Loading...
06-03-1987 MinutesBOARD OF SUP~.RV~'SORS MllqU'l~S June 3, 1987 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman Mr. Jesse J. Mayes, Vice Chairman Mr. G. H. Applegate Mr. R. Garland Dodd Mrs. Joan Girone Mr. Lane B. Ramsey Acting County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mrs. Doris DeHart, Legislative Coord. Ms. Joan Dolezal, Clerk to the Board Chief Robert Eanes, Fire Department Mr. Bradford S. Hammer, Asst. Co. Admin. Mr. Thomas Jacobson, Dir. of Planning Mr. Robert Masden, Asst. Co. Admin. for Human Services Mr. Steve Micas, Co. Attorney Mr. Richard Sale, Asst. Co. Admin. for Development Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities Mr. Frederick Willis, Dir. of Human Resource Management Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. (EDST) in the Administration Building Conference Room (Room 502). He requested that an Executive Session be added to the agenda to discuss personnel matters. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board suspended its rules and added Item 5., Executive Session to discuss personnel matters, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Mayes. 1. PLANNING DEPAR~ ISSUES 1.A. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REVISIONS Mr. Sale stated the Planning Department Management Study included recommendations for a complete updating of and revisions to the County's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. He stated staff is prepared, at this time, to initiate a revision of the Subdivision Ordinance and to make revisions to the commercial and industrial districts of the Zoning Ordinance, which suggestions were made by the homebuilding industry, the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, the Administration Task Force and staff. He stated prior to working with the development community on these revisions/modifications, staff desired to review with the Board the major modifications that are likely to be addressed. He stated the proposed revisions/modifications are designed to reduce the time element involved in the processing of subdivision requests and permit the Planning Commission to spend more time on zoning requests, thereby expediting the entire process. He stated the suggested major changes to the Subdivision Ordinance are: 87-424 Accelerate review and approval of subdivision requests through administrative review; 2. Final plat approval/rejection in 30 days versus 60 days; Apply subdivision regulations to division of commercial and industrial property; 4. Tentative plat approval extended to five years; Developer required to maintain public improvements and provide for snow removal until improvements accepted by State or County; Public sewer and water; exceptions will require certification by engineer as to adequate water supply; Street lighting to be installed by Subdivider/Developer in all districts subject to Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes of 1200 on one street or 1900 on combined streets. Subdivider to pay maintenance and operational costs for four years following installation; 8. Ail utilities to be installed underground; Subdivider shall install Department of Engineering; street signs approved by 10. Concrete curb and gutter required in subdivisions where any lot has less than 100 ft., rather than 80 ft., of public road frontage and where average frontage is 100 ft., rather than 85 ft., and in all R-9, R-12 and/or R-15 districts; 11. No single family lot shall front on major arterial; and 12. Access to existing arterial of collector streets or roads to be limited to one access per 500 ft. on a major arterial and to one access per 300 ft. on a collector road. Discussion, questions and comments ensued relative to how other localities apply subdivision regulations to the division of commercial and industrial property; the necessity for extending tentative plat approval to five years; the interrelationship of changes 1 and 2 and the advantages/benefits to the development community and staff, if implemented; the need for a mechanism to enforce the maintenance of public improvements and provide for snow removal on subdivision roads until such improvements are accepted by either the State or County; the impact of requiring that subdivisions be connected to public sewer and water, with the exceptions being that certification by an engineer as to adequate water supply is provided; the possible installation of dry water and sewer lines for future use; the installation of street lights by the developer/subdivider in all districts subject to certain traffic volume conditions and whether or not the developer/subdivider should pay maintenance and operational costs for four (4) years following installation; the advantages to the developer for installing utilities underground, as it enhances the environment and the developer can recapture expenses through the sale of the home; the standardizing of street name signs as to size, lettering height, script, type of paint/material used to construct them, who is responsible for expense, installation, maintenance, etc.; the need to change the requirement for concrete curb and gutter in subdivisions where any lot