HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-10-07
B OARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
OCTOB ER 7, 2009
9:00 A.M. A UDITORIUM
C OUNTY OFFICE BUILDIN G
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Recognitions:
a. Proclamation recogniz ing October 2009 as D omestic Violence Awareness Month.
b. 2009 Digital Government Award.
5. From the Board: Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
9:30 a.m. Presentations/Informational Items:
8. Draft TJPDC Legislative Program, David Blount.
9. Strategic Plan Report.
10. FY 2010 Budget Update.
11. Website Update.
11:30 a.m. Action Items:
12. Public Hearing: FY 2010 B udget Amendment.
13. Public Hearing: To consider the adoption of an ordinance to amend Section 4200, Running at Large
Prohibited, of Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article II, Dogs, of the Albemarle County Code to designate the
Montvue Subdivision as an additional area of the County where dogs are prohibited from running at large in
the rural areas district.
14. Crozet Master Plan R evision Update.
15. Closed Meeting.
16. Certify Closed Meeting.
17. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies /Appointments.
2:00 p.m. – Transportation Matters
18. a. VDOT Monthly Report.
b. D iscussion: Amendment to the FY2009/10 through 2014/15 Six Year Secondary System
Construction Program.
c . Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
19. 2:45 p.m. Quarterly U pdates:
a. Albemarle County Serv ice Authority, Gary Fern.
b. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority , Tom Frederick .
20. From the Board: Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda.
Recess and Reconvene in Room 241.
4:00 p.m. – Joint Meeting with School B oard:
21. Call to Order.
22. Discussion: Ov erview of the FY 2011 Projec ted Revenues.
23. Discussion: FY 2011 Compens ation.
24. Discussion: Review of VER IP Program.
25. Adjourn.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPR OVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes: July 2, 2008 and July 1, 2009.
7.2 FY 10/11 Operating and Capital Budget Calendar.
7.3 FY09 EndofYear Preliminary Financial Report.
7.4 Resolution of Intent Farm Stands Zoning Text Amendment.
7.5 Resolution to Amend Personnel Policy P80, Absences.
FOR IN FORMATION:
7.6 Athletic Field Allocation Policy .
7.7 Crozet Crossings Housing Trust Fund Annual Report.
7.8 Crozet Meadows Expansion Project Quarterly Update.
7.9 Copy of 2009 Statement of Ass essed Values for Local Tax Purposes for Railroads and Interstate Pipeline
Transmission Companies as prepared by the D epartment of Taxation.
7.10 Copy of 2009 C ertified Statements of Asses sed Value for the electric, gas, telecommunications, and water
c ompanies, including listing of Motor Vehicle Carrier companies subject to annual Rolling Stoc k Tax
administered by the State Corporation Commiss ion on vehicles for 2009 Tax Year for Albemarle County.
7.11 Copy of taxable values of Public Service Corporations for Tax Year 2009 as prepared by the State
C orporation C ommission.
Ret urn t o Top of Agenda
Ret urn t o Board of Superv isors Home P age
Ret urn t o Count y Home Page
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, violence against women, children, and men continues to become more prevalent as a social
problem in our society; and
WHEREAS, the problems of domestic violence are not confined to any group or groups of people but cross
all economic, racial and societal barriers, and are supported by societal indifference; and
WHEREAS, the crime of domestic violence violates an individual’s privacy, dignity, security, and humanity,
due to systematic use of physical, emotional, sexual, psychological and economic control and/or abuse, with the impact
of this crime being wide-ranging; and
WHEREAS, in our quest to impose sanctions on those who break the law by perpetrating violence, we must
also meet the needs of victims of domestic violence who often suffer grave physical, psychological and financial losses;
and
WHEREAS, it is victims of domestic violence themselves who have been in the forefront of efforts to bring
peace and equality to the home; and
WHEREAS, no one person, organization, agency or community can eliminate domestic violence on their own
—we must work together to educate our entire population about what can be done to prevent such violence, support
victims/survivors and their families, and increase support for agencies providing services to those community
members; and
WHEREAS, the Shelter for Help in Emergency has led the way in the County of Albemarle in addressing
domestic violence by providing 24-hour hotline services to victims/survivors and their families, offering support and
information, and empowering survivors to chart their own course for healing; and
WHEREAS, the Shelter for Help in Emergency commemorates its 30th year of providing unparalleled
services to women, children and men who have been victimized by domestic violence;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in recognition of the important work being done by the Shelter
for Help in Emergency, that I, David Slutzky, Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby
proclaim the month of October 2009 as DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH, and urge all citizens
to actively participate in the scheduled activities and programs sponsored by the Shelter for Help in Emergency, and to
work toward the elimination of personal and institutional violence against women, children and men.
Signed and sealed this 7th day of October, 2009.
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 10/11 Operating and Capital Budget Calendar
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Set dates related to the development of the FY 10/11
budget
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Davis , Foley, and W iggans, and Ms .
Vinzant
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 7, 2009
ACTION: IN FORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
ACTION : X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The process of developing the C ounty ’s Operating Budget for FY 10/11 and the Capital Improvements Program
(CIP) for FY1115 is underway. The proposed calendar is provided to the Board to establish firm dates for Board
meetings and public hearings on the budget and CIP, and to provide the public with as much notice as possible for
planned community meetings, public hearings, and work sessions related to the budget and CIP.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Objective 5.1: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County ’s grow ing needs .
DISCU SSION :
There are several dates in the budget pres entation and approval process that are driven by state code requirements
and are reflected in the attached calendars. The first is the requirement that the tax rate be adopted by April 15th for
localities with a firsthalf tax year collec tion in June. In addition, the Virginia Code requires that there be seven days
between the public advertisement of the budget public hearings and the actual hearing dates, and s even days
between the public hearing and the adoption of the budget. During the 2007 session of the General Ass embly,
legislation was enacted that requires loc alities to provide 30 days minimum notice of the tax rate public hearing if the
reasses sment would result in an increase of one perc ent or more in the total real property tax levied compared to the
prior year’s tax levies. In addition to these state requirements, the School Board has requested that the second
public hearing be scheduled so that it does not coincide with Spring Break.
Attachment A provides a preliminary budget calendar for the FY 10/11 budget proces s that conforms to the Virginia
Code requirements and meets the School Board’s request. This calendar can be used if real estate tax levies
caused by the reasses sment are less than 101% of the prior year’s tax levies, as c urrent projections indicate. If real
estate tax levies caused by the reass ess ment exceed 101% of the prior year’s tax levies, we will hav e to make
adjustments to the calendar.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Because it is unlikely that the 2010 reas sessment w ill require the 30 day notice for the tax rate public hearing, staff
recommends that the Board adopt the preliminary budget calendar s et forth in Attachment A.
