Creek
area as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Mr. Bowie said
he will support the motion but still has concerns about where the money will come from. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Henley asked if the EPA has indicated whether it will contribute any more funds.
Mr. Agnor said the EPA has stated it will contribute no more. Mr. Fisher commented that the
report was well written and the people that participated in it should be commended.
Agenda Item No. 14. Lunch Recess.
reconvened into session at 1:35 p.m.
At 12:10 p.m., the Board recessed for lunch, and
Agenda Item No. 15. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation - John Baker. Mr.
Baker has resigned as a member of the Albemarle County School Board since he is soon moving
to Buffalo, N. Y. to become Vice President of the City Campus of Erie Community College. Mr.
Baker had served on the School Board for three years, and was to have been present today to
receive a certificate of appreciation from the Board. However, Mr. Baker was called out of
town on business, so Mr. Fisher will present the certificate to Mr. Baker at another time.
Agenda Item No. 16. Piedmont Environmental Council - presentation re: Agricultural/-
Forestal District legislation enacted in 1987. Ms. Tamara Vance of the PEC was present.
She make a verbal presentation of changes which were enacted during the 1987 session of the
General Assembly in the enabling legislation for Agricultural/Forestal Districts. She also
noted that there are proposals for four new districts, which will be presented to the Board
after the first of July. Mr. Fisher thanked Ms. Vance for the information.
Agenda Item No. 17. Request to include Triangle Trailer Court in the Albemarle County
Service Authority Sewer Service boundaries.
The following letter dated May 6, 1987, from G. Benton Patterson, brought this request
to the Board's attention:
"I request you to set this matter on the agenda of the Board of Supervisors
for hearing on May 13, 1987. I have received correspondence from the
Albemarle County Health department, a copy of Mr. Rice~s letter of April 8,
1987 is enclosed herein, stating that the current septic system which has
been in operation for years is leaking and is creating a health hazard. The
Health Department deems this to be an immediate health hazard and of an
emergency nature.
'44 @
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Pa_~21)
I have spoken with Mr. Rice and Mr. Collins at the Health Department, Mr.
Bill Norris, your watershed management official, and people from the
Albemarle County Service Authority regarding the extension of public sewer
to serve the trailer court. The Service Authority has public sewerlines
across the street from the trailer court property.
I am informed that the lines cannot be extended by the Service Authority
because my property is outside the area that the Service Authority services.
I am making a specific request that you approve the immediate extension of
the sewerlines to serve the trailer court property which has twenty-one (21)
trailers on the property. The majority of these trailer renters are subsi-
dized by public subsidy at this time.
My engineer, Mr. Mark Osborne, is studying the engineering work and, from
his preliminary observations and field work, believes all the trailers can
be served by gravity lines. He will be with me at your meeting on May 13,
1987.
I would appreciate your consideration of this matter at your earliest
opportunity so that I can satisfy the concerns of the Health Department and
adjoining property owners."
Mr. Agnor noted that by memorandum dated May 8, 1987, Mr. Horne, Director of Planning,
had said that due to the relatively complex policy and utility considerations of the request
for extension of public sewer to the Triangle Mobile Home Park, the Planning Department was
not able on such short notice to prepare a staff report on the request for this meeting.
Mr. Fisher said the Board should go ahead and set a date for a public hearing on this
question without committing itself to anything, while the staff prepares a report. Motion
was then offered by Mrs. Cook, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to set this matter for public hearing
on June 3, 1987. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 18. Greenwood School Property - Disposition of. The following memoran-
dum from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated April 29, 1987, was received, along with
a resolution from the School Board dated March 24, 1987, and a staff report from Mr. John T.
P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development:
"Attached is a resolution from the Albemarle County School Board declaring
the Greenwood School as surplus property. Also attached is a preliminary
analysis from the Planning Department regarding adaptive uses for Greenwood
School.
To be consistent with the process followed for the Scottsville School,
staff recommends that the Board hold a public hearing to solicit public
comment and determine citizen interest in possible uses of the Greenwood
School property."
BE IT RESOLVED, by the County School Board of Albemarle County,
Virginia, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 22.1-129, that the
following-described property, known as the Greenwood School Property, is
hereby declared surplus:
Ail of that certain lot or parcel of land in Albemarle
County, shown on Tax Map 54, parcel 54, known as Greenwood
School property, conveyed to the School Board of Samuel Miller
District of the County of Albemarle, by deed of Wills Johnson,
dated January 17, 1920 and recorded in the Clerk's office of
Albemarle Circuit Court March 8, 1920 in Deed Book 172, page
459. Reference is made to said deeds and the plats referred
to therein for a more particular description of the subject
property.
The Clerk of the School Board is hereby directed to file a copy of
this Resolution with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia, it being the intention of the School Board, pursuant to Virginia
Code Section 22.1-129 to vest title to the Greenwood School property in the
County of Albemarle, Virginia. The Chairman of the School Board is hereby
authorized to sign a deed conveying the above-described property by Special
Warranty deed to the County of Albemarle, if such should be requested.
The Board of Supervisors is encouraged to retain any land for recrea-
tion and further school sites which is not needed for whatever use is found
for Greenwood School building.
Adopted at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Albemarle County
School Board on March 24, 1987, and attested to by Charlotte C. Self,
Clerk.
Several months ago the Board of Supervisors requested that staff of t is
Department conduct a preliminary planning review of the possible use of the
Greenwood School for housing for low and moderate income persons through
450
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
the Moderate Rehabilitation Program. It is my understanding that the
School Board has now declared Greenwood School surplus property. Due to
this fact and the fact that there appears to be some preliminary interest
by some groups towards use of the school for low and moderate income -
housing, I would like to submit the following preliminary analysis.
The analysis will focus on the policies in the current Comprehensive Plan
as they relate to such a project. Prior to this policy analysis I would
like to point out, however, the significant physical obstacles that would
need to be overcome with such a use. The current well and septic system
for the Greenwood School is a old system that may or may not be adequate
for use by full time housing. Staff has been unable to determine the
condition of that system but is assuming that significant renovations to
both the well and septic systems would be necessary to accommodate such a
use.
Whether these renovations can be accomplished at this site has not been
determined and would be of crucial importance to the actual redevelopment
of this property.
The two major areas of policy in the Comprehensive Plan that would affect
such a proposal are the land use policy and the community development
policy.
LAND USE POLICY
The Greenwood location is not within a growth area in the current Compre-
hensive Plan. It is, therefore, designated for rural development which
does not normally allow for relatively large scale multi-family develop-
ments such as the Greenwood School project. This policy is implemented
through the Rural Areas zoning district which would not currently allow for
multi-family housing types. It would appear, therefore, that the Rural
Areas district would need to be amended and/or the property in question re-
zoned to a higher residential density category. Such an action would be
outside the normal policy that would be applied to a private developer
wishing to develop multi-family housing in such a location. The develop-
ment of this type of housing has been consistently discouraged in the Rural
Areas in order to avoid alteration of the rural character by the introduc-
tion of urban housing types and to avoid the need for urban type services
in relatively remote rural areas.
In order to approve the development of this type of housing in the
Greenwood area, the staff would recommend that the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors try to identify some unique factors as they relate to
this particular development in this particular location that could distin-
guish it from other requests for multi-family development in other rural
areas. This would need to be done in order to avoid setting a precedent
for approval of other requests for this type of housing in the rural areas
which is generally discouraged in the Comprehensive Plan.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICY
Goal 3 of the Comprehensive Plan is as follows: "Provide safe, sanitary,
and adequate housing for Albemarle County residents of all income groups.
Various objectives under this goal call for the provision of a wide variety
of housing types and the promotion of federal and state programs as they
relate to Albemarle's housing problem. This goal and these objectives
would need to be balanced against the land use goals and objectives in a
review of such a project at the Greenwood School. The Greenwood area is
not within a strategy area for more concentrated housing improvement
efforts as shown in the Comprehensive Plan. It is, however, within one of
the strategy areas that were identified in the 1987 submittal of a Communi-
ty Development Block Grant for continued rehabilitation of housing units by
AHIP.
It would appear, therefore, that the community development and human
resources goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the implicit
policy decision by the Board of Supervisors as embodied in the CDBG grant
application could possibly be used to offset the normal land use policy
objections to such a proposal. If such a project were clearly tied to only
housing for the low and moderate income population of the County, the
project could possibly be safely distinguished from other requests for
multi-family housing in the rural areas. Another possible unique charac-
teristic would be the adaptive re-use of surplus public property which
again could be used as a characteristic to set this project apart from
other requests for multi-family housing.
In summary, the current Comprehensive Plan does not place relative priori-
ties on its goals and objectives. The human resource goals and objectives
are provided the same weight in the Plan as the land use goals and objec-
tives. The Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission would, therefore,
need to make a policy decision as to the relative weights to be provided
these somewhat conflicting goals as they relate to this particular project.
Again, the staff would recommend that the Commission and Board attempt to
identify unique characteristics of this project that could set it apart
from other possible multi-family projects. It does appear that the project
has some characteristics that could set it apart.
45&
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Pae_q~23)
I hope this discussion will be of some assistance to the Board of Super-
visors. It would be my hope that the Board could make some preliminary
policy decisions related to this matter before there is further investment
of significant time and effort by either public or private agencies. If
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me."
Mr. Fisher said he feels there are quite a few citizens interested in the disposition of
this property, and that the Board should schedule a time to take public comments. Motion was
offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to advertise for public comments on the
proposed use of this property for July 1, 1987. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher,-'Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 19. Volunteer Fire Companies - Advanced Allocation Fund.