has less than 100 feet, rather than 80 feet of public road frontage and where the average frontage is 100 feet, rather than 85 feet, and in all R-9, R-12 and R-15 districts, as the 80 feet and 85 feet requirements are not being complied with; the need to eliminate single family lot development fronting on major arterials (road stripping development); and efforts to preclude road stripping development by limiting access on certain types of roads for 87-425 certain distances (i.e., 1 access per 500 feet on major arterial and 1 access per 300 feet on collector). Mr. Daniel requested staff provide the Board with a list of localities that apply subdivision regulations to the division of commercial/industrial property; concurred with the recommen- dation that the developer be required to maintain public improvements and provide for snow removal until improvements are accepted by the State or County and that it should be strictly enforced; expressed concerns regarding the requirement for public sewer and water connections; felt the recommendation for the subdivider to pay operational costs for four (4) years should be deleted; felt the developer should pay for street name signs as part of the orderly development of his subdivi- sion; and stated he felt the County should take positive steps to close out road front development along major arterials or either restrict through truck traffic along roads where this type residential development exists (i.e., Courthouse Road). Mr. Applegate expressed concern regarding the implementation of recommendations 1 and 2, acceleration of review and approval of subdivision requests through administrative review and final plat approval/rejection in 30 days versus 60 days, and whether staff could accomplish this action in the allotted timeframe; expressed concern regarding the extension of tentative plat approval to five (5) years; stated he felt requiring the developer to maintain public improvements and provide for snow removal until improvements are accepted by the State or County would be most beneficial and should be enforced; expressed concern that requiring connections to public sewer and water would be a critical issue and result in major problems; con- curred with the need for street name signs but felt there should be controls enforced relative to the requirements (i.e., type/color paint, material, legibility, height, etc); and requested clarification as to the intent of recommendation 12. relative to access to existing arterial of collector streets or roads being limited to one access per 500 feet on a major arterial and to one access per 300 feet on a collector road. Mrs. Girone stated she concurred with the concept for extending tentative plat approval to five (5) years as it should reduce staff time in reviewing plats and expedite the process; stated there are miles of roads within the County that should have been taken into the System long ago so they could be properly maintained and cleared during inclement weather; suggested that if developers were unable to connect to public water and sewer facilities that they install dry sewer and water lines for future connection to the facilities; felt the four (4) year period recommended for the subdivider to pay operational costs for street light installations was too long; noted that many developers have begun to place street numbers on their build- ings and stated she felt it enhanced the appearance; concurred with the recommendation to expand lot footage requirements for installation of concrete curb and gutter in certain subdivi- sions; and inquired if there is a problem relative to the parcelization of commercial property and, if so, what controls could be applied. Mr. Dodd expressed concern that requiring connections to public water and sewer would be a problem primarily in the Matoaca District, as there is very little extension of water and sewer facilities into the area and the distance involved would be tremendous; felt that all utilities should be installed under- ground; inquired who pays for street name signs in subdivi- sions, the aesthetic compatibility of signs; concurred with the recommendation to expand the lot front footage requirements for concrete curb and gutter in certain subdivisions; and stated he would be willing to review the recommendation for requiring the application of subdivision regulations to the division of commercial and industrial property but questioned the feasi- bility of the Board becoming involved in this process. 87-426 Mr. Sale stated staff is preparing to work with the development community on these revisions/modifications and anticipates being able to bring forward a draft in late August or early September for the Board's consideration prior to submittal to the Planning Commission. 