ATTAC HMENTS
FY11 Budget Calendar
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
FY 10/11 BUDGET CALENDAR
August 2009
7 CIP project requests due to OMB
28 Community agency applications distributed
September 2009
9 Operating budget manual and instructions available for departments
October 2009
7 Joint Compensation meeting w ith BOS and School Board
16 Complete budget request pac ket due to OMB
16 Board Retreat
November 2009
3 CIP project information to Oversight Committee
4 BOS Work Session – Fiv eYear Financial Plan
9 CIP Oversight C ommittee meeting #1
11 BOS Work Session – Fiv eYear Financial Plan
13 Community agency applications due to OMB
16 CIP Oversight C ommittee meeting #2
23 CIP Oversight C ommittee meeting #3 (if needed)
December 2009
2 Final BOS Work Session – Adoption of FiveYear Financial Plan
2 Joint CIP meeting with BOS and School Board
January 2010
26 General fund and special revenue funds balanced
February 2010
26 Budget document published
March 2010
3 Public Hearing on County Ex ecutive’s Rec ommended Budget
8 BOS W ork Session
10 BOS W ork Session – Sc hool Division
15 BOS W ork Session – CIP
17 BOS W ork Session (if needed)
31 Public Hearing on Board’s Proposed Budget
31 Public Hearing on the 2010 calendar year tax rate
April 2010
7 BOS sets the 2010 calendar y ear tax rate
7 BOS adopts FY 10/11 budget
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY09 EndofYear Preliminary Financial R eport
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Presentation of the Preliminary Financ ial R eport
for the Fis cal Year Ended June 30, 2009
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Wiggans,
Walters, and Ms. Vinzant
LEGAL R EVIEW:
A GENDA DATE:
October 07, 2009
A CTION: INFOR MA TION:
C ONSENT AGENDA:
AC TION : X INFORMATION:
A TTACHMENTS: Yes
R EVIEWED B Y:
BACK GROUND :
The attac hed Preliminary Financial R eport provides information on the County’s General Fund operations and Fund
Balanc e as of June 30, 2009. The financ ial report inc ludes a bar chart that compares current fiscal year revenue and
expenditure data with data from the previous fiscal y ear.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Fund the County’s future needs.
DISCU SSION :
($ in Millions)
A. Attachment A: General Fund Financial R eport:
a. Revenues:
R evenues, ex cluding Transfers and Fund Balanc e Appropriations, are estimated to total $214.475 million;
$8.196 million (3.7%) less than revised appropriations (hereinafter “Budget”). C ombined with the use of
$1.366 million in transfers from other funds and $1.816 million in fund balance, R evenues, Transfers, and
U se of Fund Balance total $217.658 million; $8.309 million (3.7%) less than Budget.
Most national indicators suggest the recession is nearing an end, with some analysts suggesting the
economy may have already hit bottom. However, once the rec ession ends, the recovery is expected to be
v ery slow by historical standards , particularly in the labor mark et. N ationally, the August unemployment
rate rose to 9.7% from 9.4%. In Virginia, the unemployment rate fell from 6.9% to 6.5%. In Albemarle, the
unemployment rate fell from 5.4% to 4.9%, whic h is considered full employment. Leading indicators,
c onsumer confidence, and manufacturing benc hmarks demonstrate improvement. Inflation and the federal
funds target rate remain very low .
Following is a brief revenue analy sis for the FY09 fiscal year:
Real Es tate Tax revenues total $113.265 million; $0.851 million (0.8%) more than Budget. The increase
is primarily due to the 3.2 c ent effective residential equalization increase in the 2009 real estate tax rate
w hich offs et the negative 2009 reassess ment rate.
Personal Property Tax revenues total $20.946 million; $2.054 million (8.9%) less than Budget.
Assessments have significantly dropped due to market c onditions; partic ularly for large vehicles.
Additionally, businesses reduced their capital expenditures in the last half of 2007 and 2008, resulting in
decreased business property assessments.
Delinquent Property Taxes total $1.293 million; $0.437 million (51.1%) more than Budget. D elinquent
fees implemented in FY08 and FY09 improved delinquent tax collections.
Sales Tax revenues total $11.974 million; $2.066 million (14.7%) les s than Budget. This is an actual
decrease of $1.170 million (8.9%) from FY08. Taxpayers continue to minimize discretionary spending
due to ec onomic uncertainty .
Busines s License (BPOL) revenues total $9.608 million; $0.988 million (9.3%) less than Budget. BPOL
revenues are dependent upon economic activity.
Utility Tax revenues total $8.939 million; $0.646 million (6.7%) less than Budget. The decrease is
primarily due to decreased industrial and commercial activity combined w ith moderate w eather and
environmental fluctuations .
Food and Beverage Tax revenues total $5.447 million; $0.353 million (6.1%) less than Budget. People
appear to be eating more at home and frequenting restaurants less as they minimize flexible spending.
Other Local Tax revenues total $10.885 million; $1.366 million (11.1%) less than Budget. Increased
delinquent tax collection fees were offset by decreased public service tax, vehicle license fees, and
recordation fees due to current economic conditions.
Other Local Revenues total $4.392 million; $1.918 million (30.4%) less than Budget. The decreas e is
primarily due to reduced interest earnings, development fees, agency leas es, and other Clerk fees.
Use of Other Funds total $1.366 million; $0.113 million (7.6%) less than Budget. The decrease is
primarily due to reduced Section 8 Administration and C IP transfers.
Categories w ith variances of less than $0.100 million have not been analyzed for this report.
b. Expenditures:
Total expenditures, including transfers, total $215.546 million; a $10.421 million (4.6%) savings from
Budget. Reappropriation reques ts for FY09 outstanding purchase orders of $0.266 million and uncompleted
projects of $0.702 million are in process, which will reduce departmental sav ings listed below:
i. Departmental expenditures total $79.403 million; a 4.9% sav ings of $4.089 million from Budget:
Administration expenditures total $10.957 million; a 3.3% savings of $0.379 million.
Judicial expenditures total $3.630 million; a 6.5% savings of $0.254 million.
Public Safety expenditures total $28.254 million; a 4.1% savings of $1.204 million.
Public W orks expenditures total $4.926 million, a 6.8% savings of $0.360 million.
Human Services ex penditures total $17.952 million; a 4.8% savings of $0.909 million.
Parks, Rec., and Culture expenditures total $6.196 million; a 3.0% savings of $0.191 million.
Community Development expenditures total $7.488 million; a 9.6% savings of $0.792 million.
ii. N onDepartment expenditures consisting of the revenue sharing payment, reserves, and refunds total
$13.850 million; a 14.1% savings of $2.282 million from Budget. The lock box release to fund local
government operations generated $1.614 million.
iii. Transfers total $122.293 million; a 3.2% savings of $4.050 million from Budget:
Transfers to the Sc hool Division total $97.546 million, a 3.6% s avings of $3.679 million.
Transfers to the C apital and Debt funds total $24.747 million; a 1.5% savings of $0.371 million.
c. Revenues les s Ex penditures:
This report indic ates that FY 2009 will end w ith $2.112 million of revenues in ex cess of expenditures:
Revenues and transfers are projected to experience an $8.309 million shortfall whic h s hould be offset
by $10.421 million in expenditure savings.