The following memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated May 4,
1987, was received:
"Background:
In FY 81/82, the County reviewed a proposal from Mr. J. B. Morris the
Finance Chairman of the Jefferson Country Fireman's Association (JCFA) to
fund the needs of the seven Volunteer Companies. The proposal was a request
of the County to provide $1 million dollars for equipment in the form of an
advanced allocation. The Board of Supervisors chose to fund the request in
the Five Year Capital Improvement Program at the rate of $200 thousand per
year beginning in FY 82/83. The proposed repayment was initially designed
to be spread over seven years. However, two companies Crozet and Earlys-
ville have used the Advanced Allocation fund to build fire houses. This
combined with the tremendous cost increases on equipment (fire engines) has
caused the extension of the payback period beyond seven years.
The attached letter from Mr. Armentrout describes the situation very accu-
rately. Staff ~has brought this matter to the Board on several occasions for
discussion; however, no official action was taken to create a separate
Reserve Fund for the paybacks to be placed in a future allocation reserve
even though Mr. Morris' original Jefferson Country Fireman's Association
proposal implied this would be done.
Current Status:
Attached is a schedule showing the current status of all advance allocations
to the seven companies. As you can see, the first three, Scottsville
($80,000), Seminole ($160,000) and Stony Point ($48,000) had outstanding
balances in FY 82/83 when the first $200 thousand of the $1 million allo-
cation was made available. The total annual repayment by the three compa-
nies above on their initial outstanding loans is $36,000 per year and ends
in FY 89/90.
If you consider only the $1 million dollars on the five year period, the
following schedule summarizes the activity:
FY Amount Loaned Repayment Outstanding Balance
82/83 $ 200,0'00 0 $ 200,000
83/84 200,000 $ 37,500 362,500
84/85 200,000 48,000 514,500
85/86 200,000 73,000 641,500
86/87 88,000* 122~543 606,957
Total $ 888,000 $ 281,043
*There is $112~000 undistributed as of April 30, 1987 of which $35,000 was
recently allocated to Earlysville for a Brush Truck.
If you take the position that all of the paybacks of the $1 million should
have accrued in a reserve fund the fund would have the following available
funds as of this date:
Undistributed
Plus paybacks
SubTotal
Less: (Brush Truck)
Total Available
$ 112,000
281,043
$ 393,043
35t000
$ 358,043
The above subtotal of $393,043 plus the outstanding loan balance of $606,957
combines to .make the $1 million dollars. This $1 million amount of funds
will make approximately $143,000 available each year on a seven year payback
or $100,000 on a ten year repayment or approximately $130,000 per year on
the current mix of seven and ten year loans.
If the $281,043 in loans already repaid to the County is not returned to the
Allocation Reserve Fund the above figures would reduce 28%.
452
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
Conclusion
The Advanced Allocation procedure has worked well in the opinion of staff.
All seven of the companies appear to be well equipped and well housed at
this time. However, the equipment does wear out with the amount of use it
is being subjected to by these companies. Last year, there were 1794 calls
(See attached incident report) answered by these seven companies. In
addition, the City responded in the county 585 times. About 60% of the City
calls were backup calls to the County Volunteers or secondary calls.
There are several factors today that did not exist five years ago that
impact the volunteer companies. They are:
The outlying companies are training their people for medical assist or
to be first responders. There were 265 medical assist calls in 1986.
The degree of training, costs of training plus the time consumed takes
a larger portion of the volunteers time.
Canvassing the public for contributions and the funds received has not
kept up with the cost of operations.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors take official action to authorize
the Director of Finance to create a "Reserve Fund" with appropriate accounts
to place all repayments inclusive of those previously paid back so as to
make available to the Volunteer Companies the entire proceeds of the $1
million allocation in order that all repayments will be available for
Capital Improvements in the future."
Mr. Ray Jones was present and went into a little further explanation of the memorandum.
Mr. Fisher said he thought that this is what the Board had already agreed to do. Mr. Henley
said he also thought this had been dOne. Mr. Jones said it was not done by an official vote
of the Board. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Henley, to authorize
the Director of Finance to create a "Reserve Fund" with appropriate accounts in which to
place all repayments from the volunteer fire companies inclusive of those previously paid
back so as to make available to the volunteer companies the entire proceeds of the $t million
allocation in order that all repayments will be available for capital improvements in the
future. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vo~e:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 20. Equity Pay Adjustment - Police Department.
The following memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated May 6,
1987, was received:
"Staff has completed a review of the salaries of the police officers in the
patrol and investigation range (Pay Range 15) who were transferred from the
Sheriff's Department to the Police Department in July, 1984 at the salaries
they were earning at the time without consideration being given to setting
their salaries according to their years' of experience. This review is a ~-
comparison of where their salaries would be today if they had been employed
as applicants for positions rather than as transferees. Applicants today
are generally employed at the entry level Step A, with no experience, at
Step B with one to three years experience, at Step D with four to six years
experience, at Step E with seven to nine years experience, and above Step E,
with approval of the Board of Supervisors, with ten or more years experi-
ence.
The following are the results of the review.
A total of eighteen officers are currently employed in Range 15
who were transferred from the Sheriff's Staff in July, 1984.
Six officers had from plus one to three years experience in 1984,
and were in the entry level step of the scale, Step A. The equity
adjustment of this group will require a one step pay adjustment to
be placed in Step B. Each step is a two and one-half percent
increase.
Five officers had'four to six years experience in 1984, and were
in the A Step of the scale, with the exception of one officer in
the E Step. The equity adjustments for four officers of this
group will require a three step adjustment to be placed in Step D.
Three officers had seven to nine years experience, and were in the
A, B and D Steps of the scale. The equity adjustment of this
group will range from one step to four steps with each one placed
in Step E.
Four officers had ten or more years of service, and were in Steps
F, L and G of the scale. It would be unusual to employ officers
in a patrol or investigation position with service experience in
excess of ten years, but if we did, the officers in this group,
due to their years of experience, would probably be hired no
453
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Paqe 25)
higher than Step G, with Board of Supervisors approval. An equity
adjustment of this group will require a two step adjustment for
one officer to Step G. The remaining three officers will not
require an adjustment.
The total cost of the salary adjustment is calculated to be $17,450 plus
$3,485 in FICA, retirement, and life insurance costs, making a total cost of
$20,935. Funds are allocated in the FY 87-88 budget for these costs.
It will be a one-time adjustment, affecting 14 of the 18 officers involved.
The principles involved in the equity adjustment will be discussed with the
department staff, and each adjustment will be discussed individually with
each affected officer in order for the matter to be completely understood.
Authorization to proceed with this equity adjustment effective July 1, 1987
is recommended, and requested."
Mr. Jones explained further the memorandum. Mr. Bowie said this only means that if
these people had been hired at a later date from another department, this is where they would
be on the pay scale now. Mr. Way said he ageees this is the way this should be taken care
of. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie that the equity adjustment be approved as set out in the
County Executive's memorandum dated May 6, 1987. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 21. Pay for Performance Plan (General Government Employees), Discussion
of. The following memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated May 7,
1987, was received as follows:
"In 1986, I advised you that the staff was examining for a future year,
other methods of distributing salary increases to employees. Your response
was to leave the five percent merit plan intact limiting it in FY 86/87 to
the dollars of funding allocated, replacing a number of employees cap used
in FY 85/86. You indicated you would prefer not to be placed in a position
of frequently amending the existing merit pay plan.
Sequentially speaking, you later appropriated funds for the classified
employees of the School Division for implementation of a merit pay plan, and
requested a report from the Superintendent of Schools on the use and distri-
bution of the appropriated funds. That report was provided to you, and in
my opinion was generally well received or accepted by a majority of the
Board. Subsequent to that, a policy on Commonality of Personnel Salaries
and Benefits was adopted by the School Board and the Board of Supervisors.
Following that action, the Director of Personnel, the Superintendent of
Schools', and I met to examine and discuss variables in the personnel sys-
tems.
The earlier report to you about examining other methods of salary distribu-
tion was focused on the realization that other localities are using a per-
formance distribution system not limited singularly to "outstanding" perfor-
mance, but using criteria for "unsatisfactory", "satisfactory", and "above
satisfactory" in addition to "outstanding" performance recognition and
awards. Some of those localities we were competing with in our employment
market. Later, addressing commonality matters and recognizing that the
School Division used a pay for performance system of merit awards, the
earlier efforts to examine performance distribution methods became focused
on the merger of the County's vested, outstanding award system with the
School Divisions non-vested performance award system. The attached memoran-
dum from Dr. Hastings outlines the results of that effort and the features
of a plan that merges the School Division and General Government merit award
plans.
The plan, like any personnel system, has complexities difficult to follow or
understand unless you work with the system regularly. I believe it offers
the Board control of the system through the annual appropriation of the
funds required; it places administrative responsibility on the Executive and
Personnel staffs, and on the department heads where that responsibility
belongs; it ties all salary adjustments to performance and provides recog-
nition to all levels of performance.
Your review and approval of the plan is requested, and recommended."
The following information was then presented by Dr. Hastings from her memo dated
April 27, 1987:
"Background: During 1985-86, the County operated under a merit system which
limited merit awards to 25 percent of the employees who received outstanding
ratings. These employees received five percent vested merit awards. At the
same time, all County (General Government ) employees, regardless of perfor-
mance, were given a general increase effective July 1, 1986. For the
current year, the 25 percent cap was eliminated, however, the five percent
vested increase for outstanding performance remained in effect. The
454
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Paqe26~
following problems with the current distribution method were voiced by
employees and department heads:
a)
The current general increase has no relationship to performance; an
unsatisfactory rating yielded the same general increase as an outstand-
ing rating;
b)
The current method of distributing the five percent raises to only the
outstanding performers provided no incentive for employees who were
doing a good job, but who were not in the top ranked score category.
