BOS Regular Meeting, January 25, 2012

Regular Meeting, Wednesday, January 25, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. Government Center, Verona, VA.
PRESENT: Tracy C. Pyles, Jr., Chairman
Jeffrey A. Moore, Vice-Chairman
David R. Beyeler
David A. Karaffa
Marshall W. Pattie
Michael L. Shull
Larry J. Wills
Timmy Fitzgerald, Director of Community Development
Becky Earhart, Senior Planner
Jennifer M. Whetzel, Director of Finance
Patrick J. Morgan, County Attorney
John C. McGehee, Assistant County Administrator
Patrick J. Coffield, County Administrator
Rita R. Austin, CMC, Executive Secretary
VIRGINIA: At a regular meeting of the Augusta County Board of
Supervisors held on Wednesday, January 25, 2012, at
7:00 p.m., at the Government Center, Verona, Virginia,
and in the 236th year of the Commonwealth....



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Chairman Pyles welcomed the citizens present.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The following students of Wilson Middle School, led the Pledge of Allegiance:
Morgan DeLange and Billy Coombe – 8th graders; Lucy Weidner and Bo Branham – 7th
graders; and Jay Blackstone and Kyle Coombe – 6th graders. Billy enjoys basketball
and football. Morgan plays softball and enjoys algebra. Lucy plays basketball,
volleyball and enjoys algebra. Bo enjoys football. Kyle hopes to become a Marine
Biologist. Jay loves Science.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Larry J. Wills, Middle River District, delivered invocation.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WILLIAM “BILL” EDWARDS – APPRECIATION
Patrick J. Coffield, County Administrator, asked that Jim Belshee, Vice President and
Assistant Secretary, of William Edwards, Inc., and Bill Edwards, President, to come to
the podium. Mr. Coffield reflected that 22 years ago, this facility (formerly Smith
Transfer) was opened. After it was opened, the County wanted a connection to “our
roots”. One of the first visitors was Mr. Edwards, with his annual calendar, who asked if
he could provide one of his William Edwards trucks to add to an existing collection of
Smith’s trucks. One time while visiting with Mr. Edwards at his business, Mr. Coffield
had commented on Mr. Edwards’ cabinet display of trucks, stating that he would be
proud to find a home for his collection at the Government Center. Mr. Edwards called a
few months ago asking if the offer was still good. Mr. Coffield reported that “We are
now the proud custodians of a Mr. Edwards’ collection!” The Board had requested that
Mr. Edwards be invited tonight so that he would be publicly thanked. The cabinet has
been refinished and is located in the Smith West Room.
Mr. Edwards stated that he had been in Verona 58 years. He started with Smith
Transfer and has enjoyed living and working in Augusta County. He has always had a
close relationship with the Board of Supervisors. He felt privileged in being able to set
up a business in Augusta County for 40 years. He reminded the Board of two existing
trucking companies: Houff and Wilson, which have been in existence longer than
William Edwards, Inc. “I think the whole County should be very pleased that it works so
well here. Thank you for a good home for the trucks.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
22
January 25, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.
DEANNE P. JOHNSON, TIMOTHY C. ZIRKLE, RUTHERFORD CONSTRUCTION,
INC., AND LOFTON LEASING, LLC – AMEND AND RESTATE PROFFERS
This being the day and time advertised to consider a request to amend and restate the
proffers on 10.2 acres zoned Duplex Residential and owned by Deanne P. Johnson,
Timothy C. Zirkle, Rutherford Construction, Inc., and Lofton Leasing, LLC, located on the
west side of Colters Place just north of the intersection of Colters Place and Stuarts Draft
Highway (Route 340) in Stuarts Draft (Beverley Manor District). The Planning Commission
recommends approval of the deletion of the age restriction proffers and the restatement of
the remaining proffers.
Becky Earhart, Senior Planner, displayed property outlined in pink. The applicant
currently has a proffer on the property that restricts the occupancy of the unit to
“housing for older persons”, meaning that at least one of the residents has to be at least
55 years or older. The applicant is asking that this proffer be deleted. The other
proffers of 1) no more than 36 duplexes will be constructed on the 10.26 acres, and 2)
an access to the residential subdivision will be provided via a public street, will remain
on this property. The property is in an Urban Service Area, slated for Medium Density
Residential and Neighborhood Mixed Use development. Water and sewer are
available.
Deanne Johnson, Applicant, asked that the age restriction be deleted. When the
duplexes were originally designed in 2004, there had not been a lot of residential
development in Stuarts Draft. The proffer was to eliminate any burden on the schools.
There are currently no existing facilities which would entice someone of that age group
– no walking trails, club houses, etc., nor are any proposed. With the change in the real
estate market, it is more difficult to market property. To be in a more competitive
position, she asked that the age proffer be eliminated.
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Karaffa noted that all residents are in agreement with this amendment.
Mr. Karaffa moved, seconded by Mr. Beyeler, that the Board approve the following
ordinance, with the deletion of the age restriction and the reinstatement of the remaining
proffers:
A request to amend and restate the proffers on 10.2 acres zoned Duplex
Residential and owned by Deanne P. Johnson, Timothy C. Zirkle, Rutherford
Construction, Inc., and Lofton Leasing, LLC, located on the west side of Colters
Place just north of the intersection of Colters Place and Stuarts Draft Highway
(Route 340) in Stuarts Draft in the Beverley Manor District.