B. Attachment B: General Fund Budget C omparison Report:
The chart report tracks changes in rev enues and expenditures over time.
Revenues:
Real Estate Tax and Pers onal Property Tax show positive growth over FY08.
Sales Tax , Business Licens es, Utility Taxes, Food and Beverage Tax, Other Local Tax es, Other Local
R evenue, State R evenues, Federal Revenues , Transfers, and Use of Fund Balance show dec reases from
FY08.
Ex penditures:
Administration, Public Works , H uman Services, Parks & Culture, NonD epartmental, and Education show
increases over FY08.
Judicial, Public Safety, C ommunity Development, and N onSchool Trans fers show decreases from FY08.
C. Attachment C: Fund B alance Report:
The report indicates that the County :
Had an Audited FY08 Fund Balance of $20.426 million as of June 30, 2008,
Appropriated $1.817 million for FY09 projects ,
Appropriated $0.146 million for Budgeted FY10 Initiatives,
Resulting in a remaining J une 30, 2008 Fund Balance of $18.463 million,
Estimates Preliminary Revenues in excess of Expenditures of $2.112 million,
Resulting in a Preliminary J une 30, 2009 Fund Balance of $20.575 million,
Has Proposed Reappropriations of $0.968 million, and
Has Projec ted Unobligated Funds of $19.607 million as of October 7, 2009.
D. Budget Impact:
This Financial Report is based on audited FY08 financial data and twelve months of unaudited financial data for
FY09. The Board w ill be presented with the audited figures for FY 09 in February, 2010.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends approv al of the Preliminary June 30, 2009 EndofYear Financial Report.
ATTAC HMENTS;
A – General Fund Quarterly Financial Report
B – General Fund Budget Comparison Report
C – General Fund Balanc e R eport
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment AFY 07/08Full YearActual (1)07/01/08Adopted (2)06/30/09AppropriationsPreliminary06/30/09YTD Actual (3)YTD Actualas % ofAppropriations$VariancesAct-AppropVariancesas % ofAppropriationsRevenues:Real Estate Taxes, Current$108.364$112.414$112.414$113.265100.8%$0.8510.8%Personal Property Taxes, Current19.97323.00023.00020.94691.1%-2.054-8.9%Delinquent Property Taxes0.7250.8560.8561.293151.1%0.43751.1%Sales Taxes13.14414.04014.04011.97485.3%-2.066-14.7%Business Licenses10.19610.59710.5979.60890.7%-0.988-9.3%Utility Taxes9.3899.5859.5858.93993.3%-0.646-6.7%Food and Beverage Taxes6.0595.8005.8005.44793.9%-0.353-6.1%Other Local Taxes10.86712.25112.25110.88588.9%-1.366-11.1%Other Local Revenue5.3856.1786.3104.39269.6%-1.918-30.4%State Revenue23.70923.53123.53123.48299.8%-0.048-0.2%Federal Revenue4.3004.2544.2884.24499.0%-0.044-1.0%Total Revenues212.111222.506222.671214.47596.3%-8.196-3.7%Use of Other Funds1.7691.4741.4791.36692.4%-0.113-7.6%Use of Fund Balance2.8030.4121.8161.816100.0%0.0000.0%Total$216.683$224.391$225.967$217.65896.3%($8.309)-3.7%FY 07/08Full YearActual (1)07/01/08Adopted (2)06/30/09AppropriationsPreliminary06/30/09YTD Actual (3)YTD Actualas % ofAppropriations$VariancesAct-AppropVariancesas % ofAppropriationsExpenditures:Administration$10.455$11.044$11.336$10.95796.7%($0.379)-3.3%Judicial3.6743.8613.8843.63093.5%(0.254)-6.5%Public Safety28.37629.37129.45928.25495.9%(1.204)-4.1%Public Works4.4964.6735.2854.92693.2%(0.360)-6.8%Human Services17.28318.85818.86117.95295.2%(0.909)-4.8%Parks, Rec. & Culture6.0276.3236.3876.19697.0%(0.191)-3.0%Community Development7.7507.8358.2807.48890.4%(0.792)-9.6% Subtotal Operations78.06081.96683.49279.40395.1%(4.089)-4.9%Non-Dept (revenue share; reserves; refunds)13.34316.12916.13213.85085.9%(2.282)-14.1%Transfers:Transfer to School Division96.372101.225101.22597.54696.4%(3.679)-3.6%Transfers to Capital, Debt, and Other Funds25.66025.07225.11824.74798.5%(0.371)-1.5% Subtotal transfers122.032126.297126.343122.29396.8%(4.050)-3.2%Total$213.435$224.391$225.967$215.54695.4%($10.421)-4.6%7/1/08 > 06/30/09 = 100% of yearPreliminary FY09 Revenues in Excess of Expenditures$2.112(1) Full Year FY08/09 Transactions(2) July 01, 2008 Adopted General Fund FY08/09 BudgetPreliminary June 30, 2009 Fund Balance$18.463(3) Preliminary as of Sepember 22, 2009Preliminary June 30, 2009 Projected Unobligated Funds Available$20.575Current FY 08/09Current FY 08/09County of AlbemarleGeneral Fund Financial ReportPRELIMINARY for the Twelve Months Ended June 30, 2009($ in millions)Revenues with black variances are positive, red variances in ( ) are shortfalls.Expenditures with red variances in ( ) are positive, black variances are overexpenditures
Attachment BCounty of AlbemarleGeneral Fund Budget Comparison ReportYear-to-Date for the Twelve Months Ended June 30, 2009($ in millions)Expenditures10.53.728.44.517.36.07.813.325.711.03.929.44.718.96.37.816.125.111.33.929.55.318.96.48.316.125.1 11.0 3.6 28.3 4.9 18.0 6.2 7.5 13.9 24.7 -5.010.015.020.025.030.035.0AdministrationJudicialPublic SafetyPublic WorksHuman ServicesParks, Rec &CultureCommunityDevelopmentNon-departmentalNon-SchoolTransfers$ in millions07/08 ActualJuly 1 Adopted08/09 Appropriations08/09 PreliminaryRevenues108.420.013.110.29.46.110.95.423.74.31.82.8112.423.014.010.69.65.812.36.223.54.31.50.4112.423.014.010.69.65.812.36.323.54.31.51.8 113.3 20.9 12.0 9.6 8.9 5.4 10.9 4.4 23.5 4.2 1.4 1.8 -20.040.060.080.0100.0120.0Real Estate TaxPersonalProperty TaxSales TaxBusinessLicensesUtility TaxMeals TaxOther LocalTaxesOther LocalRevenueState RevenueFederalRevenueTransfers OtherFundsFund Balance$ in millions07/08 ActualJuly 1 Adopted08/09 Appropriations08/09 Preliminary96.4101.2101.297.593.094.095.096.097.098.099.0100.0101.0102.01Transfer to School Division
Attachm ent C
June 30, 2008 Audited Fund Balance $20.426
Less FY09 Appropriations Approv ed to Date:
Budgeted FY09 Local Gov ernm ent Initiativ es (approv ed in budget process)0.412
Reappropriation of FY08 outstanding purchase orders 0.218
Reappropriation of FY08 uncom pleted projects 1.169
New projects FY08 sav ings 0.019
Less FY10 Appropriations Approv ed to Date:
Budgeted FY10 Local Gov ernm ent Initiativ es (approv ed in budget process)0.146
Total Appropriations Approved to Date 1.963
June 30, 2008 Fund Balance Available 18.463
Preliminary FY09 Revenues in Excess of Expenditures 2.112
Preliminary June 30, 2009 Fund Balance 20.575
Less Proposed FY10 Com m itm ents:
Reappropriation of FY09 outstanding purchase orders 0.266
Reappropriation of FY09 uncom pleted projects 0.702
Total Proposed Commitments 0.968
Preliminary June 30, 2009 Unobligated Funds Available October 7, 2009 $19.607
General Fund Balance Report
Year-to-Date for the T welve Months Ended June 30, 2009
County of Albemarle
($ in m illions)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Farm Stands Zoning Text Amendment
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution of Intent to amend the regulations
pertaining to the sale of farm products in the R ural
Areas
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, McC ulley,
and Cilimberg
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 7, 2009
ACTION:
INFORMATION :
CON SENT A GEND A:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION :
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The County’s zoning regulations pertaining to the sale of farm products in the Rural Areas was brought to the
Board’s attention as a result of a recent zoning complaint regarding the offsite sale of farm products at the
intersec tion of Garth R oad and Free Union R oad.