Proposal: To address these concerns, a committee was convened by you (Mr.
Agnor) to study alternatives to the current system. This committee surveyed
a number of local governments regarding their methods of distributing merit
increases. The members also spent an extensive time studying the Frederick
County system since it appeared to offer the most flexibility. As a result
of this study, the following recommendations are made:
1)
Replace the general increase and current merit distribution method with
a pay for performance plan. Such a plan would provide a salary in-
crease, based on the evaluation score, to any employee receiving at
least a satisfactory rating. Ratings below satisfactory would not be
eligible for an increase. Under such a plan, funds would be distribut-
ed to each department for employees under the Classified Evaluation
Plan. (For Administrative employees, funds would be distributed to the
two deputy county executives.) The funds would be equal to whatever
percentage raise is approved by the Board times the salaries fbr that
department. The amount of money given to a particular employee would
be contingent on the scores in that department. The advantage of such
a system is that it links all raises to performance as opposed to
reserving merit raises for only the top scoring employees;
2)
Change all County employees to a consistent evaluation point, i.e., do
by May of each year, rather than staggering the evaluations over the
whole year as is presently done. The advantage here is to allow the
supervisor to make judgements about all employees at one time, thus
providing a better basis for comparison. Under this plan, raises for
all employees would take effect July 1 based on the rating received in
the Spring;
3)
Eliminate the concept of longevity steps and the waiting of two years
between raise eligibility. The present method is difficult to manage
and is of questionable value. The committee members suggest allowing
employees to reach the maximum of their range as performance warrants.
Once the maximum is achieved, there would be no more vested increases,
however, one-time bonus payments would be made to these individuals
based on their performance ratings;
4)
Distribute pay for performance increases initially as nonvested bonus
payments. The next July, any combination of two and one-half percent
steps would be vested based on the previous year's rating. This would
still allow the employees to move up in their range and would present a
savings to the county in that initial awards would be on a bonus basis;
5)
Set a maximum of twice the amount of the general pool percentage on the
amount any one employee can receive as a raise. Since the pay for
performance plan is a flexible one, a maximum amount should be set to
guard against the skewing of scores to benefit one employee or a small
group of employees.
1987-1988 Fiscal Year: Obviously, the adoption of such a plan will require
a transition from the current method of distributing salary increases. The
following is recommended:
1)
On July 1, 1987, distribute two and one-half percent vested increases
to all employees who achieved at least a satisfactory rating during
1986-87. Those employees who were rated below satisfactory would be
ineligible for this increase. Probationary employees would receive a
two and one-half percent nonvested award at the successful completion
of their probationary terms;
2)
In November, 1987 all county (general government) employees would be
evaluated with the remaining two percent pool distributed in January,
1988 on the pay for performance basis and as nonvested increases;
3)
In May, 1988 evaluations would be done for distributing July, 1988
raises on a totally pay for performance basis. Combinations of two and
one-half percent increases from the January review would now vest.
From this point, the county would be on a July distribution schedule
for all merit funds.
The pay for performance method would produce several advantages. It would
be a more flexible method for distributing salary increases and thus would
be more positive for employees. At the same time, it would tie all salary
increases to performance and still guarantee maintaining the budgeted limit
for employee raises."
455
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
[Ra~te 27)
Mr. Fisher asked if this change had been discussed with the employees. Dr. Hastings
said the committee which she chaired had representatives from most departments, as well as
second level peoPle. This plan has been discussed most often at department head meetings
with Mr. Agnor, and then from those department heads to the employees.
Mr. Bowie asked if an employee must win an outstanding the second time before the raise
is vested, or if it is vested automatically the next year. Dr. Hastings said the vesting
occurs automatically based on the previous year's evaluation. Mr. Bowie said that vesting
for just one good evaluation has been his concern all along. Mr. Fisher said he understands
that an employee who gets an "above satisfactory" rating would qualify for a two and one-half
percent bonus check, nonvested the first year. He asked what causes the vesting of that two
and one-half percent the following year. Dr. Hastings said the fact that that person re-
ceived the two and one-half percent the preceding year. Mr. Fisher said he does not see the
difference between this plan and the existing plan. Dr. Hastings said that currently the
whole amount is vested immediately, and every local government employee receives the general
increase each July 1 no matter what that person's rating is. Mr. Fisher said he feels this
method of distribution would put some department heads in a quandary as to how to "divvy
things up" so that every employee got at least two and one-half percent so that it would vest
the following year. Dr. Hastings said that her committee looked at this question. Each
department will be allocated a finite sum of money, and until all of the scores are in for a
particular year, no one will know what the percentage allocation to each person would be.
Mr. Fisher asked if the department heads are in turn evaluated on how well they do the
evaluating. Dr. Hastings said yes. Mr. Bowie asked if the County Executive has the authori-
ty to give all paperwork back to the department heads, say "I don't like it" and have it done
again. Dr. Hastings said that is difficult to do under the present system because the
evaluations take place all during the year. Mr. Bowie said he was expecting a yes or no
answer. Mr. Agnor said he can do what Mr. Bowie asked.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks it would be a horrible nightmare to do all evaluations in the
same month. Dr. Hastings said the evaluations would not necessarily have to be done all at
the same time, but would be due in May. Mr. Agnor said training sessions will be held for
evaluators so ~that the department heads can delegate this duty to the supervisory level, only
reviewing the evaluations themselves.
Mr. Fisher asked if an employee got an unsatisfactory rating, if that person would be
expected to keep that unsatisfactory rating a second year. Dr. Hastings said no; that person
would be dismissed. Mr. Fisher said he is beginning to feel that the pay plan for general
government employees gets changed as often as the one for the schools. Mr. Bowie agreed. He
said the only change he sees in this plan is that a person with an "unsatisfactory" rating
does not get the general increase. Dr. Hastings said the big change is that rather than the
five percent being the only amount that a person could achieve on the merit plan, there would
be a flexible amount available to people based on their performance as opposed to the general
increase plus five percent for only a small number of people. That is the real major
difference.
Mr. Bowie said the whole idea would be more palatable if it did not vest immediately.
He agrees with the bonus the first year, and would suggest that if the score were eqully high
the second year, that the increase be vested instead of the bonus being given. Mr. Fisher
asked what would happen the third year. Mr. Bowie said if this is to be a pay for perfor-
mance plan, then when the employees does not do well in a particular year, there must be some
way that they loose something. Increases should be harder to earn, and easier to loose.
Mr. Fisher asked if there were any projection on what it is expected that the first
year's ratings would go and what sort of distribution would be expected. Dr. Hastings said
that based on last year's scores, she would expect that about one-third would get a one-time
bonus with no vesting, one-third would vest either two and one-half or five percent. Mr.
Fisher asked what percentage of the employees would be expected to vest five percent raises
in the second year. Dr. Hastings said that if scores continue, it could be about a third of
the mployees. Mr. Fisher asked how many more would vest one step. Dr. Hastings said proba-
bly another one-third. Mr. Fisher said the other one third would be below two and one-half
percent, or above five percent. Dr. Hastings said that in the second year there would be
vested general increase. Mr. Fisher asked how the total cost. Dr. Hastings said the amount
is finite. The plan would have to administered within the amount the Board granted for the
plan.
Mr. Bowie said under the examples just given, a third of the employees would get noth-
ing. Dr. Hastings said they would get a one-time, nonvested bonus. Mr. Bowie said he feels
department heads might then try to boost scores a little so that the employee would get a
vested amount. Dr. Hastings said each employee in that department would just get less money
from the pool because the pool is finite.
Mr. Bowie said he supports the pay for performance feeling it is much better than just a
general across-the-board increase. However, he has three problems. 1) The immediate vest-
ing; 2) the vesting for life on one evaluation; and 3) he would not support these changes
unless they were thoroughly explained to the employees and the employees know that under this
system they may win, and then again, they may lose.
Mrs. Cooke if an employee receives a satisfactory rating and is eligible for a bonus
that first year, that is fine. If the employee continues with that satisfactory rating the
second year, then the employee is setting a pattern that can be recognized. She does not
feel that until the third year should any amount be vested. Dr. Hastings said that could be
done. In answer to Mr. Bowie's comment, Dr. Hastings said this idea has not been taken to
the staff wanting to see if the concept was opposed by the Board.
Mr. Way said he concurs with Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Bowie about the vesting. Dr. Hastings
Said when this idea is presented to the staff and it is explained that there will be no more
-45
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
P~e 28_/
across-the-board, vested increases on July 1 of each year, the Board will probably get a
reaction from the employees. Part of the idea behind this concept is to achieve some combi-
nation of a bonus, and for long-term employees, vesting for retirement purposes, etc.
Mr. Henley said he thinks employees will catch up in the long run because the whole
salary scale will continue to be evaluates every three or four years against the market. Mr.
Bowie said if other employers recognize inflation and Albemarle County does not, the salary
scale will have to be adjusted at some time. Dr. Hastings said that is true.
Mr. Bowie said if more work is going to be done on this idea, he would like for Staff to
consider that a much larger amount of money could be given as a bonus (maybe ten or fifteen
percent) if it were not vested. Mr. Agnor said the significant drawback to that idea is that
the State Retirement System will not recognize a bonus at all. If there were no way to vest,
then the employee's/~2~bemarle County could not be improved from the viewpoint of retire-
ment income. Mr. Bowie said he does not feel that is fair either.
Mr. Fisher said he is reluctant to change the system unless the School System knows what
the Board is doing, the Board itself is satisfied and understands the proposal, and the
employees understand the system. It is really getting very complicated. Dr. Hastings said
this Board should understand that the School System is not, and has never been on the current
local government system. Mr. Fisher said he understands that. He asked about their system.