AN ORDINANCE to amend Chapter 25 "Zoning" of the Code of Augusta
County, Virginia.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Board of Supervisors to
amend the Augusta County Zoning Maps,
WHEREAS, the Augusta County Planning Commission, after a public
hearing, has made their recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has conducted a public hearing,
23
January 25, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
DEANNE P. JOHNSON, TIMOTHY C. ZIRKLE, RUTHERFORD CONSTRUCTION,
INC., AND LOFTON LEASING, LLC – AMEND AND RESTATE PROFFERS (cont’d)
WHEREAS, both the Commission and Board public hearings have been
properly advertised and all public notice as required by the
Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia properly completed,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered the application,
the Planning Commission recommendation and the comments presented
at the public hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors that
the Augusta County Zoning Maps be amended as follows:
Parcel numbers 1-34 on tax map number 75G(5) containing a total of
approximately 10.2 acres. The proffers are amended and restated as follows:
1. Access to the residential subdivision will be provided via a public street
which will be built to state standards at no cost to the County and
dedicated for public use from Route 340 to the northern property boundary
with Tax Map 75-52D owned by the Stuarts Draft Baptist Church.
2. No more than 36 duplexes will be constructed on the 10.26 acres zoned
Duplex Residential.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler
and Pyles
Nays: None
Motion carried.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DEPARTMENT OF VIRGINIA, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED
STATES – REZONING
This being the day and time advertised to consider a request to rezone from Single Family
Residential to Attached Residential with proffers 0.759 acres owned by Department of
Virginia, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States located on the east side of
Montgomery Road (Route 1401) approximately 0.2 of a mile south of the intersection of
Montgomery Road (Route 1401) and First Street (Route 1402) (Beverley Manor District).
The Planning Commission recommends approval with proffers.
Ms. Earhart displayed property outlined in blue. The applicant has submitted the
following proffers:
1. No more than 4 residential dwelling units will be constructed on the 0.759 acre
parcel.
2. There will be no more than 2 duplex buildings and each will have brick exteriors or
vinyl siding.
3. Construction of the two duplex residential buildings will be in general conformity with
Rezoning Exhibit A Showing Proposed Improvements on Tax Map #65A-1-B-12
dated 12-13-2011.
24
January 25, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.
DEPARTMENT OF VIRGINIA, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED
STATES – REZONING (cont’d)
4. Construction of the two duplex residential buildings will be in general conformity with
Rezoning Exhibit B.
The property has been zoned Single Family Residential since October 1947. It is in an
Urban Service Area, designated for Medium Density Residential development. Public
water and sewer are available.
Jerome Lane, Applicant, on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States,
who are requesting the rezoning to assist veterans with housing and with heating, food,
electric, etc. costs. They hope to build units to generate income to help fund as many
veterans needing help and keep one unit available for veterans returning from war who
do not have a home. Previously, they have been sent to the Mission. Mr. Lane feels
this to be unacceptable.
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Karaffa moved, seconded by Mr. Wills, that the Board approve the following
ordinance with proffers:
A request to rezone from Single Family Residential to Attached Residential with
proffers 0.759 acres owned by Department of Virginia, Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States located on the east side of Montgomery Road (Route
1401) approximately 0.2 of a mile south of the intersection of Montgomery Road
(Route 1401) and First Street (Route 1402) in the Beverley Manor District.
AN ORDINANCE to amend Chapter 25 "Zoning" of the Code of Augusta
County, Virginia.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Board of Supervisors to
amend the Augusta County Zoning Maps,
WHEREAS, the Augusta County Planning Commission, after a public
hearing, has made their recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has conducted a public hearing,
WHEREAS, both the Commission and Board public hearings have been
properly advertised and all public notice as required by the
Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia properly completed,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered the application,
the Planning Commission recommendation and the comments presented
at the public hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors that
the Augusta County Zoning Maps be amended as follows:
25
January 25, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
DEPARTMENT OF VIRGINIA, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED
STATES – REZONING (cont’d)
Parcel number 12 on tax map number 65A(1) Block B containing a total of
approximately 0.759 acres is changed from Single Family Residential to
Attached Residential with the following proffers:
1. No more than 4 residential dwelling units will be constructed on the 0.759 acre
parcel.
2. There will be no more than 2 duplex buildings and each will have brick exteriors or
vinyl siding.
3. Construction of the two duplex residential buildings will be in general conformity with
Rezoning Exhibit A Showing Proposed Improvements on Tax Map #65A-1-B-12
dated 12-13-2011.
4. Construction of the two duplex residential buildings will be in general conformity with
Rezoning Exhibit B.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler
and Pyles
Nays: None
Motion carried.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
Nicole Henrickson, as an educator, parent, and on behalf of the children of Augusta
County, asked that the Board consider increasing support and revenues from the
County for public education.
Chairman Pyles mentioned that the Board met earlier today to discuss priorities and
noted that Education was a top priority.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLANNING COMMISSION
Presentation by staff on Annual Report.
Ms. Earhart presented the Planning Commission Annual Report.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT
Presentation by staff on Annual Report.
John Wilkinson, Zoning Administrator, presented the Board of Zoning Appeals
Commission Annual Report.
The Board recognized the contribution of a past member – J. Waller Callison, Jr., who
demonstrated exemplary qualifications and capabilities in the performance of his duties
on the Board of Zoning Appeals for 23 years. He served as Chairman for four years
and as Vice-Chairman for six years. Mr. Callison also served on the Planning
Commission for five years. Mr. Callison is commended for his past service, which he so
aptly fulfilled with logic, diligence, and dedication. He distinguished himself with his
fellow Board members, the staff and the citizens of Augusta County and was known for
his fairness and equality of his decisions.
26
January 25, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CENTER
The Board considered contribution for roof repairs and authorization to solicit bids for
new roof (Middle River District).