For the most part, the current regulations pertaining to the sale of farm products in the Rural Areas predate the
adoption of the R ural Areas Plan in 2005. Two of the guiding elements of the County ’s vision for rural Albemarle
County, as expressed in the Rural Areas Plan, are: “A s trong agricultural and forestal economy, with large
unfragmented parcels of land on which to produce their goods, opportunities to gain value from processing their own
produce, and access to local markets ” and “Plans, policies and decision making that c onsider and protect rural
economies and ecological processes.” One of the guiding principles of the Rural Areas Plan is to “Provide support
to local and agricultural and forestal ec onomies and connect local producers and cons umers of local rural products.”
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal Tw o: Protect the County’s Natural, Scenic and His toric Resources
DISCU SSION :
Staff recommends that the Zoning Ordinance’s regulations pertaining to the sale of farm products in the Rural Areas
be studied and amended as necessary to fulfill the vis ion and principles of the Rural Areas Plan. Current regulations
pertaining to w ayside stands (Zoning Ordinance §§ 5.1.19 and 10.2.1(5)) and farm sales (Zoning Ordinance §§ 5.1.35
and 10.2.2(45) require that the sales take place on the farm. Thus, one key goal of the proposed regulations would
be to expand the locations at which farm products may be sold in the Rural Areas. Though allowed by right in the
Rural Areas district, way side stands are allowed only with approval of a preliminary s ite plan. Farm s ales are
allowed only by special us e permit. Accordingly, another key goal of the proposed regulations will be to implement
reasonable processes that assure that public health and safety cons iderations are addressed but w hich are
economical and expeditious given the proposed use. As part of this proc ess, Staff w ould hold a community
roundtable with interested parties to receive input about the proposed regulations.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff is not aw are of any budget impacts that would be caused by the adoption of this proposed ordinance.
Approval of a particular farm stand, as w ith other zoning applications, will involve a rev iew fee to c over staff
costs.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Adopt the R esolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance attached as Attachment A.
ATTAC HMENTS
A: Resolution of Intent
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
R ESOLU TION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, tw o of the guiding ele me nts of the County’s vision for rural Albe ma rle County, a s
expresse d in the Compre hensive Pla n’s Rura l Are a s Plan, a re : “A strong a gricultura l a nd fore sta l e conomy, w ith
la rge unfra gmented pa rc els of la nd on whic h to produce the ir goods, opportunities to gain va lue from proc essing
the ir ow n produc e , and a c ce ss to loca l marke ts” a nd “Pla ns, polic ie s and de cision making tha t conside r and
prote c t rural ec onomies a nd ec ologic al proc e sses”; a nd
WHEREAS, one of the guiding princ iple s of the Comprehe nsive Pla n’s Rural A re a s Pla n is to “Provide
support to loc al and a gric ultura l a nd foresta l e conomie s a nd c onne c t loc a l produce rs a nd consume rs of loc al rural
produc ts”; and
WHEREAS, it is de sired to a me nd the A lbe ma rle County Zoning Ordinanc e to e xpa nd the opportunities
for the sa le of loca l fa rm produc ts.
NOW, THEREFOR E, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purpose s of public ne c essity, c onve nie nc e ,
ge nera l welfa re and good z oning prac tic e s, the Board of Supe rvisors hereby a dopts a resolution of inte nt to ame nd
Zoning Ordina nc e §§ 4, 5 a nd 10 a nd a ny othe r sec tions of the Zoning Ordinanc e de termine d to be a ppropriate to
ac hie ve the purpose s de scribe d here in; and
BE IT FU RTHER R ESOLV ED THA T the Planning Commission sha ll hold a public he aring on the
zoning text a me ndme nt propose d by this resolution of inte nt, a nd ma ke its re comme nda tion to the Boa rd of
Supe rvisors, at the e arlie st possible da te .
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution to amend Pers onnel Policy P80, Absences
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Amendment of Personnel Policy P80, Absences
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, and Davis; and Ms. Suyes,
and Ms . Kim
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 7, 2009
ACTION: INFOR MA TION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: x INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
As part of the preparation by the County for a pandemic flu outbreak or other emergency that would adversely affect
the County ’s ability to operate, Human Resources and the C ounty Attorney’s Office have reviewed the C ounty's
Personnel Policy Manual. C urrently, the C ounty’s pers onnel policies do not authoriz e the County Ex ecutive to issue
emergency regulations regarding work hours, absences and leave usage to address the critical needs of the County
to effectiv ely operate during an emergency.