1.B. ZONING ORDINANCE REVISIONS Mr. Jacobson briefly outlined the objectives for dealing with the major differences, which are primarily in the areas of commercial/industrial development, in the present Zoning Ordinance as being the establishment of development standards (i.e., buffers, setbacks, landscaping, heights, parking re- quirements, etc.); the establishment of standards to encourage well-designed mixes of land uses in new developing areas; the encouragement of evolutionary improvements to existing commer- cial and industrial areas; the creation of consistent and equitable regulations; and minimizing public review time. Discussion, questions and comments ensued relative to appro- priate distances of buffers/screening of commercial/industrial development from residential development; the adverse impact of inappropriate buffers/screening between these types of develop- ments on citizens' attitudes toward increasing the ratio of commercial/industrial development; the need for flexible standards to encourage evolutionary improvements to existing developed areas (i.e., Jefferson Davis Highway and Midlothian Turnpike areas); etc. Mr. Applegate expressed concerns regarding encroachment of commercial/industrial development into residential neighbor- hoods; inadequate buffering and/or screening of commercial/in- dustrial development from single family residential develop- ment; increasing buffering/screening requirements, etc. Mr. Jacobson stated staff anticipates presenting the Board with a draft Zoning Ordinance for consideration in mid-December. After a brief discussion, it was generally agreed staff would bring the draft Zoning Ordinance before the Board for consid- eration November 25, 1987. 2. FINANCING UPPER SWIFT CREEK TRANSPORT SYSTEM Mr. Sale stated upon review of several methods for financing the cost of constructing the Upper Swift Creek Transport System and the alternative routing concepts for the system, the Board requested staff seek financing alternatives for consideration. He stated this project was included in the Utilities Depart- ment's Capital Improvement Program and bonds were sold in anticipation of a construction start this year. He stated Phase I construction cost for the system will be approximately $17.6 million; the facility was proposed to be operational upon completion of the Powhite and Route 288 extensions in order to accommodate development resulting from these road improvements; and the County, which is experiencing development pressure in the Upper Swift Creek Drainage area in anticipation of comple- tion of these roadways, needs to proceed with the project. He stated in order to meet the proposed construction schedule, design will have to commence this spring and bids will have to be advertised in the fall, with an anticipated construction start of winter 1987. Discussions, questions and comments ensued relative to the feasibility of the construction schedule; if this project, as well as the 1-295 Interchange at Meadowville Road project, is designed to attract residential or commercial development; the status on the ratio of commercial/residential development County-wide; whether or not to continue the present financing envisioned for the project (revenue bonds) or change the method of financing (development district); whether or not the County should become involved in development districts; what action is needed from the Board at this time to proceed with the project; 87-427 how would Phase II of this project be paid for; whether or not a system of this magnitude had ever been extended to an area strictly for the purpose of development; if such a system could be extended to only commercially zoned sites; whether this project will enhance the potential for commercial development in the area; how would water and sewer facilities for 1-295 project be funded; the sale of the revenue bonds, amending the plan to relocate the trunk sewer line; how much money, if any, was needed to complete the project; the transfer of funds from completed, overestimated projects to this project; how much of the area would be serviced by the system, etc. Mr. Applegate expressed concern relative to the impact of financing via the Development District concept; the construc- tion cost differential between the originally proposed route/ concept and the selected route/concept; etc. He stated he felt if the County bore the expense of extending water and sewer lines in the eastern portion of the County to attract business it should do the same for the northern portion. Mr. Daniel inquired if the County could invest $17.6 million in this area for sewer to serve commercial development, such as it did with the establishment of the assessment districts for the Fiorucci development, and not provide the service to residen- tial development. Mr. Micas stated the Board could make reasonable distinctions between residential and commercial development but it could not impose the total cost of the extension on commercial development if such extension will also benefit residential development. He stated this site cannot be compared to Fiorucci as it is more complex. Mr. Applegate stated he felt if a development district were established for sewer, then the same should be adhered to for other public services, such as schools, roads, libraries, parks, etc. Mrs. Girone stated this project can be identified as a "deve- lopment district" and as such would be a source of revenue that could be used to enhance the utilities system in other areas of the County, if developers in the area were to agree to pro-rate a fair