Funding source: Middle River Infrastructure Account #80000-8012-70 $1,400
John C. McGehee, Assistant County Administrator, advised that this had been discussed
at Monday’s Staff Briefing. What is before the Board tonight is to seek approval for
$1,400 to repair the existing roof and permission to solicit bids for the new roof for the
flat section of the old New Hope School. This property is leased from the County to the
Ruritan Club who subleases to the New Hope Fire and Rescue.
Mr. Wills added that the Ruritan Club and Augusta County have put a considerable
amount of money in improvements of the Community Center. In order to preserve what
has been done, the repairs are necessary.
Mr. Wills moved, seconded by Mr. Moore, that the Board approve the request.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler
and Pyles
Nays: None
Motion carried.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VERONA PARK
The Board considered status of park and funding appropriated to date.
Mr. Coffield advised that Ron Sites, Director for Parks and Recreation, provided a report on
Monday on the origination and allocation of funding for Verona Park. The Chairman
opened for further discussion.
Mr. Karaffa reported that he has researched this project for the last two months. He noted
that the site in question is the Old Verona Wastewater Treatment Plant. It backs up to an
industrial complex and is in a flood plain. He did not believe this is the place or time for
such a recreation park but did feel there was a need for a recreation park in Verona in the
future.
Mr. Karaffa suggested that the money that has been set aside for this project be placed
back in the proper accounts.
Mr. Pattie asked about kayaking and canoeing privileges without making it an official park.
Mr. Coffield said that they could look into “limited access” of the property and asked for
Board direction.
Larry Curry, member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, and President of VCA
(involved with VCA for 26 years), quoted figures appropriated for other parks in the
County and asked for this item to be tabled for two months for further research before
rescinding funding. He noted that most of the park areas had had problematic issues
that were overcome.
Paul Bugas, of Game & Inland Fisheries, noted that Middle River is the largest
watershed in Augusta County and has zero public access. He felt this to be the best
opportunity to have kayaking, canoeing and fishing access. He asked that the Board
not abandon this project and go forth with the recreation aspect. “Just because it lies in
a floodplain, there are a lot of other uses besides ballfields.”
27
January 25, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
VERONA PARK (cont’d)
Darrell Schwalm, a member of the Friends of Middle River, whose purpose is to
promote stewardship of Middle River through education and outreach, noted that by not
having access to the river, it is difficult to organize community or educational events and
cleanups.
Chris Keagy, owner of property directly in front of the site (Riverside Heights
Subdivision), expressed opposition of the use of Locust Street as the main entrance to
the park. He provided a petition of opposition of this entrance with 75 signatures. He
stated that he was not against having the park.
Mr. Karaffa stated that he was aware of the petitions and noted that the revised
drawings eliminated the Locust Street entrance. It was going to use an entrance behind
ASR; however, we have not been able to get the right-of-way from ASR that would allow
for the new entrance. The allocated funding did not include the purchase of right-ofway.
He reiterated that this site was not an ideal place for a park.
Mr. Pattie asked for clarification of what would happen to the funding. Chairman Pyles
explained that the funding would go back to the original infrastructure and recreation
accounts; mainly, Pastures, Middle River, and Beverley Manor. Mr. Pattie asked if the
funds should be placed in a separate account.
Mr. Karaffa advised that there is no money from the State for Roads.
Mr. Wills, in looking at the funding, stated approximately $130,000 will go back into
matching grants for Parks and Recreation: North River, $97,000; Middle River,
$30,000. This money could be reallocated for another project. He agreed with Mr.
Karaffa of his concerns about the location; however, he understood the need for a park
in Verona. Having read the plan, it calls for a large developed-type park with significant
structures in the Verona area. That site is not adequate. He suggested that Parks and
Recreation Department do some research regarding limited access to the river.
Mr. Karaffa advised that there is enough money set aside in the Recreation Account to
assist in getting a landing for access to the river.
Mr. Beyeler stated that he was on the Board when it was turned back to the County and
they were assured that there was nothing hazardous on the site. He asked about the
railroad spur which would allow for a bicycle/walk trail. He felt that they still had time to
make a decision.
Mr. Beyeler moved, no second, that the Board table this item for two months.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Shull, Beyeler
Nays: Karaffa, Wills, Pyles and Moore
Motion denied.
* * *
Mr. Moore added that he had been assigned as Liaison to the Parks and Recreation
Commission. They have discussed strategic planning and he noted that this has been
ongoing since 2002. The Locust Street entrance is not ideal and they have been unable
to get the ASR right-of-way. He emphasized that the property is owned by the County.
Parks and Recreation has requested direction from the Board. “It may not be the ideal
place for a major park, but it may be a good place for access to the river.”
28
January 25, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.
VERONA PARK (cont’d)
Mr. Karaffa moved, seconded by Mr. Moore, that the Board rescind the funding and
have it allocated in the correct Magisterial District Infrastructure and Recreation
accounts.
Funding Sources: Beverley Manor Infrastructure Account #80000-8011-31 $268,686.37
North River Recreation Account #80000-8023-26 96,699.78
Pastures Infrastructure Account #80000-8014-48 4,981.16
Wayne Infrastructure Account #80000-8017-51 14,943.80
Middle River Infrastructure Account #80000-8012-50 66,838.44
Middle River Recreation Account #80000-8022-35 29,898.61
$482,048.16
Chairman Pyles appreciated the comments made tonight and added that Mr. Curry’s
comments are well taken. He understood the needs of the Verona area and hoped for a
passive recreation-type for launching at this site and a park located somewhere else.
Mr. Shull felt that this was not the time for the park because of other needs.
Mr. Beyeler strongly felt that a decision needed to be made.
Mr. Karaffa said that he was available to speak with those who had expressed
concerns.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Wills, Moore and Pyles
Nays: Shull and Beyeler
Motion carried.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
IT SUPPRESSION SYSTEM
The Board considered proposal to replace suppression system. This item was tabled
at the Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting on December 14, 2011.