Given the potential for a H 1N1 flu pandemic this fall, H uman Resources and the County Attorney’s Office have
revised Personnel Policy P80, Absenc es, to grant the County Executive clear authority to issue emergency
regulations regarding employee work hours, absences and leave usage. A parallel revis ion to School Board
personnel policies will be c onsidered by the School Board on October 8, 2009.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
County Mission: To enhance the w ellbeing and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest
level of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCU SSION :
Revised Personnel Policy P80, Absenc es, would authorize the County Executive to iss ue emergency regulations
regarding employee work hours, absences and leave usage. This authority could be us ed only in the event of a
declared emergency, pandemic, or other crisis affecting the C ounty’s ability to operate under normal policies and
procedures . This amendment is propos ed as part of the ongoing preparations by the County to be ready to addres s
a possible H 1N1 flu pandemic or similar emergency situation.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached R esolution to amend Personnel Policy P80 Abs ences.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Resolution to amend Personnel Polic y P80 Abs enc es
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
RESOLUTION
WHER EA S, the County of Albemarle Personnel Polic y Manual ha s be e n a dopte d by the Boa rd of
Supe rvisors; and
WHER EAS, a n a mendme nt is propose d to a uthoriz e the County Exe cutive to issue e me rgenc y
re gula tions rega rding e mployee work hours, a bsenc es a nd le a ve usa ge in the e ve nt of a de cla re d sta te of
emerge nc y, pa nde mic , or othe r crisis a ffe c ting the County’s ability to ope ra te unde r norma l polic ies a nd
proc edure s; a nd
W HEREAS, the Boa rd of Supe rvisors finds the proposed a me ndme nt to the Personnel Polic y promotes
the e ffic ie nt ope ra tion of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT R ESOLV ED THAT the Boa rd of Supe rvisors of A lbe ma rle County,
V irginia , he re by ame nds the follow ing se c tion of the County of Albemarle Pe rsonnel Polic y Manua l:
Se ction P80 ABSEN CES
The Boa rd strive s to kee p attendanc e of e mployee s a t a ma ximum and a bse nc e s a t a minimum. The Board
re cognize s, howe ver, tha t abse nc e s are unavoidable a nd a llows c e rtain absenc es a nd a bsenc e pa yments. The
Boa rd will esta blish polic ies tha t a re me a nt to mainta in the highest possible e ffic ie ncy. A llowa nc e w ill be ma de
to pe rmit bona fide a bse nce s, a nd pre vent e mployee s who ha ve be e n ill from be c oming a ha z ard to othe r
employe es by re turning to w ork too soon.
A . Proc edure for Complianc e for A bsenc es
A . It w ill re ma in the right of the department he ad/de signee and the County Exe cutive or de signee to:
1. A uthoriz e , or re fuse to authoriz e in e xce ptiona l c a ses, the advance re que st of a n e mploye e for pe rmission
to be a bsent.
2. Inve stiga te absenc es.
3. D e ny le a ve pa yment for a bsence s in viola tion of any Board polic y.
4. Impose re a sona ble disc iplinary pe na ltie s upon e mployee s who ha ve a buse d the ir lea ve privileges a nd who
viola te the provisions of the “Re sponsibilitie s of Employe es” se c tion of this policy.
B. Responsibilitie s of Employee s
Eve ry e mploye e of the County ha s the following obliga tions a nd responsibilities c onc erning abse nc e :
1. Re que st for Le ave – When the ne e d for being a bsent from w ork is known in advanc e, the e mployee must
notify his imme dia te supe rvisor a s far in adva nce a s possible on the Le a ve Form provided by the
Depa rtme nt of Huma n Re sourc es.
2. N otic e of U ne xpe c te d Abse nc e – When a n e mploye e w ho ha s not give n a dvanc e notic e finds that he
c a nnot report to work, the e mployee must notify his supe rvisor prior to sta rting time or within thirty (30)
minute s of the re gular starting time unle ss the de pa rtme nt ha s e sta blished othe r guide lines for notific a tion.
Employe e s should be awa re of the notific ation re quire me nts of their de pa rtme nts. Upon returning to work,
the e mployee must complete a Le a ve Form as a rec ord of abse nc e .
3. Failure to Give Notice – Fa ilure to give the notic e require d shall c onstitute c a use for a rea sona ble
disciplinary pe nalty inc luding c a use for denial of a bse nce pa y a llow anc e. U nle ss a n a bse nce ha s bee n
a uthorize d in a dva nc e or a n a bsenc e is una voidable , e ve ry e mploye e shall be e xpe cte d to be pre sent and
on time for his sc he dule d work.
C. Employee s Re turning to Work Afte r Illne ss
Be fore a n e mploye e returns to work afte r a n a bse nc e due to illne ss, the employe e may be re que sted to submit
a me dic al re le a se c e rtifying the illne ss and tha t he is w e ll e nough to re turn to w ork. This medica l re le ase
sha ll be from the e mployee ’s physic ia n or, if re quire d by the de partment he a d, a physicia n de signate d by the
H uman Re sourc e s Department. In a ll insta nce s, the e mployee will be a dvise d of the require me nt prior to the
employe e being authoriz ed to return to work.
D . Absenc es for Pe rsona l Busine ss, Be re a ve me nt, or Illne sse s
A bse nce s for urgent pe rsonal busine ss, be re ave me nt, or illness w ill be granted a t the disc re tion of the
immediate supe rvisor and in complia nc e with Board polic y. Sic k Le ave ma y be use d for berea vement lea ve
for immediate family membe rs. (Se e a lso Sick Lea ve, P85) Be re ave me nt le a ve for nonimme dia te fa mily
membe rs sha ll be c ove re d by compensa tory time, Annual Le ave or Unpa id Le ave . (Se e a lso Annua l Le ave,
P84 a nd U npa id Lea ve, P82)
E. Jury Duty
The Board re c ogniz es the duty of e very c itize n to serve on a jury whe n re que ste d a nd will allow payme nt
from the c ourt for se rving on jury duty. Employee s serving jury duty w ill re ce ive full sala ry as we ll as re ta in
compensa tion re ce ive d from the c ourt. Employe es a re e xpe cted to give notice of jury duty and to report to
w ork w hen jury is not in session. Employe es who a re subpoe na ed to appea r as witne sse s in lega l proce e dings
in their c apa city a s County employe e s will be e ntitle d to tre at time spe nt in suc h proc ee dings a s c ompe nsable
w orking time. How e ve r, employe e s who initia te or are othe rw ise involve d in private le ga l a c tions of any kind
(exc luding employe e grie va nce proc e edings), w hethe r suc h a ctions involve the County or not, will not be
pe rmitte d to tre a t time spe nt during
w orking hours in conne ction w ith suc h ac tions a s c ompensable w orking time. Suc h e mploye e s will be
required to use ac crue d compe nsa tory time , Annual Le a ve or Unpa id Lea ve for all hours spe nt in conne c tion
w ith suc h a ctions that oc c ur during working hours.
F. Military Le ave
Military lea ve of a bse nce w ill be gra nte d by the Boa rd in a cc ordanc e w ith e xisting state a nd fede ra l sta tutes.
(Se e a lso Milita ry Le ave , P83)
G . Bre a ks:
The re is no forma l bre ak time provide d by Albema rle County. H oweve r, rea sona ble time shall be provide d for
pe rsona l c a re a nd re fre shme nts during the workday.
H . Lunc h Time :
A lunc h pe riod of a t le a st thirty (30) minute s shall be provide d to e a ch fulltime e mployee and, unle ss prior
supervisory a pproval is rec e ive d, e mployee s may not fore go the lunc h period in orde r to shorte n the w orkda y.