Dr. Hastings said the nonteaching employees get a nonvested bonus in the summer for the
performance evaluation. They get the vested increase for satisfactory, and anything above
that is paid as a bonus.
Mr. Bowie said if an employee gets an evaluation of "above average" this year and the
bonus, but then next year gets only "satisfactory", he does not believe the "above average"
evaluation should vest when the employee has now dropped backward. Mr. Fisher said Mr.
Lindstrom is not-present today, and he is very interested in this matter. He feels there are
a number of unanswered questions concerning this plan, and he would suggest that the Board
set a work session on same in the very near future. Mr. Bowie said he will be out of town
until late next Wednesday afternoon, returning just in time for the night meeting.
Dr. Hastings asked if she should try to elicit comments from the general staff on this
proposal before that work session. Mr. Fisher said no; the proposal is too fuzzy at this
time. Mr. Fisher said the Board will decide on a date for the work session later this
afternoon.
Agenda Item No. 22. Flexible Benefit Plan, Approval of. A memorandum from Mr. Guy B.
Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated May 8, 1987, was presented:
"Forwarded herewith is a report on an employee benefit plan which, under
Internal Revenue Service regulations, provides employees the option of
paying for child care and certain health and insurance costs with income
that is not taxed, thereby reducing the employee's tax liability, and
similarly reducing the employer's social security and workman's compensation
costs, as well as the costs of contributions to retirement and life insur-
ance programs, in the County's program. The program is voluntary, and, I am
advised, is becoming widely offered by private and public employers. Your
review of the plan is requested, and your approval of it being offered to
County employees beginning July 1 is recommended."
Accompanying Mr. Agnor's memorandum was a memo from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of
Finance, and Dr. Carole Hastings, Director of Personnel, dated April 24, 1987, as follows:
"Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code also known as the "Cafeteria
Compensation Plan" is being viewed by many employers as a means of providing
additional benefits without incurring increased costs. In fact, employers
actually save on existing benefits.
The main focus of this plan is the payment of qualifying benefits with
pre-tax dollars. Employees are permitted to enter into volunteer salary
reduction agreements with their employer to fund the payment of these
benefits. This reduced salary results in a smaller liability for federal
and state income tax and social security tax while still providing funds to
pay for family health insurance, medical bills not covered by insurance and
child care, etc. These type of benefits are currently paid for with after
tax dollars.
Savings for the employee are recognized in a reduced cost of social security
tax, retirement and life insurance contributions and workman's compensation
insurance. Each county employee currently paying for family health insur-
ance would benefit from entering into a salary reduction agreement, however,
we would not anticipate more than 75% participation. The following projec-
tion of savings to the County is based on this assumption:
1. Current Employee Health Insurance Payments $396,000
2. Estimated Participation 75%
3. Salary Reduction Amount $297,000
4. Employer Savings
Social Security @ 7.15%
Retirement @11.56%
Life Insurance @ 1.02%
Workman's Compensation @ 1.12%
TOTAL
21,235
34,333
3,029
3,326
61,923
457
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
l_Rage 29)
Also, a number of employees would elect to set aside additional amounts for
other benefits which could substantially increase these savings. Inquiries
to other Virginia localities offering this option indicates a 25-50% partic-
ipation in other benefits with amounts varying from a few hundred dollars to
several thousand dollars.
Social Security and VSRS retirement benefits are based on the employee's
three highest years of earnings, normally this is the last three years of
employment. Since there will be a decrease in the employee's taxable
salary, .resulting in smaller contributions for social security and retire-
ment, employees within three years of retirement are recommended not to
participate. Employees electing this option will be advised to stop partic-
ipation in the future, three years prior to retirement. The most immediate
negative aspect of this option will be reduced life insurance coverage
through VSRS. Life insurance coverage will be reduced by approximately
twice the amount of the salary reduction. This loss of coverage can be
offset by purchasing additional term life insurance with a portion of the
salary reduction amount.
No additional staff is anticipated to administer the plan at this time.
Implementation will require a combined effort by Finance and Personnel to
inform and explain this option to employees. Should additional staff be
required in the future the cost would be more than offset in savings to the
County while at the same time providing increased benefits and savings to
the employees.
Attached for your review are the following items:
Example of employee savings and permissible qualifying benefits.
Example of employer savings.
Charlottesville Public Schools Brochure provided to their employ-
ees explaining the plan. We would anticipate preparing a similar
brochure for County employees.
Proposed Flexible Benefit Plan for Albemarle County.
In order to implement this plan for Albemarle County, it should be author-
ized by the Board of Supervisors. Authorization by the Board is requested
as soon as possible in order to begin implementation as of July 1, 1987."
Mr. Agnor briefly explained the plan. There was only a short discussion before motion
was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the plan which follows. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
COUNTY OF
FLEXIBL~BENEFITS PLAN
ARTICLE 1. T~E PLAN
Section 1.1. Establisi~ent
The County of Albemarle hereby establishes, effective as of July 1, 1987, a plan of
flexible compensation for the benefit of eligible employees, which shall be known
as County of Albemarle Flexible Benefits Plan (the Plan).
Section 1.2. Purpose
The purpose of the Plan is to provide benefits that suit the needs of diverse
groups of eligible employees by providing such employees the choice, within amounts
of money to be provided as specified herein, among different combinations of
insurance coverage, medical care benefit coverage, dependent care coverage, and
direct cash compensation. The Plan is intended to comply with the provisions of
Sections 105, 106, 125 and 129 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.
ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS
Section 2.1. Definitions
Whenever used in the Plan, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning
set forth below unless the context plainly requires a different meaning, and when
the defined meaning is intended, the term is capitalized:
(a) "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. References to a
Code section shall be deemed to be to that section as it now exists and to any
successor provision.
(b) "Compensation" of a Participant means the total salary, wages, bonuses, pay for
overtime, vacation pay, sick pay, pay for shift differentials, and other cash
compensation paid by the County of Albemarle to a Participant (without regard
to any salary reduction under this Plan), but excluding reimbursed expenses,
credits or benefits under any plan of deferred compensation to which the County
of Albemarle contributes, and any additional compensation payable in a form
other than cash.
458
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Paqe 30_1
(c) "Depemdemt" means an individual who qualifies as a dependent under the terms of
Section 152 of the Code.
(d) "Effective Date" means the date on which the Plan became effective, i.e.,
July 1, 1987.
(e) "Employee" means an employee of the County of Albemarle who is a full or part
time employee as defined in the County Group Insurance Programs.
(f) "Em~lo~;memt Related I~pendent Gate Expense" means the amount paid for expenses
of a Participant for household services or for the care of a Qualifying Indi-
vidual, to the extent that such expenses are incurred to enable the Participant
to be gainfully employed for any period for which there are one (1) or more
Qualifying Individuals with respect to such Participant; provided, however,
that
(1)
if such amounts are paid for expenses incurred outside the Participant's
household, they shall constitute Employment Related Dependent Care Expens-
es only if incurred for a Qualifying Individual who is a Dependent under
the age of fifteen (15) for whom the Participant is entitled to an exemp-
tion under Section 151(e) of the Code or for a Qualifying Individual who
regularly spends at least eight (8) hours per day in the Participant's
household; and
(2)
if the expense is incurred outside the Participant's home at a facility
that provides care for more than six (6) individuals who do not regularly
reside at the facility, the facility must comply with all applicable state
and local laws and regulations, including licensing requirements, if any;
and
(3)
that Employment Related Dependent Care Expenses of a Participant shall not
include expenses paid or incurred for services provided by (i) a child of
such Participant who is under the age of nineteen (19) or (ii) an individ-
ual who is a Dependent of such Participant or such Participant's spouse.
(g) "Exempted Injur~ or Sickness" means any injury or sickness:
Exceptions:
(i) incurred when a Participant was engaged in, or resulting from a
Participant having engaged in, a criminal enterprise; or
(ii) resulting from an intentionally self-inflicted injury of a Partici-
pant.
(h) "Injury" means an externally caused sudden hurt or damage to the body brought
about by an identifiable event.
(i) "Medical Care" includes the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or preven-
tion of sickness, injury or defect. Expenses for Medical Care shall consist of
expenses for medical care as defined in Sections 213(d)(1) and (e) of the Code
and shall include, but not be limited to, payments for the purpose of affecting
any structure or function of the body, for any hospital or nursing charges,
optometrical, ophthalmological, or auditory care, dental care, psychiatric-
care, prescription drugs, insulin, eyeglasses, hearing aid appliances, and
similar prosthetic devices, medical related transportation expenses, and
medical insurance premiums.
(j) "Participant" means a person who is an Employee on or after the Effective Date
and who satisfies the participation conditions of Article 3. A person who
becomes a Participant shall remain a Participant until all benefits due him
under the provisions of the Plan have been paid to him or otherwise have been
satisfied.
(k) "Period of Coverage' with respect to any Plan Year, means that Plan Year;
provided that, for any Employee who becomes a Participant after the start of a
Plan Year, the Period of Coverage shall mean the period commencing on the
effective date of such Participant's participation and extending through the
remainder of the Plan Year.
(1) "Plan" means "County of Albemarle Flexible Benefits Plan" as set forth herein
and as amended or restated from time to time.
(m) "Plan Year" means the twelve month period ending June 30.
(n) "(~alifyinA Individual" means
(i)
a Dependent of a Participant who is under the age of fifteen (15),
with respect to whom the Participant is entitled to an exemption
under Section 151(e) of the Code, and
(ii) a Dependent or spouse of a Participant who is physically or mentally
incapable of caring for himself.
(o) "Sickmess" means all bodily infirmities, diseases, mental illnesses, and other
disorders other than an injury.