Funding source: CIP #80000-8147 $351,325.70
Mr. Beyeler moved, seconded by Mr. Wills, that the Board remove item from the table.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler
and Pyles
Nays: None
Motion carried.
* * *
Mr. Coffield reported that a follow-up presentation and tour was given at the Staff
Briefing on Monday.
Chairman Pyles added that during the tour, the Board recognized the needs and noted
that the money is in the budget.
Mr. Beyeler moved, seconded by Mr. Karaffa, that the Board approve the proposal to
purchase and install a new suppression system.
Mr. Pattie mentioned that a question had been asked about consolidating County,
Service Authority and School IT Departments.
29
January 25, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
IT SUPPRESSION SYSTEM (cont’d)
Jackie Zetwick, IT Director, reported that there is a distance issue of only running
Ethernet 300 feet and then you lose data. You would have to run fiber and then
connect switches. That is why there are so many locations; the building is too big.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler
and Pyles
Nays: None
Motion carried.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SURPLUS VEHICLE
The Board considered request by Riverheads Fire Department for transfer of surplus
pickup truck from Company 10 (Riverheads District).
Mr. Coffield advised that this had been discussed at Monday’s Staff Briefing. He noted
that Riverheads Fire Department will provide fuel and maintenance from their
donation/annual contribution account.
Mr. Shull moved, seconded by Mr. Moore, that the Board approve the request with the
understanding that Riverheads Fire Department will provide fuel and maintenance from
their donation/annual contribution account.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler
and Pyles
Nays: None
Motion carried.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WAIVERS/VARIANCES
Timmy Fitzgerald, Director of Community Development, advised that Dollar General in
Crimora has requested a waiver. A required fire flow of 1,250 gpm cannot be met.
During a fire flow test conducted by ACSA, a fire flow of 860 gpm was observed;
however, when the ACSA ran an additional long-term fire flow, it came below 250 gpm
based on their water system model. Although the water system as a whole is out of
their control, they will be taking the following measures to improve the level of fire
protection:
1. Install an automatic fire alarm system in the building to notify authorities in case
of emergency during off hours.
2. Revise the site entrance to allow for easier access of emergency vehicles to lay
fire lines from the existing fire hydrant to the building.
3. Install a 2-hour fire wall in the building that will reduce the required fire flow to
1,000 gpm.
To move forward, a waiver is required.
Mr. Wills said that he has been working with this gentleman since January 2nd. The 860
was provided to him. He had followed instructions to meet all requirements. He learned
this morning that he did not have enough gpm. This waiver is similar to the waiver that
had been approved in the Dooms area. He apologized to the Board of the short notice.
Mr. Wills moved, seconded by Mr. Beyeler, that the Board approve the request.
30
January 25, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.
WAIVERS/VARIANCES (cont’d)
Mr. Moore questioned who provided the fire flow test of 860. Mr. Wills said that it was
provided by the County on the original site plan. Mr. Fitzgerald said that the Service
Authority (ACSA) provided the report.
Mr. Coffield explained that many areas of the County do not meet fire flow
requirements. There is a presumption when there is public water available, there is
sufficient fire flow. From a staff level and previous Boards, they do not want the public
to assume fire flow is available when it is not. It is brought to the attention of the
property owner and it is the responsibility of the owner to provide a letter to be on record
requesting a waiver stating that he was aware of insufficient fire flow.
Chairman Pyles added that the ACSA, when the wells and lines were originally installed,
their mission was to supply domestic water. It was never their intention to provide
higher level of pressure. “We have caused many dollars of increase to the ACSA and to
builders to ensure fire protection that goes beyond this. The ACSA has had to put in
new tanks, higher tanks, etc. It has not been a matter of just letting people know. It
was the intention of the Board to ensure that there was a greater fire protection for
people throughout the County and try to draw a line on that. I do worry that our
ordinance becomes less valuable if we’re going to do more and more waivers.”
Chairman Pyles said that he would support the motion, but felt that the Board should
have had more information before making this decision. He suggested that the
ordinance may need to be revisited.
Mr. Karaffa said that he would abstain from voting because of the short notice.
Mr. Beyeler pointed out that about 50% of the County does not have adequate fire flow.
He suggested that Mr. Karaffa speak with ACSA to determine where fire flow is
adequate. He said that waivers were needed to allow development.
Mr. Moore agreed with Chairman Pyles that the ordinance may need to be changed.
Mr. Wills also felt that correct information should be sent out on the site plan. “The
applicant needs to know what is needed.”
Mr. Wills moved, seconded by Mr. Beyeler, that the Board approve the request.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler
and Pyles
Nays: None
Abstained: Karaffa
Motion carried.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Pattie moved, seconded by Mr. Wills, that the Board approve the consent agenda
as follows:
MINUTES
Approved the following minutes:
• Organizational Meeting, Wednesday, January 4, 2012
• Regular Meeting, Wednesday, January 11, 2012
31
January 25, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA (cont’d)
ROAD NAMING POLICY
Considered request to change name of road from Boyington Blvd. to Pratts Run (Wayne
District).
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler
and Pyles
Nays: None
Motion carried.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(END OF CONSENT AGENDA)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A five-minute recess was called at 8:25 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REASSESSMENT OVERVIEW
Chairman Pyles made the following comment:
Before we get started, the last Board had postponed the reassessment from what would
have been done this year and to be put in place January of next year to the year after. One
of the problems with that is that it extends our time on the existing Composite Index not just
one year, but two years. Some of us, in running for office, said we needed to look at that and
the public would like to see us change the reassessment. Tonight, we’re going to start
looking at the options available to us if we get started right away.