(Se e a lso O vertime /Compensa tory Time , P61/62)
I. Ac c eptable Attenda nce :
A cc e pta ble a tte nda nc e is a minimum e xpe cta tion of a ll County e mploye es. D epa rtme nt H e ads a re re sponsible
for monitoring atte nda nce within their de pa rtme nts. Exc e pt as note d, whe n a n employe e’s abse nte eism
exce e ds four pe rc e nt (4%) of available w ork time for Sic k Le ave, Unpa id Le ave , and/or unpla nne d use of
compensa tory time or Annua l Le ave , his depa rtment he ad is responsible for investiga ting the a bse nte eism a nd
ta king a ppropriate a c tion a s nec essa ry. Lea ve take n unde r FMLA a nd/or Workers’ Compe nsa tion shall not be
considered whe n dete rmining a c ce pta ble a ttendanc e. Howe ve r, nothing sha ll prohibit the County from
de te rmining an employe e’s e ligibility to re turn to employment onc e FMLA has bee n e xha uste d.
J. Emerge ncy Re gulations
The County Exe c utive ma y issue emerge nc y re gulations re ga rding e mploye e work hours, a bse nce s, a nd lea ve
usa ge in the e vent of a de clared sta te of emerge ncy, pande mic , or othe r c risis a ffe c ting the County’s ability to
operate unde r normal polic ies a nd proc edure s.
A me nde d: A ugust 4, 1993, April 20, 2005, Se pte mbe r 3, 2008, Oc tober 7, 2009
Retu rn to ex ec su mmary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Athletic Field Allocation Policy
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Information regarding a County/City Parks and
Recreation staff project to develop a joint athletic field
allocation policy.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, and Mullaney
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 7, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Currently, there are 109 school and park athletic fields in the C ounty and C ity which are used on a regular basis by
various organized youth and adult sports groups. Of these fields, 68 are provided by the County, 31 are provided by
the City and 10 are jointly provided. The County as well as City Parks and R ecreation Departments have the
primary responsibility for s cheduling community use of the vast majority of these athletic fields and collectively meet
the field space needs of 32 different organizations serving over 10,000 participants.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Citizens
Goal 3: Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the C ounty’s Grow ing Needs .
DISCU SSION :
While there is currently no formal written field allocation policy, there is a procedure that has been follow ed by both
the City and C ounty for many years whic h has worked w ell. In mid January each y ear, all previous us ers and any
newly identified users are asked to submit requests for the spring/summer season (MarchJuly). This process is
repeated in mid July each year for the fall/w inter season (September–November). Fields have traditionally been
allocated to organizations based on historical use and demonstrated need. All remaining requests are approved if
field space is available and on an as needed basis determined by the number of participants. With the continuing
trend towards yearround seasons for s pecific sports, the emergence of new organiz ations, an increasing number of
higher level competitive travel teams, and an increased interest by “for profit” organiz ations in the us e of public field
space, the Directors of both the County and C ity Parks and Recreation Departments agree that there is a need to
develop a formal written field allocation policy. This policy will be dev eloped through a public process involving all
field user groups and, when completed, w ill establish priorities and s erv e as a guide to staff in making field allocation
decisions . The athletic field allocation policy study proc ess steps and associated timelines are outlined in the
attached memorandum from the County and City Parks and R ecreation Directors to the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors and Charlottesville City Council.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impac t.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
This is provided for the Board’s information. No action is necessary.
ATTAC HMENTS:
A – Memorandum to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and Charlottesville C ity Council
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Charlottesville City Council
FROM: Pat Mullaney, Director, Parks and Recreation, Albemarle County
Brian Daly, Acting Director, Parks and Recreation, City of Charlottesville
DATE: September 18, 2009
SUBJECT: Athletic Field Allocation Policy Study
As you may be aware, the staffs of the Parks and Recreation Departments in the County and the City
have begun work on an athletic field allocation policy study. This work is intended to provide our
community with a clear and transparent method of athletic field allocation that is equitable to all
members of our community, as well as provide the opportunity for emerging sports and sports groups to
gain access to public facilities.
Staff has begun the work of completing an inventory of athletic fields and compiling participation data
from various sports organizations. There are numerous issues that will require engagement with the local
sports community to ensure that the final policy is equitable and honors the investment in athletic field
development that the community has made over several generations.
The athletic field allocation policy study process steps and associated timelines are outlined below:
1 – Inventory of public athletic fields at parks and schools in both the City and County. (Completed by
staff August 1, 2009)
2 – Compilation of participation data from youth and adult sports leagues in the region. (Currently
underway – complete by September 30, 2009)
3 – Conduct public involvement and focus group discussions with diamond field sports groups and
rectangular field sports groups. (Begin in the fall of 2009 – complete by December 11, 2009)
Topics for discussion will include:
Honoring community investment and traditional athletic field usage
Priority of allocation – youth vs. adult; recreational league vs. travel leagues; non
profit vs. for profit; City and County schools and recreation departments, etc.
Quantification of practice and game time required by sport
Process to accommodate new and emerging sports organizations
Use of lighted athletic fields
Maintenance frequencies and community involvement in routine maintenance
User group needs for additional athletic field development or renovation
Other issues as raised by sporting organizations
4 – Compilation of results from public meetings/focus groups and development of draft policy.
(Complete by January 15, 2009). Distribute draft policy for comment
5 – Conduct public meeting on draft policy in February of 2010.
6 – Finalize policy no later than April of 2010
7 – Implement policy beginning with the fall, 2010 season.
We look forward to working with our community to create an allocation policy for our athletic fields that
meets the needs of our citizens; and welcome any comments or suggestions you may have throughout
this process.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Crozet C rossings Housing Trust Fund
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Crozet C rossings Housing Trust Fund Annual
Report
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, Herrick, and
White
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 7, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACH MEN TS: No
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The Crozet C rossings Housing Trust Fund was established in 1994 by an agreement betw een the County of
Albemarle, the Charlottesville Housing Foundation (CH F), and the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP)
to hold notes and deeds of trust on houses in Crozet C rossings and to collect and distribute funds upon the resale of
houses. The Trust Fund is responsible for using repaid funds for housing projects that benefit low and moderate
income households and meet the requirements set forth by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development under the provisions of the Community Dev elopment Bloc k Grant (CD BG) Program. The Fund is
managed by five trustees , two representing the County , and staffed by the County’s Chief of Housing. The
Trustees are to submit an annual report to the Board on the Trust Fund activities and finances.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Objective 1.2: By June 30, 2010, work ing in partnership w ith others, increase affordable housing opportunities for
those w ho work and/or live in Albemarle County.