share of each of the connections. She stated the Board is responsible for managing public funds in a prudent manner and she felt it would be unwise to pass up an opportunity to invest those funds and obtain a return on the investment from the people benefitting from the development of the land. She stated this area, when fully developed, will be equivalent to a city because of its density and activity; however, the problem lies with the balance of the land because it will probably develop with some residences, apartments and/or townhouses which will generate the demand for more public services. Mr. Dodd stated he supported extending the line but requested that staff provide additional information on sewer financing with respect to the overall County. He stated this project appears to be 25-30% of the sewer debt and he questioned if there is any money remaining to complete 1-295. Mrs. Girone stated there are approximately 3,000 acres at 1-295 available for development and inquired if that area were going to be included in the development district. Mr. Ramsey suggested the issue be deferred until the June 10, 1987, work session at which time the Board would be reviewing the overall Capital Improvement Program which includes the 1-295 project. Mr. Daniel inquired if any Board action were necessary on the financing of the Upper Swift Creek Transport System at this time. Mr. Sale stated Board approval for authorizing the engineering design for Phase I of the Upper Swift Creek Trans- port System was necessary. 87-428 After a brief discussion, it was generally agreed to instruct staff to prepare the necessary agenda paper to proceed with the request for authorizing the engineering design for Phase I of the Upper Swift Creek Transport System, with expenditures for the design to be taken from the $13.5 million available from the sale of revenue bonds for this project; and it was also generally agreed the Board would discuss the interrelationships between 1-295 and the Upper Swift Creek Transport System at its June 10, 1987, work session. It was generally agreed the Board would recess for fifteen (15) minutes. Reconvening: 3. MICHAUX CREEK DRAINAGE AREA Mr. Sale stated staff has received requests for sewer service in the Michaux Creek area which exceeds the committed capacity of the pumping station. He stated there exists additional capacity; however, this capacity is committed although it is not being utilized at present and may not be for five years or more. He stated the recent requests for sewer service in the area could be honored by utilizing the existing excess capacity in the pump station committed but not presently utilized but, in order to do this, the County would have to guarantee to the committed parties that service would be available when they desired the service via construction of a relief facility. He stated the two alternatives for providing additional sewage capacity for this area are 1) extend the James River trunk system (included in the proposed Utility Capital Program) or 2) convert the existing Michaux Creek Pumping Station to an off-peak or average-flow station. He stated staff recommends the construction of the James River Trunk System as the best solution to the capacity problem because it provides capacity for the entire drainage area, off-peak pumping concept is unproven, the trunk system will provide for the eventual abandonment of the Powderham Pumping Station, and the trunk system will allow areas along the James River, Marine Spring Branch, Roberts Branch and Michaux to develop using public sewers and will provide the trunk sewer system from which service can be provided to the developed areas that drains to the James River. Discussion, questions and comments ensued relative to the proposed location for Route 288; the authorization for issuance of revenue bonds to free-up commercial sewer service connec- tions, with assurances to the committed parties that service would be available to them when desired, and the designation of these funds for this project; the ratio of residential/commer- cial development in the area; growth in the area; projections for an annual increase in sewage flow of 80,000 gallons; the present pumping station's design capacity for handling the project flow until 1995; the feasibility of the off-peak pumping concept; the advantages/disadvantages of extending the James River Trunk System versus converting the existing Michaux Creek Pumping Station to an off-peak or average-flow station; the cost of the James River Trunk System, estimated to be $6.7 million, which will provide a permanent solution for the sewage transport system for the area versus the cost of converting the existing pumping station, estimated to be $800,000, which would be a temporary facility that would be abandoned when the James River System is constructed, etc. Mr. Mayes arrived at the meeting. There was further discussion relative to advance zoning of the area, the need to identify the Route 288 corridor before zoning 87-429 the area, the need for a commitment to quality development, the length of time involved in completing the project, etc. Mrs. Girone stated in order to proceed with