459
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 31)
Section 2.2. Gender and Number
Except as otherwise indicated by context, masculine terminology used herein also
includes the feminine and neuter, and terms used in the singular may also include
the plural.
ARTICLE 3. PARTICIPATION CONDITIONS
Section 3.1. Participation Conditions
As a condition and receipt of benefits under this Plan, the Participant agrees to:
(a) Furnish to the County of Albemarle the Application to Participate provided for
in Section 3.2 below;
(b) Observe all Plan rules and regulations;
(c) Consent to inquiries by the County of Albemarle with respect to any physician,
hospital, or other provider of Medical Care or other services involved in a
claim under this Plan;
(d) Submit to the County of Albemarle all reports, bills and other information
which the County of Albemarle may reasonably require; and
(e) Designate a portion of his Compensation as Pay Conversion Contributions in
accordance with the provisions of Article 4.
Section 3.2. Application to Participate
As a condition of participation, each Employee who is eligible to be a Participant
shall execute and deliver to the County of Albemarle prior to his/her first day of
participation, a written application, signed by him/her in which he/she applies to
participate in the Plan, designates the required portion of his/her Compensation
for the Plan Year in question as Pay Conversion Contributions as described in
Article 4, makes a benefit election and supplies any other pertinent information
that the County of Albemarle reasonably requires.
Section 3.3. Commencp~aent of Participation
Eligible Employees may become Participants only on the first day of a Plan Year;
provided that persons becoming eligible Employees on or after the first day of a
Plan Year may become participants on the first day of the month following eligibil-
ity.
ARTICLE 4. PAY CONVERSION AND BENKFIT Rf.RCTIONS
Section 4.1. Pay Conversion
Each Participant shall designate a portion of his/her Compensation for each Plan
Year as Pay Conversion Contributions at any rate but in increments of five (5)
dollars. Except as otherwise provided by the County of Albemarle, Pay Conversion
Contributions shall reduce the Participants Compensation ratably on each pay day
during the Plan Year following the effective date of the Participant's participa-
tion.
Section 4.2. Benefit Elections
Each Participant shall make a benefit election, in the manner provided herein, to
apply his/her Pay Conversion Contributions during each Plan Year, in such propor-
tions as he chooses, to the following:
(a) to pay the Participant's premiums for County of Albemarle sponsored insurance
as set forth in Article 5;
(b) to increase the Participant's Medical Care Reimbursement Account for that Plan
year in accordance with Article 6;
(c) to increase the Participant's Dependent Care Reimbursement Account for that
Plan Year in accordance with Article 7.
A Participant's initial benefit election shall be made as part of his/her Applica-
tion to Participate. Thereafter a Participant may change his/her benefit election
for a subsequent Plan Year by providing written notice thereof to the County of
Albemarle at least ten (10) days prior to the first day of the Plan Year for which
such change is to be effective. A Participant's benefit election for any Plan Year
shall be irrevocable during the Plan Year, except for the automatic adjustment
provided in Article 5 and except that (a) in the event that there is a change in a
Participant's marital status or number of Dependents or there is a termination of
employment of the Participant's spouse, a Participant shall be entitled to change
his/her benefit election in a manner that is consistent with such change in mari-
tal, Dependent or employment status, by providing written notice thereof to the
County of Albemarle, in a form acceptable to the County of Albemarle. Any such
change shall be effective on the first day of the first calendar month in which
such change occurs.
ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE BENEFITS
Section 5.1. Insurance Benefits
To the extent a Participant so elects, a portion of the Participants Pay Conversion
Contributions shall be used to pay the Participant's share of the cost of coverage
460
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
____~Paqe 32)
under any existing County of Albemarle sponsored Life, Health, Medical, Dental or
Hospitalization insurance or other similar health and accident plan for Employees.
If there is a change in the cost of a particular type of coverage selected by a
Participant, the Participant's election shall automatically be adjusted to reflect
such change. A Participant, however, will not be permitted to change coverages
during a Plan Year because of a change in the cost of coverages.
ARTICLE 6. MEDICAL ~R/MBL~S~ENT PLAN
Section 6.1. Medical Care Reimbursement Accounts
The County of Albemarle shall establish for each Participant a Medical Care Reim-
bursement Account for each Plan Year. Each Medical Care Reimbursement Account
shall initially contain zero dollars ($0.00).
Section 6.2. Imcreases in Medical Care ReimbursememtAccounts
A Participant's Medical Care Reimbursement Account for a Plan Year shall be in-
creased by the portion of the Participant's Pay Conversion Contributions for that
Plan Year that he/she has elected to apply toward his Medical Care Reimbursement
Account pursuant to Section 4.2.
Section 6.3. Decreases in Medical Care Reimbursoment Account
A Participant's Medical Care Reimbursement Account for a Plan Year shall be reduced
by the amount of any benefits paid to or on behalf of a Participant pursuant to
Section 6.4.
Section 6.4. Medical Care Benefits
Subject to limitations contained in other provisions of this Plan, a Participant
who incurs expenses for Medical Care attributable to himself/herself, his/her
spouse, or his/her dependents during his/her Period of Coverage for a Plan Year
shall be entitled to receive from the County of Albemarle full reimbursement for
the entire amount of such expenses to the extent of the amount contained in the
Participant's Medical Care Reimbursement Account for that Plan Year. The County of
Albemarle shall pay all such expenses to the Participant upon the presentation to
the County of Albemarle of documentation of such expenses in a form satisfactory to
the County of Albemarle. In its discretion, the County of Albemarle may pay any of
such expenses directly, in which event the County of Albemarle shall be relieved of
all further responsibility with respect to that particular expense.
Participants shall be reimbursed for such expenses on a monthly or other more
frequent basis determined by the County of Albemarle; provided that the final
payment of benefits for any Plan Year shall be made by the tenth day of the second
month following the close of the Plan Year based on accepted claims filed with the
County of Albemarle by the last day of the preceding month.
If a Participant ceases to be an Employee, such Participant shall be entitled to
continue receiving benefits pursuant to this Article to the extent of the amount
remaining in the Participant's Medical Care Reimbursement Account for the Plan Year
of the termination of his/her employment.
Upon presentation of a claim, a Participant shall expressly represent that the item
for which a claim is made is not subject to reimbursement under any policy de-
scribed in Section 6.5 or from any other source.
Section 6.5. Limitations on Medical Care Benefits
Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, no benefits shall be paid under
this Article 6:
(a) In the event and to the extent that such reimbursement or payment is covered
under any insurance policy or policies, whether paid for by the County of
Albemarle or the Participant, or under any other health or accident plan by
whomever maintained. In the event that there is such a policy or plan in
effect providing for such reimbursement or payment, in whole or in part, then
to the extent of the coverage under such policy or plan, the County of
Albemarle shall be relieved of any liability hereunder.
(b) To the extent that an expense has been submitted for reimbursement from a
Participant's Dependent Care Reimbursement Account.
(c) Due to Exempted Injury or Sickness.
Section 6.6. Forfeiture of UnusedBenefits
If, following the final payment of reimbursement benefits for eligible expenses
incurred during the Period of Coverage for any Plan Year, any amount remains in a
Participant's Medical Care Reimbursement Account for that Plan Year, the Parti-
cipant shall forfeit such amount to the County of Albemarle for use as provided in
Article 8, and shall have no further claim thereto.
Section 6.7. Separate Written Plan
For purposes of the Code, this Article 6 shall constitute a separate written plan
providing for the reimbursement of Medical Care expenses. To the extent necessary,
other provisions of the Plan are incorporated by reference in this Article 6.
46i
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 33)
ARTICLE 7. DEPENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Section 7.1. Dependent Care Relmhurse~e~t Accoumts
The County of Albemarle shall establish for each Participant a Dependent Care
Reimbursement Account for each Plan Year. Each Dependent Care Reimbursement
Account shall initially contain zero dollars ($0.00).
Section 7.2. Increases imDepemdent Care Reimbursement Accounts
A Participant's Dependent Care Reimbursement Account for a Plan Year shall be
increased by the portion of the Participant's Pay Conversion Contributions for that
Plan Year that he/she has elected to apply toward his/her Dependent Care Reimburse-
ment Account pursuant to Section 4.2.
Section 7.3. Decrease inDependent Care Reimbursement Account
A Participant's Dependent Care Reimbursement Account for a Plan Year shall be
reduced by the amount of any benefits paid to or on behalf of a Participant pursu-
ant to Section 7.4
Section 7.4. Dependent ~are Bemefits
Subject to limitations contained in other provisions of this Plan, a Participant
who incurs Employment Related Dependent Care Expenses during his/her Period of
Coverage for a Plan Year shall be entitled to receive from the County of Albemarle
full reimbursement for the entire amount of such expenses to the extent of the
amount contained in the Participant's Dependent Care Reimbursement Account for that
Plan Year; provided that no reimbursement shall be paid pursuant to this Article 7
to the extent an expense has been submitted for reimbursement from a Participant's
Medical Care Reimbursement Account. The County of Albemarle shall pay all such
expenses to the Participant upon presentation to the County of Albemarle of docu-
mentation of such expenses in a form satisfactory to the County of Albemarle.
However, in its discretion, the County of Albemarle may pay any of such expenses
directly, in which event the County of Albemarle shall be relieved of all further
responsibility with respect to that particular expense. Participants shall be
reimbursed for such expenses on a monthly or other more frequent basis determined
by the County of Albemarle; provided that the final payment of benefits for any
Plan Year shall be made by the tenth day of the second month following the close of
the Plan Year based on accepted claims filed with the County of Albemarle by the
last day of the preceding month.