DISCU SSION :
The Trus tees of the Crozet C rossings Housing Trust Fund met on September 10, 2009 to review the financial status
of the Fund and to approve a funding request from Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) and Jordan Development
Corporation (JDC) for the Crozet Meadows Expansion Project. The Fund is in good financial condition with cash on
hand of $440,332.84 of w hich $430,800 is committed to tw o loans not yet disbursed. The first commitment of
$134,400 w as approved for the Crozet Meadow s Expansion (JDC) in J anuary 2008. A second commitment of
$252,000 w as made to AHIP at that time for the Trees dale Park dev elopment. The Trustees approved a revision to
the commitment to AH IP in February 2009, reducing the second commitment to $246,400. These two developments
are moving forward after receiving federal lowincome housing tax credits. Land clearing and installation of
infrastructure have begun at Crozet Meadows.
The Trus tees received a request from PHA and JDC on August 31, 2009 for an additional $50,000 c ommitment to
Crozet Meadows. The Trustees approved the reques t on September 10, 2009 with the funds spec ifically earmarked
for energy efficiency improvements in the development. The funds are also matched by a $50,000 private
foundation grant for the same purpose.
In addition, the C ounty has potential receivables of $453,393, repres enting the original s ubsidy amount and the
current es timated equity share for outs tanding loans (not including one loan in bankruptcy). These loans may be
partially or totally forgiv en if the homeowner(s)/borrower(s) continue in their homes for a sufficient time without either
selling or refinancing. The actual amount of shared equity is based on the sales price or assessed value at the time
that either a sale or refinancing triggers repayment.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impac t as these funds come from a restricted account.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
This report is for the Board’s information. No action is required.
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Crozet Meadow s Expansion Project
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Crozet Meadow s Expansion Project Quarterly
Update
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, Herrick, and
White
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 7, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACH MEN TS: No
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
In July 2008, the County was awarded a $700,000 Community Development Block Grant (CD BG) for land and
infrastructure development for The Meadows in Crozet. The Meadows consists of 28 affordable rental units for
seniors situated in seven quads owned by Jordan Development Corporation (JDC). J DC and Piedmont Housing
Alliance (PH A) entered into an agreement in March 2006 to renovate the existing units and build 38 additional units
on the site. Subsequently, JDC and PHA agreed to form a new ownership entity known as Crozet Meadow s
Assoc iates, LLC . The new ow nership applied for and received federal lowincome hous ing tax credits in the
summer of 2008.
At the request of JDC and PHA, the County submitted an application for C DBG funding in the spring of 2008 and
after receiving the award began contract negotiations with the Department of Housing and Community Development
(DHCD) and the owners . In February 2009, a Projec t Management Team held its first meeting to dev elop a Project
Management Plan. The plan set forth a timeline for undertaking and c ompleting both administrative and
development activities. The County published an Invitation to Bid for the project on May 3, 2009 w ith bid
submiss ions due on May 28. Eight proposals were rec eived, with the low bid from LINCO, Inc. from W aynesboro.
LINCO’s approved contract after postbid modifications w as $720,326.00. A Notice to Proceed was is sued on
Augus t 26, 2009 and substantial completion of the project is scheduled for April 10, 2010.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Objective 1.2: By June 30, 2010, working in partnership with others, increase affordable housing opportunities for
those w ho work and/or live in Albemarle County.
DISCU SSION :
As of September 15, 2009 much of the main sewer has been installed and connected to the public s ystem. Building
pads were on grade for the first phase of unit construction and surveying has begun for the next phas e of units. The
owners are still awaiting the approval of the site plan s o that they can apply for building permits to begin laying out
foundations and pouring slabs, though these activities are not a part of the C DBGfunded land and infrastructure
activities .
Some potential conflic ts with existing pow er and phone lines have been identified and the County’s Project Manager,
Ron Lilley , is following up. If lines have to be relocated, it will be at the owner’s ex pense, but could be covered in
part by any unused CD BG funds with DH CD’s approval. According to the contractor, nothing has been identified
that cannot be handled with adjustments to phasing, and the substantial completion date can still be met.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no impact on the C ounty’s budget as all funding committed to this project is dedicated nongeneral
funds.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
This report is for the Board’s information. No action is required.
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
2010
Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Legislative
Program
Representing the Local Governments of:
Albemarle County
City of Charlottesville
Fluvanna County
Greene County
Louisa County
Nelson County
FIRST DRAFT
September 2009
Carl Schmitt, Chairman
Steve Williams, Executive Director
David Blount, Legislative Liaison
2
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities urge the governor and legislature to honor their
funding obligations to services provided in cities and counties by their local
government partners, and to resist shifting costs or expanding requirements for
these programs to localities.
Revisions to the state general fund budget for FY09/FY10 approved by the 2009
General Assembly produced a $2.8 billion reduction over the previous version of the
plan. A continuing decline in state revenue collections has driven the gap in the current
fiscal year to an estimated $1.35 billion, and it could go higher. FY10 state general fund
revenues likely will be $750 million below FY06 state general fund revenues. The
gloomy budget outlook likely will extend into 2011 and 2012 as well, as projections call
for only modest revenue growth over the period. All this spells bad news for state aid to
localities. There will be additional reductions in state aid at the same time cost pressures
continue to build. This causes great concern for local governments, especially in the areas
of public education, public safety and health/human services. We believe reduction or
elimination of state funding for state-required services/programs should be accompanied
by relaxation or suspension of the state requirement or flexibility for the locality to meet
the requirement.
Local governments, which are overly dependent on the real estate tax that
continues to produce less revenue due to the sluggish housing market, cannot continue to
pick up the slack when the state retreats from its obligations. Unfunded and underfunded
state mandates/commitments and “cost shifting” by the state reduce the ability, especially
in our rural localities, to meet local needs, and often force our citizens to bear local tax
and fee increases to pay for programs and services. Service cuts will have a direct and
harmful effect on the lives and well-being of our citizens who expect, rely and need
programs in critical areas such as education, safety and human services. In addition,
increased demand for services primarily funded at the local level present unique
challenges to rural, urban and fast-growing localities alike (all present in our region).
We believe that any changes to Virginia’s tax code should not reduce local
government revenues or restrict local taxing authority. The legislature should broaden the
revenue sources available to local governments, rather than capping, removing or
restricting them. The state should refrain from establishing local tax policy at the state
level and allow local governments to retain authority over decisions that determine the
equity of local taxation policy, if governing bodies are to provide cost-effective services.
This includes the processes for setting real estate tax rates and developing and approving
budgets, which are integrated processes that are effective in involving the public and
ensuring efficient tax administration.
ACTION ITEMS
LOCAL and STATE FUNDING OBLIGATIONS
3
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities urge the legislature to fully fund the state share of
the realistic costs of rebenchmarking the Standards of Quality (SOQ) without
making formula changes that shift the funding burden to localities.
The state spends roughly $6 billion/year on public education, about one-third of
its general fund budget. This funding was reduced by more than $600 million (from $6.3
billion to $5.7 billion) during the past legislative session, and despite increased cost
pressures, public education funding is a prime target for cutting again. Stimulus dollars
that helped offset some education reductions this past session again will be plugged into
the FY11 budget, but will not be available in FY12. Meanwhile, local governments boost
education funding by spending $3 billion more per year than required by the state.