Jennifer M. Whetzel, Director of Finance, mentioned that the Code section dealing with
Reassessment is 58.1-32.01 and that it is the requirement of the State that counties do a
reassessment every four years. We had an option put in the Legislative Priorities to do it
either Year 4, 5, or 6. Ms. Whetzel gave a PowerPoint presentation on Reassessment
high-lighting the following:
Timeline:
• Procurement of Contractor or Dept. set up
– January to June 2012
• Assessment Work (fieldwork & hearings)
– June 2012 to December 2013
• Tax Bills
– Processed and mailed-April 2014-May 2014
– Deadline for payment June 5, 2014
Contracting:
• Number of vendors in Virginia
• Estimated cost per parcel is reasonable with prior reassessment costs
• Cost of 2009 reassessment $633,000
Locality Survey:
• Each locality is set up differently
• Staffing varies among localities
• Workload varies among localities
• Software is key component
32
January 25, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.
REASSESSMENT OVERVIEW (cont’d)
In-house Budget:
• Includes Chief Assessor, Statistician, Assessors and Clerical
• Special skill set needed
• Department expenditures include office expenditures, transportation and
software maintenance
• Total $550,000 estimated (preliminary)
• Capital needs largely depend on current system
Ms. Whetzel asked for Board direction. Does the Board:
1. Need additional information?
2. Want a presentation from the State?
Mr. Pattie asked for clarification of $550,000, if it were annually? Ms. Whetzel said it
would be annually if you had an office running full-time. Mr. Pattie, as far as clerical
help, asked if personnel within the Government Center would be moved to different
areas. Mr. Coffield said some personnel could be moved. Ms. Whetzel said that data
entry is currently being done by the Commissioner of Revenue. The County has all
records that are needed. The software does not do the sales study.
Mr. Moore made the following comment:
When I ran, this is something that it seems that nobody is happy with; right, wrong,
whatever. How I’m looking at this job is that we are a multi-million dollar business; our
taxpayers are our customers. Right now, we have a lot of customers who are unhappy
with the system that is in place now. I support coming in-house. I don’t know if we would
save a whole lot of money, or any money. Too many advantages, I think we can get a lot
better product. I think we can get where our taxpayers feel like they have a good system.
That would be my goal where they feel we would have accurate numbers. Also, I like
the fact that, having it in-house, we could do it every two years because there are market
fluctuations. The market cycle is up and down. There could be times where, over four
years, hopefully, the economy will come back strongly. A two-year cycle, I think, gives
you a smaller window and you can take into account variations in the market more
accurately. I would support it in-house and I would like for us to pursue it further.
Mr. Wills made the following comment:
I understand the concern over the last reassessment. However, when I look at in-house
costs of $550,000 a year versus a cost of doing a four-year reassessment being, even if
you took the $660,000 and increased it by 50%, you’re still less than a million dollars over
a four-year period. Given the climate of the economic situation today, I cannot support
adding staff and a new department to this County when we’re telling other departments
that they have to cut staff; when we’re having to make sacrifices in our schools, it just
doesn’t make sense to me at this point. I feel like we can control the process. If you
think there is a problem with the last reassessment when the people weren’t satisfied,
wait until you do it in-house and the people aren’t satisfied and they feel like the Board
manipulated the numbers because we have control of it. When it is out-of-house, in a
contractor’s hands, the Board has a hands-off policy. We get blamed for some things we
can’t control, but at least, you know, one thing they can’t say is we manipulated them. If
it is in-house, we’re subject to that type of accusation - right or wrong. I’m not saying we
would, but I’m saying, right or wrong. The main thing I have a problem with it at this point
is the increase. When we have private industry that can do it cheaper than we can do it,
with government employees, I cannot support doing it with government employees.
33
January 25, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
REASSESSMENT OVERVIEW (cont’d)
Mr. Beyeler made the following comment:
I’m not going to say the last assessment was all right. If we go down the road you’re
suggesting, it is going to cost us twice as much for assessment to get the same product.
Now, the key to all of this that has been in the past . . . and I served on the Assessment
Board. Wingate is on this list. And Wingate was on when I was on the Board. The key
is the people you put on that Board, they are the ones who set the price. The assessors
can come in and give you a price, but it is up to that Board to set that price. If there was
a weakness in the past, it’s because we did not put the people on there that set what
those rates were going to be in the beginning. Now, the other thing they used is sales. I
would prefer we wait another year. That may not set for some people, but it would be
cheaper for everybody if we did. We can take the $550,000 or $633,000 and divide by
six for what it cost us per year, which is $156,000. If we do it, as you suggest, we’ve got
the start-up fee, plus $550,000 the first year and the second year, and it will take two
years to do it in Augusta County. We can go to a two-year assessment. I can make the
argument either way on a two or a four-year. What’s going to pay the bill in the end?
Taxes are going to pay the bill in the end and the method that you are suggesting . . . I’ll
go along with it if the majority wants it, but I’m telling you right now it’s going cost the
taxpayers twice of what it cost us the last time and we still may not have a good
assessment. The other thing is, we can reduce all the assessments by 10%. I heard this
Board, this afternoon, talk about schools. If we reduce the assessment by 10%, then
we’re taking in less money to pay what you and others are saying we need to do next
year. The only way to make up the difference is increase the rate. There is no free ride.