If a Participant ceases to be an Employee, such Participant shall be entitled to
continue receiving benefits pursuant to this Article to the extent of the amount
remaining in the Participant's Dependent Care Reimbursement Account for the Plan
Year of the termination of his/her employment.
Section 7.5. Forfeiture of Unused Benefits
If, following the final payment of reimbursement benefits for eligible expenses
incurred during the Period of Coverage for any Plan Year, any amount remains in a
Participant's Dependent Care Reimbursement Account for that Plan Year, the Partici-
pant shall forfeit such amount to the County of Albemarle for use as provided in
Article 8, and shall have no further claim thereto.
Section 7.6. A~m~al Statement of ~e~efits
On or before the end of the third month following the Plan Year, the County of
Albemarle shall furnish to each individual who was a participant that received
benefits under Section 7.4 during the prior Plan Year, a statement of all such
benefits paid to or on behalf of such Participant during the prior Plan Year.
Section 7.7. Separate Written Plan
For purposes of the Code, this Article 7 shall constitute a separate written plan
providing a program of dependent care assistance. To the extent necessary, other
provisions of the Plan are deemed incorporated by reference in this Article 7.
ARTICLE 8. USE OF FORFEITt~ES
Section 8.1. Use of Forfeitures
An account shall be established on the County of Albemarle books called the Forfei-
tures Account, which shall initially contain zero dollars ($0.00). After the
completion of benefit payments under Sections 6.4 and 7.4 for each Plan Year, the
amount of all forfeitures under Sections 6.6 and 7.5 shall be determined and added
to the Forfeitures Account. At any time that the amount in the Forfeitures Account
exceeds the product of Ten Dollars ($10.00) multiplied by the number of Partici-
pants who are then Employees, the County of Albemarle shall pay a cash bonus to
each such Participant in an amount equal to the highest whole dollar amount that
may be paid to each such Participant without exhausting the Forfeitures Account,
which bonuses shall reduce the balance in the Forfeitures Account. In such in-
stances the bonus paid to each Participant shall be the same, and no bonus received
by any Participant shall be based on or be dependent upon the amount of such
Participant's forfeitures, if any, under Sections 6.6 or 7.5. In the event of a
Plan termination, following payment of all remaining reimbursements and final
forfeitures, pro-rata portion of the balance of the Forfeitures Account shall be
paid as a bonus to each Participant who is then an Employee.
.... ..4 6 2..
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 34)
ARTICI.~ 9. CIIIHS PROCEDIRiE
Section 9.1. Claim-~ Procedure
The County of Albemarle shall notify a Participant in writing within ninety (90)
days of his/her written application for benefits of his/her eligibility or non-
eligibility for benefits under the Plan. If the County of Albemarle determines
that a Participant is not eligible for benefits or full benefits, the notice shall
set forth:
(1) The specific reason for such denial;
(2) A specific reference to the provision of the Plan on which the denial is
based;
(3)
A description of any additional information or material necessary for the
claimant to perfect his/her claim, and a description of why it is needed;
and
(4)
An explanation of the Plan's claims review procedure and other appropriate
information as to the steps to be taken if the Participant wishes to have
his/her claim reviewed.
If the County of Albemarle determines that there are special circumstances requir-
ing additional time to make a decision, the County of Albemarle shall notify the
Participant of the special circumstances and the date by which a decision is
expected to be made, and may extend the time for up to an additional ninety (90)
day period. If a Participant is determined by the County of Albemarle to be not
eligible for benefits, or if the Participant believes that he/she is entitled to
greater or different benefits, he/she shall have the opportunity to have his/her
claim reviewed with the County of Albemarle within sixty (60) days after receipt by
him/her of the notice issued by the County of Albemarle. Said petition shall state
the specific reasons the Participant believes he/she is entitled to benefits or
greater or different benefits. Within sixty (60) days after receipt by the County
of Albemarle of said petition, the County of Albemarle shall afford the Participant
(and his/her counsel, if any) an opportunity to present his/her position to the
County of Albemarle orally or in writing, and said Participant (or his/her counsel)
shall have the right to review the pertinent documents. The County of Albemarle
shall notify the Participant of its decision in writing within said sixty (60) day
period, stating specifically the basis of said decision written in a manner cal-
culated to be understood by the Participant and the specific provisions of the Plan
on which the decision is based. If, because of the need for a hearing, the sixty
(60) day period is not sufficient, the decision may be deferred for up to another
sixty (60) day period at the election of the County of Albemarle, but notice of
this deferral shall be given to the Participant. In the event of the death of a
Participant, the same procedure shall be applicable to his/her beneficiaries.
A~TI~ 10. ADMINIS~TIONANDFINANCES
Section 10.1. Administration
The Plan shall be administered by the County of Albemarle. The County of Albemarle
shall bear all administrative costs of the Plan.
Section 10.2. Powers of the Cotmty of Albemarle
The County of Albemarle shall have all powers necessary to administer the Plan,
including, without limitation, powers:
(a) to interpret the provisions of the Plan;
(b) to establish and revise the method of accounting for the Plan and to maintain
the accounts; and
(c) to establish rules for the administration of the Plan and to prescribe any
forms required to administer the Plan.
Section 10.3. Actions of the County of Albemarle
Ail determinations, interpretations, rules and decisions of the County of Albemarle
shall be conclusive and binding upon all persons having or claiming to have any
interest or right under the Plan.
Section 10.4. Delegation
The County of Albemarle shall have the power to delegate specific duties and
responsibilities to officers or other employees of the County of Albemarle or other
individuals or entities. Any delegation by the County of Albemarle may allow
further delegations by the individual or entity to whom the delegation is made.
Any delegation may be rescinded by the County of Albemarle at any time. Each
person or entity to whom a duty or responsibility has been delegated shall be
responsible for the exercise of such duty or responsibility and shall not be
responsible for any act, or failure to act, of any person or entity.
Section 10.5. Reports and Records
The County of Albemarle and those to whom the County of Albemarle has delegated
duties under the Plan shall keep records of all their proceedings and actions and
463
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Paqe 35)
shall maintain books of account, records, and other data as shall be necessary for
the proper administration of the Plan and for compliance with applicable law.
Section 10.6. Finances
The costs of the Plan shall be borne as provided herein. For purposes of this
Plan, Pay Conversion Contributions shall be deemed contributions by the County of
Albemarle.
ARTICLE 11. AMENDM~S AND~TION
Section 11.1. Amendments
The County of Albemarle may amend the Plan, in full or in part, at any time and
from time to time. Any such amendment shall be filed with the Plan documents.
Section 11.2. Benefits Provided ThroughThird Parties
In the case of any benefit provided pursuant to an insurance policy or other
contract with a third party, the County of Albemarle may amend the Plan by changing
insurers, policies, or contracts without changing the language of this Plan docu-
ment, provided that copies of the contracts or policies are filed with the Plan
documents and the Participants are informed as to the effects of any such changes.
Section 11.3. Termination
The County of Albemarle expects the Plan to be permanent, but necessarily must, and
hereby does, reserve the right to terminate the Plan at any time. In the event of
a Plan termination, Pay Conversion Contributions will cease. Thereafter, neither
the County of Albemarle nor any of its employees shall have any further financial
obligations hereunder except such that have accrued up to the date of termination
and have not been satisfied.
ARTICLE 12. MISCRI.L~IEOUS
Section 12.1. No Guaranty of Emplo~nt
The adoption and maintenance of the Plan shall not be deemed to be a contract of
employment between the County of Albemarle and any Employee. Nothing contained
herein shall give any Employee the right to be retained in the employ of the County
of Albemarle or to interfere with the right of the County of Albemarle to discharge
any Employee at any time, nor shall it give the County of Albemarle the right to
require any Employee to remain in its employ or to interfere with the Employee's
right to terminate his/her employment at any time.
Section 12.2. Limitation on Liability
The County of Albemarle does not guarantee benefits payable under any policy or
contract of insurance described herein, and any benefits payable thereunder shall
be the exclusive responsibility of the insurer that issued such contract or policy.
Section 12.3. Non-Alienation
No benefit payable at any time under this Plan shall be subject in any manner to
alienation, sale, transfer, assignment, pledge, attachment, or encumbrance of any
kind.
Section 12.4. Applicable Law
The Plan and all rights hereunder shall be governed by and construed according to
the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, except to the extent such laws are
preempted by the laws of the United States of America.
Section 12.5. Benefits Provided ThronghThird Parties
In the case of any benefit provided through a third party, such as an insurance
company, pursuant to a contract or policy with such third party, if there is any
conflict or inconsistency between the description of benefits contained in this
Plan and such contract or policy, the terms of such contract or policy shall
control.
Agenda Item No. 23. Planning/Coordination Council, Discussion of role.
Mr. Agnor said discussion at a recent PACC meeting of the funding of rescue squad dis-
patching at the 911 Center raised the question of the role of the PACC being limited to land
use planning and development issues, or expanding its role to include other subjects of
mutual concern or interest to the community. The County members of the PACC request that
this be discussed. A draft amendment to the PACC by-laws was sent with the materials for
today's meeting in order to facilitate that discussion.
"Article II - Purposes
The purposes of the PACC shall be as follows:
1)
To coordinate tand-use-Dtann~n§-and-deve~pmem~ cooperative, community
efforts in areas of mutual concern and interest between Charlottesville
(City), Albemarle County (County), and the University of of Virginia
(University)."
464
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 36)
(At 3:33 p.m., Mr. Bowie left the room.) Mr. Fisher said PACC had been discussing ways
to put together the University Transit System and the Charlottesville Transit System in order
to avoid the overlapping of routes. He asked that this matter be placed on the agenda for
fear that the other Board members might think PACC was doing more than it is supposed to do.