providing additional sewer service in the Michaux Creek Drainage Area, the Board needs to decide whether to authorize the issuance of Utilities Revenue Bonds sufficient to construct the relief facility ($800,000) or the issuance of $6.7 million to construct the James River Trunk System. Mr. Daniel stated there has been no immediate need identified to issue the $6.7 million to construct the James River Trunk System and even if zoning were approved there is no demand at present for building permits for it to be served. Mrs. Girone stated there have been recent requests for sewer service in the area which could be honored by utilizing the existing excess capacity in the pump station that is already committed but not utilized and in order to honor those requests the Board must determine a way in which to provide sewer either by extending the James River Trunk System, which is included in the proposed Utility Capital Program, or converting the existing Michaux Creek Pumping Station to an off-peak or average-flow station. Mr. Sale stated staff is confident that those individuals requesting sewer service in this area will proceed with their development ideas. Mrs. Girone stated she felt that development in this area is going to occur so rapidly that the entire trunk system should be constructed. Mr. Daniel stated he did not have a problem with the $6.7 million because that is a general policy statement that the Board is making that it is willing to invest in a system that will provide orderly and planned development of an area. Mr. Micas stated the Board can authorize the issuance of $6.7 million in Utility revenue bonds but does not have to sell them. He stated there is sufficient capacity in the existing trunk sewer to meet the pace of development for three (3) years; after that a decision to use either off-peak or gravity would be necessary. Mr. Ramsey reminded the Board that its current policy is to escrow two-thirds of connection fees for expansions, capital improvements, etc., and this action would be a deviation from the policy for system-wide improvements. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to instruct staff to prepare an agenda paper to authorize the County to proceed with the James River Trunk System, to issue the bonds ($6.7 million), that development will be high quality and every effort should be made to preserve the corridor for Route 288. It was generally agreed to bring the issue before the Board for consideration at the June 24, 1987 meeting. Mr. Ramsey requested clarification as to whether or not the Board was accelerating the construction of the James River Trunk System prior to 1995. Mrs. Girone stated she understood the current pace of development would use up the existing 2000 connections in three years. Mr. Sale stated staff anticipates that at the anticipated rate of development the substitute system needs to be on-line in approximately 1995-96 and the James River Trunk System is shown in the Utilities Capital Improvement Program as being constructed in 1995-96. He stated in terms of this item the request would be for authorization of the issuance of the bonds and in terms of the Utilities CIP staff would be presenting at the June 10, 1987 work session a schedule indicating the James River Trunk System design start- ing in 1991-92 and construction beginning in 1993 so that it would be on-line in 1995. 87-430 PERSONNEL ~$ 4.A. EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE Mr. Ramsey stated in June, 1986, staff was informed by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Virginia that the School Board's and General County's Comprehensive Health Care Plan had developed a deficit estimated to be approximately $800,000 by the end of the contract year. He stated at the August 11, 1986, meeting the Board approved increased rates for the employee share of the cost of health care coverage under the Blue Cross Compre- hensive Plan and instructed the County Administrator to con- tract with a benefits consulting firm to address the deficit situation and to review the County's entire benefit program structure. He stated because of the dramatic increase in the employee share of the cost of coverage, many subscribers elected one of the County's three lower cost alternative health care plans, which reduced the number of County subscribers to approximately 263 and School subscribers to 571. He stated the firm of Martin E. Segal Company was selected and began the study with an indepth analysis of the financial condition of the County's health care programs. He stated in view of the severity of the deficit situation and the need to take action which will address the deficit and prevent similar problems from occurring in the future, the staffs of County Administra- tion and the School Board, with assistance from the consulting firm of Martin E. Segal, recommend the following action: Negotiate with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Virginia to structure a four to five year payoff of the current deficit; representative of Martin E. Segal begin negotia- tions on the County's behalf to formalize a payback schedule; staff will then present a recommendation for funding