I asked Mr. Coffield, at dinner, what our ratio was on sales. He said it was 96%. I know
that is a little higher than I would like it to be. You are supposed to end up with 100%. I
never did like the 100% because most of the time, when you sold property, it would cost
you 10% to sell and I hated to pay taxes on something that you really don’t get. I’m here
to tell you that if we go in-house, you won’t get any better assessment; plus, it’s going to
cost you twice the amount of money. The only way to pay for that is to increase the
taxes to pay it. When you talk about the initial year cost of $550,000, you’re talking about
roughly 1¢. Only you increase the tax rate 1¢ doing your method every year. If you want
to do it over a two-year period, you’re talking about $1.1 million. Plus, where are we
going to put the staff? I’m not saying you can’t transfer staff in the building. In my
experience, I’ve served on the Assessment Board, I know how it works. I didn’t agree
with everything they did last time, but the key is who you put on that Board. When I
served there, we set the value. Now, an appraiser can come in and say what they think it
ought to be, but it is that 7-member Board that sets those values and there isn’t anyone
to blame but that 7-member Board.
Mr. Karaffa made the following comment:
I have a couple of concerns in principle. Number 1, there was a case in Gloucester
County where they were going through their assessment. It was outside. They actually
cancelled their assessment because they didn’t like the product that they were getting.
They ran into all kinds of trouble. The problem I see, with us continuing to go outside, is
what is our ability if we see a bad product coming to stop it and get out of that contract.
Another problem that I have is that right now people feel that they are not being taxed
fairly. I think one of our responsibilities on this Board is to make sure that there is
integrity of the system. I respect Mr. Beyeler’s concern in terms of cost, but I think we
have higher responsibilities to make sure there is an integrity of the system in place. I
think we can more closely monitor the integrity in-house. I would only be willing to
consider bringing it in-house if we were able to increase the frequency in which we would
do the assessment every two years. My reason for that is because to do an assessment
every four years, especially, in the real estate climate that we have right now ebbs and
waves are too great. I think there is a census among many counties and cities
throughout the Commonwealth that doing it every four years produces a very big wave.
Doing it more often actually increases the integrity of the taxes and that people are
paying their fair share. I have a concern about going every six years. Whereas, if you
have somebody who comes in and build the house half-way through, they pay three
years at an old rate before the market adjustment is done again through the new
assessment. That isn’t fair. I think if we were to go six years, it would even be worse.
34
January 25, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.
REASSESSMENT OVERVIEW (cont’d)
Mr. Pattie made the following comment:
First, I would like to point out that we’ve only spent eight hours together. We should do
this more often. Let’s fix the problem. I thought the problem was they took a smooth
average. They assigned pretty much every lot to be the same regardless of where you
were. If you were on a cliff, if you’re in pastures, if you’re in a busy street, it was the
same lot price. Let’s deal with the problem. I think the problem was that people didn’t
think it was accurate. On average, it is 96% accurate. That’s good. In North River
District, if you think of Springhill Village, and you think of that road Springhill to Shutterlee
Mill and you think of where I live, that’s all within a mile or so. Those are three
completely different areas. Regardless of the path we go, we need to find a way to
represent the great variability in this huge county. I think it was 75% of lots were
$50,000? There is something fundamentally wrong about that. We need a normal
distribution there. Maybe, we should task that with finding the problems of the last
assessment and recommending a way to deal with that regardless of what path we go
down.
Mr. Beyeler added:
The majority of lots were one price. The highest one was $110,000. They weren’t all the
same.
Mr. Pattie added:
If you look at the distribution, you have this one line.
Mr. Moore added:
One of the things I heard was that the last reassessment it was considered acreage.
With this new reassessment, it became a building lot. There were no improvements
made to it. There was no water, no sewer. Now, if water and sewer, or water or septic,
or well and septic, were put on the property, then, yes, those are improvements and it
does become a building lot. Without those things happening, I’m not sure how something
that is acreage becomes a building lot when you don’t have any well or septic tank. That
is an example and I’ve heard that from several people. That’s what I’m talking about a
better product. We don’t know that if the people who are doing the work are just flatly
assigning.
Mr. Karaffa added:
I think you are going to find that the cost of our assessment goes up dramatically if you
got that kind of detail.
Mr. Shull asked if it were possible to get an estimate from an agency for a comparison
with in-house service. Ms. Whetzel said she would be happy to do that. She said that
she had called a couple of places that had recently had reassessments. Those prices
were in the ballpark of what the County had paid. It was not a significant difference.
Mr. Beyeler said that every time the County had gone out to bid, Blue Ridge was always
able to give a better price because of the data they had already accumulated.
Chairman Pyles made the following comment:
I did meet with the City of Staunton’s office and spent a couple of hours with them. First
of all, I don’t mean to doubt you, Ms. Whetzel, but $550,000 is a questionable number for
the work that is being done. Nine people key-punching . . . they’re not going to be doing
it all the time. The big thing of the in-house work is that you have a file that is
continuously updated. After you have done your work once, there is a lot less to do. You
keep up with the Building Department. You know if somebody added onto their house.
You’re getting the information from the Clerk of Court. You’re getting MLS listing. You’re
doing a lot of things to keep up with it. The product becomes much better because if you
are in Churchville, you go to Westridge, you find houses there on five acres and worth a
ton of money. When you just go down the hill a little bit, you’re at Crawford Manor—
35
January 25, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
REASSESSMENT OVERVIEW (cont’d)
totally different thing. We had lots out there that were saying that weren’t that much
difference. As a department has it, and keeps up with it, and people become very
attuned to it, they know that this will sell better. This one won’t sell. This is that. You will
get a better price. We did say that it is important that if you want to have your better
product, you need to do it more often. The two-year timeframe will allow you to keep
current with the things that are going on. What they have there, it is not going to be
$550,000. And the other thing is, it is not all new money. There are positions within the
Commissioner of Revenue’s office that will become part of this department. They have a
lot of real estate assessors and people doing that work that we may be able to man three
positions that comes from there. I think it is short-sighted to stop an idea that may be
good because we did some very rough tuned looks at things from a variety of people.