Mr. Way said he supports this change. As ~long as the Board has an opportunity to have
joint meetings, he feels PACC should be able to talk about any issues that can be coopera-
tively resolved. Mrs. Cooke asked what authority this group has to enact something. Mr.
FiSher said its function will remain one of coordination; this change will only give authori-
ty for the PACC to discuss these other issues. (Note: Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting at
3:30 p.m.) Mr. Way, Mr. Henley and Mr. Bowie all said they had no problem with the change
proposed. Mr. Fisher said he feels that the way the charter reads, this group can only talk
about land use planning, and he would feel better if the Board adopted the proposed change.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie to approve the by-law amendment in Paragraph One as set
out above. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 24a. Appropriation: PACC Request for JPA-Fontaine Avenue Study.
The following memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated April 22,
1987, was received:
"With the exception of the JPA-Fontaine Avenue area, plans for all of the
various study areas defined in the PACC agreement (seven) are currently
being developed (in-house) to coincide with the County's comprehensive
planning process (proposed to be adopted in late 1987). The JPA-Fontaine
Avenue Study Area affects all three jurisdictions significantly enough that
the PACC and the PACC Technical Committee are requesting that all three
jurisdictions equally fund the services of a consultant to develop the plans
for this area. It is requested that the Board of Supervisors appropriate
$10,000 as our share of funding for the study, the source of the funds being
the Board's unallocated contingency line item which currently has a balance
of $14,833."
Mr. Way asked who will prepare the RFP. Mr. Agnor said it will be the Technical Commit-
tee of the PACC comprised of the planning directors. Mr. Fisher asked that Mr. Tucker
explain why this particular study cannot be handled in-house. Mr. Tucker said this area is
much more complicated and will be a difficult area to develop plans for because of the
sensitive involvement of the neighborhoods in the JPA area. All eight studies are to be
completed before the County amends its Comprehensive Plan later this year. This study will
take longer than the others, and it is not felt that the localities have the time, or the
staff, to complete this particular study in a timely fashion in order to meet the County's
schedule. If there were not the time element involved, the study could be done in-house.
Mr. Fisher asked what assumptions will be used for the properties in that area. Mr.
Tucker said assumptions in the current comprehensive plan will be used, but the University of
Virginia has ideas as to how they will use some of the property on JPA, and those will be
part of the alternatives to be studied.
Mr. Bowie asked what benefit this study will be to the County. Mr. Tucker said this
will provide a coordinated planning effort for all three entities. At this time, the County
shows certain plans for that property in its comprehensive plan, and yet it knows that is not
how the University envisions using the property. There needs to be additional coordination
with the City residents, and this joint planning effort would benefit all three entities.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the request by adopting
the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $10,000 be, and the same hereby is, transferred from
the Board's Contingency Account (1-1000-11010-999999) and placed in
the County Executive's budget under an account entitled "Professional
Services" (Code 1-1000-12010-300200); and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is effective this date.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 24b. Appropriation: Moderate Rehabilitation Housing Budget. Mr. Agnor
presented the following memorandum fro~ Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development, dated April 29, 1987. He noted that a Housing Technician position is
requested to be added to the Pay/Classification Plan. This position is fully funded through
the Moderate Rehabilitation Program, and is needed for the implementation of the County's
housing effort.
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Pa e_q~37~
465
"Enclosed you will find a proposed budget for Fiscal Year 87-88 for the
Moderate Rehabilitation Program. This budget includes all anticipated
on-going administrative fees and anticipated unexpended start up expenses.
The budget assumes the completion of the 96 unit apartment complex current-
ly being processed in addition to the projects completed at this date.
Also enclosed is a proposed job title for housing technician position.
This position would be a full time County employee to provide inspections
services for the existing Section 8 and the Moderate Rehabilitation Pro-
gram. These inspection services have been performed in the past as a
contract with AHIP and with a private individual. With the additional
units coming on-line from the Moderate Rehabilitation Program, it is
anticipated that a full-time housing technician position will be necessary.
This position will be fully funded through on-going administrative fees
under the Moderate Rehabilitation Program."
MODERATE REHABILITATION PROGRAM
BUDGET 87-88
100100 Compensation Regular $23,954.71
20010.0 FICA 1,712.76
200200 VSRS 2,769.17
200500 Health Insurance 1,376.64
200600 Life Insurance 226.14
300205 Audit Fees 400.00
300400 Repair/Maintenance Office Equip. 500.00
300700 Advertising 300.00
520100 Postal Service 1,200.00
520300 Telephone Service 850.00
540100 Office Supplies 850.00
540104 Copy Supplies & Expenses 600.00
541700 Fuel and Lubricants 200.00
550400 Travel-Training, Education & Conf. 250.00
700100 Machinery/Equipment New 400.00
700200 Furniture/Fixtures 500.00
$36,089.42
Estimated Ongoing Administrative Fee (revenue) is $43,828.68 based on 135
units as of June 30, 1987.
JOB TITLE
Housing Technician
LOCATION
Housing Office
IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR
Administrative Assistant, Housing Office
GENERAL DEFINITION OF WORK
Does responsible technical work in the inspection of private market housing
for compliance with HUD Housing Quality Standards; prepares reports on
inspection results; does related work as required.
TYPICAL TASKS
Inspects private market housing before and after occupancy by participants
in rental assistance program as well as annually and on a complaint basis;
Assists the Moderate Rehabilitation Program byperforming inspections of
work performed by private contractors to determine compliance with plans and
specifications, and by assisting with the writing of specifications and
descriptions of rehabilitation work to be preformed;
Works closely with landlords, tenants, and staff in regard to needed re-
pairs;
Maintains computerized data base of rental units and prepares forms and
reports with the data base;
Performs field eligibility work to assist in the detection of possible fraud
and to assess the need for additional services by participants;
Keeps informed of rental units available, current rental rates, and other
related market factors;
Follows up independently and generates correspondence, as needed, on various
items.
KNOWLEDGES~ SKILLS~ AND ABILITY
General knowledge of the methods and practices involved in construction;
general knowledge of the possible defects and faults in construction instal-
lation, repair, and renovation work; ability to detect poor or inferior
installations, workmanship, and material; ability to develop a thorough
knowledge of HUD Housing Quality Standards; ability to accurately communi-
cate witk builders, landlords, and other members of the public in an effort
to secure cooperation in meeting requirements.
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
Any combination of education and experience equivalent to graduation from
high school and experience in building construction, building inspection, or
related fields.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Possession of a valid driver's permit issued by the Commonwealth of Virgin-
ia.
Mr. Agnor said the Moderate Rehabilitation Program has been in operatiDD for two years
and will continue on July 1, 1987, as a rental subsidy program. (This request has nothing to
do with the extension of this program which has been requested, but not granted at this
time.) This program involves a "housing technician" position which is currently not in the
Pay/Classification Plan, and it involves grants from the Federal Government. The cost of the
program is estimated at $36,089, but the revenue from the Federal Government will be $43,829.
The difference in amounts will be deposited into the County's General Fund.
Mr. Agnor said that the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program and this Moderate Rehab
Rental Assistance Program, which will be combined into one rental assistance program, re-
quires a number of inspections. In the past, the County has utilized several methods for
meeting those inspections. Recently, the inspections have been made by a member of AHIP's
staff. This combined program will require the County to have a full-time person doing the
inspections on a constant basis. AHIP has asked to be relieved of that responsibility.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the request by
adopting the following appropriation resolution and byappr.~£~n~ the job description of a
"housing technician" as set out on the preceding page:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $43,828.68 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated
from the Moderate Rehabilitation Fund and coded under Cost Center
1-1227-81910 as follows for expenses of this program:
100100 Compensation Regular $23,954.71
200100 FICA 1,712.76
200200 VSRS 2,769.17
200500 Health Insurance 1,376.64
200600 Life Insurance 226.14
300205 Audit Fees 400.00
300400 Repair/Maintenance Office Equip. 500.00
300700 Advertising 300.00
520100 Postal Service 1,200.00
520300 Telephone Service 850.00
540100 Office Supplies 850.00
540104 Copy Supplies & Expenses 600.00
541700 Fuel and Lubricants 200.00
550400 Travel-Training, Education & Conf. 250.00
591000 Transfer to General Fund 7,739.26
700100 Machinery/Equipment New 400.00
700200 Furniture/Fixtures 500.00
Total
$43,828.68
AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that these appropriations are effective
for the Fiscal Year 1987-88, and will be offset by revenue from the
Federal Government in the amount of $43,828.68.
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 24c. Peyton Drive/North Berkshire Drive Road Improvements. The follow-
ing memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated April 29, 1987, was
received, as follows:
"As an update to the status of the two above referenced roads, Virginia
Department of Transportation has informed staff that neither road is
eligible for the State's revenue sharing program. Since North Berkshire
Drive is a through street and the section needing acceptance into the State
system is approximately 100 feet in length with frontage only on one lot on.
each side of the street, staff recommends that the Board authorize that the
total cost ($3,800) of this project be borne by the County.
Staff is continuing to explore property owner contributions on Peyton
Drive, however, due to the severity in the condition of Peyton Drive, it is
recommended that staff be authorized to expend up to $1,500 for an interim
improvement of patching to the roadway. We will continue to keep you
~informed on the progress of this project."
Mr. Agnor explained that Comdial is so interested in getting the work done on Peyton
Drive that they have gone ahead and had the patching done. Getting Peyton to a condition to
be taken into the State system is estimated at about $40,000 at this time. Mr. Agnor said
that while talks with adjoining property owners are proceeding, staff still recommends that
the County pay $1,500 toward the patching project with the funds coming from the undesignated
balance of the Capital Improvements Fund.