the deficit based on an agreed upon amortization schedule. The General County and School 1987 budget will have unspent appropriations of approximately $200,000 each, or a total of $400,000, which can be applied to the payback agreement toward reducing the deficit. Staff will attempt to identify similar amounts in subsequent budgets. Rather than have the few employees remaining in the plan incur additional charges to reduce the deficit, the deficit be paid by the County and Schools. Phase out the Comprehensive Plan as one of the County's health care options in the upcoming contract year. He stated no Board action is required at this time as this is for informational purposes. There was general discussion relative to factors contributing to the deficit and its continued growth; the amount of the deficit and how it would be paid; the decrease in the number of subscribers to the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Comprehensive Plan due to the increased rate coverage; phasing out of the Compre- hensive Plan as one of the County's health care options, with the option of subscribing to one of the County's alternative health care programs being available; etc. Mr. Willis briefly explained this year the number of subscribers to the Blue Cross Key Care program increased substantially while the number of subscribers in the Comprehensive Plan decreased. He stated in addition there are now more employees going to HMO's, which are a lower cost option. He stated furthermore, the large number of subscribers who left the Comprehensive Plan stopped payment of their premiums at that time; however, claims for services these employees incurred prior to September 30 were not billed until after they had left the plan. He stated consequently funds, or reserves, were not established to cover these incurred claims. 87-431 It was generally agreed staff would proceed with the preparation of an agenda item to be presented to the Board for consideration in July, 1987, incorporating the actions recommended by the consultant, as new rate increases for the new health care plans become effective. 4.B. 1987-88 PAY ISSUES Mr. Ramsey stated in the work session preceding the adoption of the budget on April 8, 1987, a general consensus was reached by the Board regarding the desirability of moving to a pay-for- performance approach to employee salary increases; however, specific implementation of the 1987-88 salary recommendations were not fully resolved. He stated three options were discuss- ed: 1) budget proposal that employees may receive up to an 8% increase on their merit date (assuming a merit increase of 5% is earned plus a 3% market adjustment); 2) the concept used in the past that a 1-1/2% general increase be given to all em- ployees on July 1, with a 5% merit increase, if earned, on their merit date; and 3) a total increase of 4% in July with all employees' merit dates moved to July 1 (the 4% would be both market movement and merit increase). He stated once the budget was adopted administration began meeting with department directors and employees to explain the salary proposal and answer questions. He stated discussion, questions and comments ensued relative to "leap-frogging", salary adjustment on merit date, illustrations of the effect of the options on actual earned salaries over a two year period, etc. He stated employees and supervisors alike generally felt positively about the pay-for-performance and agreed that the evaluation system must be objective, fair and understood by everyone. Mr. Daniel stated, after a review of salaries/classifications, it appeared employees, with the exception of a few, were in the proper ratio as to what their salary should be. He requested the Board approve authorization for the Acting County Adminis- trator to proceed with adjusting the salary scales of those certain classifications. Mr. Mayes expressed concern there should be public input with respect to this issue. Mr. Ramsey stated staff has worked with department heads and staff over the recent weeks concerning this issue. Mr. Applegate express- ed concern regarding "leap-frogging" and inquired if the budget proposal would not allow this to occur. Mr. Ramsey stated it would not. Mr. Daniel stated the Acting County Administrator informed him that the budget can absorb the $40,000 necessary to provide department heads with the equivalent 8% salary increase. It was the consensus of the Board that the Acting County Administrator proceed with the preparation of an agenda paper requesting approval of the recommended salary adjustments as adopted in the 1987-88 budget, including the adjustment of salary scales of those certain classfications not comparable to what their salaries should be and adjustment of the budget to absorb the $40,000 necessary to provide department heads with the equivalent 8% salary increase. 5. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: 87-432 6. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adjourned at 4:50 p.m. (EDST) until 1:00 p.m. (EDST) on June 10, 1987, in the Administration Building Conference Room (Room 502) . Vote: Unanimous Lane B. Ramsey Acting County Admini~rator 87-433 Chairman