We have a couple of things to decide. One is whether or not to do it in-house or out;
whether we want to try to get it done by January of next year, or not, because it does
have impact on our Composite Index. When you have your sales ratio, your third year
going to 96%, that is the opposite of what is normally expected is that they start at 96%
and as houses go up, the value comes down. By the fact that they start out lower than
that, 92% and moving up to 96%, means that houses are going down. We would like to
lock in at lower prices before they go up. I think we need some hard numbers to go by. I
don’t know whether we would like to go on two different tracks and put out a bid to do
contracting and find out if people can do it by January 1 and put out an employee request
for someone to set up the department and see what they can do. From that, be able to
make a decision of which way to go and when to get it done. It may be that we come up
with something where we put forward a contract, get it done this year and get that taken
care of, but hire somebody to start getting involved so we can follow it up in the future
and do that. That’s all out there. The simplest thing to do is to go out and do another
contract, but I don’t think that that is going to provide us with the best long-term answer. I
don’t think that it is necessarily going to be more expensive to do it in-house. Augusta
County never has the same number of employees for a job as other people. I’m sure that
we would do it for less than that. That is my thinking.
Mr. Beyeler questioned the timeframe. “January 1, 2014, not 2013. There is no way
you can do it.”
Chairman Pyles stated:
Right now, we’re in January. The last reassessment, we got a three-month extension.
That is pretty routine. The thing in getting our facts done is being able to put out our tax
bills. Normally, you have to do all the rest. I think we have right now over a year to get it
done. Probably, something like 14 months; the question is to go to the people and say
can you do it? You know when you talk about the qualified assessors, those folks that
Blue Ridge hired, they were just folks that they brought in off the street. They are not
assessors, they are information gatherers. They are taking pictures. They are recording
dimensions on places. The bring that back, then, and somebody is looking at in
relationship to sales in that area. Some of that is more of a function in how many people
you put in a field at a given time rather than the time you have to do it. If you have ten
people, you take x time. If you get twenty people, you have half as long.
Mr. Beyeler stated:
I’m not trying to argue with you. What I’m saying is, if we did it now . . . We’re not into the
fifth year. It would take the fifth year before we could get it.
Chairman Pyles stated:
It didn’t finish last time on December 31st.
Ms. Whetzel clarified that the land book was effective January 1. “Even though there
was an extension, that three months played into making the decision of what the
January 1 value would be. We still had enough of time to set the rate for the budget.
36
January 25, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.
REASSESSMENT OVERVIEW (cont’d)
Chairman Pyles stated:
They showed that but they weren’t done then. The only time they show being used is
when we send out our tax bill. We didn’t finish our work until after January 1. We had a
three month extension.
Mr. Wills stated that was after a two-year work period. Chairman Pyles said that was
after eighteen months.
Mr. Beyeler asked the County Attorney if the Board could be appointed before July 1st.
Mr. Coffield responded no, but said the Board of Assessors was optional.
Mr. Wills asked about sending out an RFP and ask for a price for both a short period of
time or the normal two-year time frame. He expressed concern of getting a product too
quick and “not being reviewed properly”. “We have the problem of the quality of the
product.”
Chairman Pyles stated that a lot of that work did not happen until the very end. “It’s the
work of the people doing it. Much of the work is computerized. It’s not the numbers
coming out. It’s the evaluation.”
Mr. Beyeler recalled that an extension was requested because of the fluctuation of the
economy. An adjustment was made after the extension.
Chairman Pyles stated that the minutes reflect that the delay was requested because of
the election coming up.
Mr. Moore asked Ms. Whetzel if there were any locality near Augusta County that is
doing assessments in-house who could come and speak about their process. Ms.
Whetzel said that Rockingham and Albemarle are doing it in-house. He asked if
someone could be invited to a meeting and give the Board a better perspective on
whether or not it is feasible.
Mr. Karaffa moved, seconded by Mr. Pattie, that the Board direct Ms. Whetzel to submit
an RFQ for alternate (short and long-term) timeframes and to invite a representative
from the State Department of Taxation to the next Staff Briefing on February 21st to
educate the Board to allow for a better understanding of the assessment process.
It was the consensus of the Board to have the Reassessment Committee, consisting of
Larry Wills and David Karaffa, to meet with Rockingham County to discuss their inhouse
operation. Mr. Wills asked if the RFQ was needed to be brought before the
Board to be approved before sending out or authorize the Chairman to send it out.
Patrick J. Morgan, County Attorney, said that the motion authorizes for it to be sent out.
Mr. Wills understood that, as part of this motion, the Board is going to begin the
reassessment process now in some manner whether it is a one-year or two-year
process.
Mr. Pattie liked the idea of updating the database. He asked if staff can be directed to
begin that process. “Regardless of whether we do it, or hand it off to someone else,
there is a more accurate database that we are thinking about.”
Mr. Wills felt that the State needed to explain the basis on how values are determined.
Ms. Whetzel asked for clarification: 1) Draft RFP need to go through the
Reassessment Committee before going out? Yes 2) State come to February Staff
Briefing (February 21st)? Yes 3) Field trip to Rockingham or for them to come here?
Reassessment Committee to go to Rockingham County.
37
January 25, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
REASSESSMENT OVERVIEW (cont’d)
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler
and Pyles
Nays: None
Motion carried.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE BOARD
The Board discussed the following issues:
Mr. Pattie:
1. Clean Water – investigating in the near future.
2. Campaign – Have become friends with Mr. Roller. “In an environment where
people were not getting along, I’m happy to say my opponent and I are getting
along just fine.”
Mr. Karaffa:
Attended the following events:
1. Verona Fire Department Banquet
2. SARS Banquet
3. Company 10 Banquet
“Nice to go to these functions and meet these people and get a real clear understanding
of the time and effort a lot of folks are putting in.”