467
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page '39)
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following resolu-
tion:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $5,300 be, and the same hereby is, transferred from
the Undesignated Fund Balance of the Capital Improvements Fund and be
coded as follows:
1-9000-41000-703011
1-9000-41000-703012
- North Berkshire Drive $3,800
- Peyton Drive 1,500
AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that these appropriations are effective
this date.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 24d. Amendment-Annual Appropriation Ordinance: Duplicating Fund,
Visitors Center Fund, and Joint Recreation Facility Fund. The following memorandum from Mr.
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated May 7, 1987, was received, as follows:
"Attached are appropriation requests for the Duplicating Fund (870001), the
Visitors Center Fund (870002), and the Joint Recreation Facility Fund
(870004), which were not included in the original appropriation ordinance
for the FY 1987-88 Budget.
Ail of these are self-sustaining funds that must be appropriated for audit-
ing purposes, but do not require any additional appropriation of local
monies. The Duplicating Fund is an internal service fund with revenues
derived from chargebacks to various departments. The Visitors Center Fund,
for which the County acts as a fiscal agent, is used to record rental income
from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, which equals the principal
and interest on the note.
The County will also serve as the fiscal agent for the newly created Rivanna
Park, thus necessitating the appropriation for the Joint Recreation Facility
Fund."
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to authorize the Director of
Finance to create a Duplicating Equipment Fund for Fiscal Year 1987-88 in the amount of
$78,450; to create a Visitor's Center Fund for Fiscal Year 1987-88 in the amount of
$66,712.08; and to create a Joint Recreation Fund for the Fiscal Year 1987-88 in the amount
of $193,600.00. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom~
Agenda Item No. 25. Appointment: Virginia Water Project Board of Directors. Mr.
Fisher said a letter had been received from Ms. Wilma C. Warren, Executive Director, Virginia
Water Project, Inc., noting that Mr. James Murray has served on this Board since April, 1984
representing Albemarle County. She recommends that Mr. Murray be reappointed. Motion was
offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to reappoint Mr. James Murray. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs..Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 26. Discussion: School Board appointee process. Mr. Fisher noted that
the Board needs to set a time to interview candidates for the School Board vacancy, and also
to set a time for the public hearing which is required on this appointment. He recommended
that both of these be done on June 3, 1987. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr.
Way, to set the public hearing on the agenda of June 3, 1987, at 7:30 p.m., and to conduct
interviews earlier that afternoon. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 27. Glenn Jones - Request regarding Jefferson Cable. Mr. Jones said he
knows the issue is not new to the Board, as the customers of Jefferson Cable have made it
clear in the media in recent days. Mr. Jones said a recent survey said that 71 percent of
the households in the United States can now receive nine television stations over the air.
That is not true here, and most residents in this area depend upon the cable system to
determine what choices they have. Mr. Jones said he is aware that the cable industry has
been deregulated, so the governing bodies have no legal action which they can take against a
very unpopular choice of Jefferson Cable to drop WWBT (Richmond) and to replace it with the
Home Shopping Club out of Florida. Their reasons for doing so are unclear. It appears that
the main reason is the bottom line profit, they would make from this change. Initially they
_468
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 40).
claimed they did so on the basis of ratings and they decided to drop WWBT because it dupli-
cated local programming, however, those surveys showed that it was the No. 4 most watched
station out of 12 stations. Mr. Jones said he reported to Charlottesville City Council that
the survey was of all citizens, and not just cable customers. He maintains that a survey
should be made of just cable customers before a change like this to determine the type of
service they want. He feels they do not serve the public interest and do not care what
individuals have to day.
Mr. Jones said that at least 400 letters and phone calls have been sent to Jefferson
Cable, and letters have been sent to WWBT. The survey which Mr. Jones said he feels should
have been done by Jefferson Cable was done by an independent group, and that survey shows
that only four percent of the cable customers support the decision. Public opinion is clear.
The Cable Company has admitted that they make five percent of the sales from the shopping
network. City Council took action to ask that cable serve be restored to what it was on
April 30. Similar changes in WaYnesboro caused that council to also take similar action to
ask that WWBT be reinstated. They also are encouraging other cable companies to serve in
that area. Mr. Jones asked that the Board take some action to request Jefferson Cable to
provide the service that its customers want. Also, to encourage alternative cable companies
to investigate the possibility of serving customers throughout Albemarle County, and if
possible, to investigate the needs of Albemarle County residents for cable service.
Mr. Agnor said a staff member just informed him that on the late afternoon news it was
announced that Jefferson Cable will restore Channel 12, WWBT, to their cable system.
Mrs. Cooke said that "nails down the point" she made to Mr. Jones when he called her.
Public opinion will dictate to the market how it runs its business. She does not feel it is
the responsibility of government to tell private enterprise what they should or should not
do. She said the public has spoken, and the public got results, and that is as it should be.
She feels it is most inappropriate for government to take any kind of position on a matter
such as that, whatsoever.
Mr. Bowie said he also received a call from Mr. Jones. He stated much the same thing.
He is glad to see that they listened to the public. He would not support any kind of resolu-
tion. He would like to see some competition because there is no particular cable service in
the Rivanna District.
Mr. St. John said that several years ago his office did a study of the legal implica-
tions of franchising cable television in the County. The difference between the City of
Charlottesville, and the City of Waynesboro, is that they have awarded franchises to these
companies and given them a monopoly. This County has not done that. During the study, Mr.
St. John said there was a consultant who helped, and his office concluded and recommended
that the County not award a franchise to any cable company. Some localities across the
nation who did award franchises, have been caught paying huge anti-trust awards because of
the way they did award franchises.
Mr. Fisher said he does not necessarily agree with Mr. St. John. He has to buy his
electricity from a company which is regulated by the State. Telephone service is the same.
Quality of services, the rates, etc. are regulated. This is another service which is subject
to some abuses. He said he is one of their customers, and he was mad because this was the
second cable channel that has been eliminated since he became a subscriber, and the rates
continue to go up. He said he feels that if this continues, there will be calls around the
state for some state agency to regulate the service. He is not necessarily saying Albemarle
County should get involved, but he thinks that some people will demand that the state do
something in monopoly situations.
Mr. Way said he sees a slight difference in this, than in most businesses. This is a
business given a monopoly (in the City) and this puts them in a different category. Mr.
Fisher thanked Mr. Jones for bringing this matter to the attention of the Board, but said it
appears that this ~bO&rd. will take no action because it feels that no action is warranted.
Mr. Fisher said he is glad of the results of the citizens' actions, and commended Mr. Jones
for playing a part in those actions. Mr. Bowie said he feels this situation was handled
exactly right.
Agenda Item No. 28.
Public.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and the
Mr. Bowie said that when the Auxiliary Police Force Committee was formed, it was noted
that a report would be presented to the Board on June 1. That is not a regular Board meeting
date, and Mr. Bowie asked that the Board allow the report to be given on June 10. There were
no objections expressed.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Senator John W. Warner dated May 8, 1987, with
a copy of a letter from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) dated April 28,
1987 attached. The letter from Mr. Stephen May at HUD explains that the Richmond Office of
HUD has been contacted concerning the County's request for an extension of its Section 8
Moderate Rehabilitation Program rehabilitation and leasing schedule. The Richmond Office is
forwarding to his office additional information to support the request. Mr. Fisher asked if
there were anything else that the County needs to do at this time. Mr. Agnor said he did not
believe so, but would check tomorrow.
Mr. Fisher said that he will be attending NACO's 52nd Annual Conference to be held
July 11-14, 1987 in Marion County (Indianapolis), Indiana. He said that he will be glad to
act5 as Albemarle County's official voting delegate if so authorized. Motion was offered
by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to designate Mr. Fisher as the County's delegate to the
NACo Convention. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
May 13, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
__~e 41)
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. St. John said he would like to make a statement about the Merchant's Outlet Mall
Site Plan appeal. Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney, thought that unless the Planning
Commission could give more reasons as to why it refused to approve the site plan, that it
should be approved as a matter of right. Mr. Payne did not say that at the Planning Commis-
sion meeting because he did not want it to appear that the legal staff was exercising undue
power over the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. St. John for the
comment.
Mr. Fisher said the Board had not set a date for the work session on the Pay for Perfor-
mance plan. It was agreed to do this on June 3 at 2:00 p.m.
Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the following letter:
"April 29, 1987
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.
Administrator
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Agnor:
Commissioner Ray D. Pethtel recently named me to the newly created position
of Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator. I want to introduce myself to
you and invite you to call on me if I can be of assistance in dealing with
the Department. I will be working with Commissioner Pethtel, Deputy Commis-
sioner Oscar K. Mabry and Department staff to implement VDOT initiatives of
decentralization, intergovernmental communication and cooperationg, and
interorganizational coordination.
My primary function will be three-fold:
1. To promote and provide for optimum communication and mutual understand-
ing between VDOT staff and Virginia elected and appointed local offi-
cials, and
2. To represent and promote the interests of the Department to the federal
government -- both Congress and the Administration, and
3. To manage and coordinate communications between the Department and
other state transportation departments, national associations and
interest groups.
By way of background, I worked for the National Association of Counties
(NACO) for ten years, most recently as director of chief lobbyist for the
Department of Community Services. Before that, I was a planner and depart-
ment director for city and county governments.
I hope you will feel free to contact me (804) 225-3542 if I can help you in
any way. I look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Geoffrey G. Trego
Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator
Virginia Department of Transportation"
Mr. Bowie suggested that the Chairman reply to this letter stating that the Board is
glad to hear about this appointment.
Agenda Item No. 29. Adjournment.
4:37 p.m. the meeting was adjourned.
With no further business to come before the Board, at