Mr. Wills:
1. Attended Company 10 Banquet. “Congratulations on their 70 years!”
2. AIB – All 7 magisterial districts represented. Encouraged AIB to meet with their
counter-parts. Charged AIB that Board of Supervisors is looking to them for
ideas in terms of agriculture and the Chesapeake Bay Act and what is needed to
meet the guidelines.
Chairman Pyles:
1. Attended CAP-SAW meeting – asked that when the Board attends a committee
meeting to keep the Board informed of what is happening (as Mr. Wills did
tonight).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY STAFF
Staff discussed the following issues:
1. General Assembly update - John C. McGehee, Assistant County Administrator,
distributed House/Senate bills.
a. Mandates
b. Aid to localities
c. VACo website provides updates
2. Courthouse tour –It was suggested that the new Board visit the courthouse to better
understand what improvements are being discussed. Staff to work with Architect to
develop scope of work.
3. Mills Creek letter distributed to Board – Federal Government: 65%; State: 25%;
Locality: 10% - Will be discussed February 8th .
4. ECC application for a regional VDEM grant – $72,000 - requires 20% of $12,000
soft match.
5. TMDLs – distributed letter from United States Environmental Protection Agency to
the Board - Timmy Fitzgerald shared with the Board:
a. Question and Answer
38
January 25, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY STAFF (cont’d)
b. Letter received November 14th from DCR asking Community Development 1)
to look at the BMP current inventory; 2) do land use verifications; 3) look at
future BMP scenarios; 4) look at implementation strategies and any resource
needs they may have. The date for this information is February 1st.
Mr. Fitzgerald has learned that through-out the region, most counties are keeping
this at a high level and are not doing extra work for strategies. They are basically
responding to the letter stating what is available, answering questions, but not
implementing any Board policy or stating what the Board will do. He said it is
difficult to provide the information. An inventory of all the County’s BMPs on the
urban side will be available by February 1; they do not have information for
Agriculture. Mr. Fitzgerald asked for Board direction. He added that it takes a
substantial amount of time to give a good solid product.
Chairman Pyles said this was very important. “We have a business that we weren’t
able to compete for because of the pre-processing that had to go on in order to help
meet the Chesapeake Bay Act. We have the doubling of requirements that has
happened within the last six months that have to be met. And I don’t know if
sticking our head in the sand is the right answer. I know that from Mr. Fanfoni’s
experience, is that he finds working with them helps him get stuff. If our strategy is
to stick our head in the sand, I think we ought to come to that by conclusion if that is
the best way to go rather than “that’s what they’re doing’. As I said at the last
meeting, this is the kudzu of legislation. It’s going everywhere and I don’t how for us
to get our hands around, but I would like you to find out who are all the main
shareholders in that. You have Mr. Fanfoni, Agriculture, Natural Resources, etc.
Until we get together, meeting of the minds, and somehow say ‘let’s get ahead of
this, what do we need to do?’ One of the things that is costing us is the computer
modeling that they do. It may be to our advantage to start having information
gathered ourselves and running the numbers. There are a lot of different
approaches that we might take to get out under such a mandate if we can. If we
can reduce what they expect of us, that’s going to help us a lot. Start doing your
groundwork of who we should get together.” Mr. Fitzgerald said they have had
several meetings with the Service Authority, Community Development, Planning
District Commission and Extension. Chairman Pyles stated that he would like some
feedback as to what is expected – if it is to be a regional thing with the Planning
District Commission and if funding will be required.
Mr. Wills suggested that the Board “allow staff to handle this and kind of stay as
much out of it as a Board right now as we can from the standpoint of not making
‘what they see as commitments’. What we commit to do to the State, we have to be
very limited on it.”
Mr. Pattie stated that we need to take a pro-active stance and challenge some of
the assumptions made.
It was the consensus of the Board to discuss at the February 8th meeting.
6. NACo Prescription Discount Card letter suggesting “to keep the present program in
its current form or may choose to receive $1 per prescription filled when the NACo
Prescription Discount Card gives the best price vs. the pharmacy’s price.” Staff is
not recommending this.
7. George Washington National Forest Stakeholders Group Meeting – Thursday,
February 2nd, 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m., Lexington. Information distributed to Board.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
39
January 25, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
On motion of Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Beyeler, the Board went into closed session
pursuant to:
(1) the personnel exemption under Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(1)
[discussion, consideration or interviews of (a) prospective candidates for
employment, or (b) assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion,
salaries, disciplining or resignation of specific employees]:
A) Boards and Commissions
2) the economic development exemption under Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(5)
[discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an
existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of
its interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the county]:
A) Pending industrial prospect(s)
On motion of Mr. Karaffa, seconded by Mr. Beyeler, the Board came out of closed Session.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler
and Pyles
Nays: None
Motion carried.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Chairman advised that each member is required to certify that to the best of their knowledge
during the closed session only the following was discussed:
1. Public business matters lawfully exempted from statutory open meeting
requirements, and
2. Only such public business matters identified in the motion to convene the
executive session.
The Chairman asked if there is any Board member who cannot so certify.
Hearing none, the Chairman called upon the County Administrator/ Clerk of the Board to call the
roll noting members of the Board who approve the certification shall answer AYE and those who
cannot shall answer NAY.
Roll Call Vote was as follows:
AYE: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles
NAY: None
The Chairman authorized the County Administrator/Clerk of the Board to record this certification in
the minutes.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
40
January 25, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business to come before the Board, Mr. Pattie moved, seconded by
Mr. Beyeler, the Board adjourned subject to call of the Chairman.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler
and Pyles
Nays: None
Motion carried.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
_______________________ ______________________________
Chairman County Administrator