The state should resist changes during the upcoming rebenchmarking of education
costs that would require localities to fund a greater share of those costs. The state should
not continue the cap on state funding for education support personnel that was enacted for
FY10, and should defeat proposals that would recalculate personnel salaries by
recognizing only state (and not also local) costs, that increase the federal revenue
deduction (which saves the state money increases required local costs), and that reduce
the current 55% state share of SOQ costs. State funding should be realistic and recognize
actual educational needs, practices and costs; otherwise, more of the education funding
burden will fall on local real estate taxes. We also support establishment of a mechanism
for local appeal of the calculated Local Composite Index (LCI) to the state; changes to
the LCI that negatively impact a locality also drive up local taxes.
The state budgeted teacher salary figure (on which it bases its share of teacher
costs) trails the statewide and national averages. Teacher pay comprises the majority of
K-12 expenditures, and local market conditions dictate the level of pay required to recruit
and retain quality teachers. Accordingly, localities in our region should be included in the
“Cost of Competing Adjustment” now available only to various localities primarily in
Northern Virginia. This would help our localities to reach and maintain competitive
compensation. Likewise, to help recruit, develop and retain a highly qualified and diverse
teacher workforce, the state also should not eliminate or decrease state funding for
benefits for school employees.
Regarding school capital needs, we continue to urge state financial assistance with
school construction and renovation needs, including funding for the Literary Loan and
interest rate subsidy programs. The state should resist its customary seizing of dollars
from the Literary Fund to pay state costs for teacher retirement. We also support an
increase in the maximum amount of Literary Fund loans from the current $7.5 million.
PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING
4
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities encourage the state to provide local governments
with additional tools to manage growth, without preempting or circumventing
existing authorities.
Recent years have seen an increase in both mandated and optional land use
provisions applicable to local governments to address growth issues. Still, current land
use authority often is inadequate to allow local governments to provide for balanced,
sustainable growth in a manner that protects and improves quality of life.
The Joint Subcommittee Studying Development and Land Use Tools has renewed
discussion of two issues that garnered great attention the past several years. The group is
taking another stab at crafting legislation to replace cash proffers with impact fees for
roads, schools and public safety facilities. Two years ago, amidst opposition from local
governments, the General Assembly defeated a measure to repeal local authority to
accept voluntary cash proffers from new residential projects, while revising existing
impact fee authority and capping the amount of impact fees a locality could impose. The
group also has debated revising the existing urban development area (UDA) provisions
adopted two years ago as part of the 2007 Transportation Act, proposing to establish
separate tiers, by population, of UDA requirements.
We support efforts to have impact fee and proffer systems that are workable and
meaningful for various parties, but we oppose attempts to weaken our current proffer
authority. Rather, the road impact fee authority adopted in 2007 should be revised to
include additional localities and to provide: 1) a fair allocation of the costs of new growth
on public facilities; 2) facility costs that include various transportation modes, schools,
public safety, libraries and parks; 3) effective implementation and reasonable
administrative requirements; and 4) no caps or limits on locality impact fee updates.
Further, to enhance our ability to pay for infrastructure costs and to support
services associated with new developments, we endorse the following:
• Authority for local ordinances for determining whether public facilities are
adequate (“adequate public facility,” or APF ordinances)
• Optional cluster development as a land use tool for local governments.
We support 1) dedicated funding through both the Virginia Outdoors and Virginia
Land Conservation Foundations for acquiring, preserving and maintaining open space, 2)
full authority to generate local dollars for such efforts, and 3) additional incentives for
citizens to create conservation easements. We request the state, on a local option basis,
increase from five years, the roll-back taxes assessed against property under land use
taxation that changes to a non-qualifying use to an amount equal to the sum of the
deferred tax for each of the 10 most recent complete tax years. Finally, we support
authority for localities to enact scenic protection and tourist enhancement districts.
LAND USE and GROWTH MANAGEMENT
5
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities urge the state to establish separate, dedicated and
permanent state revenue streams for our transportation infrastructure. The state
also should not shift road maintenance and construction responsibilities to localities.
The need to fund a declining transportation infrastructure is dire and state dollars
remain inadequate. Local governments need sustainable, dedicated, non-general funds
from the state to support our transportation network. Absent such an investment, Virginia
faces a congestion and mobility crisis that will stifle economic growth and negatively
affect the quality of life of our residents.
This past summer, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved a six-year
improvement program for FY10-15 that includes $5.5 billion for highway construction
and $2 billion for rail and public transportation, for a total package of $7.5 billion.
Compared to the program adopted two years ago (the FY08-13 plan), the highway
construction budget for FY10-15 is $3.1 billion or 36% less. State formula distributions
for unpaved roads and primary/urban/secondary construction have been eliminated.
Hundreds of millions of dollars continue to be transferred from construction to
maintenance to cover the maintenance shortfall, a figure that will grow as revenues
coming into the state’s transportation coffers continue to slow. Uncertainty about federal
transportation revenue and the federal transportation reauthorization; declining state
revenues; and the ability of the state to match federal funds and to float bonds for road
projects loom as big question marks for the future.
The state should direct its funding efforts at all transportation modes both
statewide and regionally, targeting investments toward solutions that put money to work
on new ideas and in tandem with leveraging private investment. It should account for
urban area needs where public transportation is important, the increasing traffic demands
placed on fast-growing localities and ongoing improvements necessary on rural,
secondary roads. These improvements are vital to our region’s ability to respond to local
and regional congestion and economic development issues.
We support ongoing state and local efforts to coordinate transportation and land
use planning, without eroding local land use authority, and state incentives for localities
that do so. We urge VDOT to be mindful of local comprehensive, land use and
trail/bicycle plans, as well as regional transportation plans, when planning transportation
systems within a locality. Finally, we request legislative support for enabling authority to
establish mechanisms for funding transit and non-transit projects in the region, and we
support Code changes to allow unpaved secondary road funds to be allocated for other
secondary projects without penalizing the locality by reducing the amount of such funds
in future years.
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
6
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities urge the state to be partners in containing costs of
the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) and to better balance CSA responsibilities
between state and local government.
Since the inception of the Comprehensive Services Act in the early 1990’s, there
has been pressure to hold down costs, to cap state costs for serving mandated children, to
increase local match levels and to make the program more uniform by attempting to
control how localities run their programs. State and local costs of residential and non-
residential mandated services continued to increase; from 2007 to 2008, CSA pool
expenditures for state and local governments rose 11% (from $342 million to $380
million). Costs also have been difficult to forecast because of factors beyond state and
local control (number of mandated children in a community, severity of problems, service
rates, and availability of alternative funding). In addition, localities pay the overwhelming
majority (90%) of costs to administer CSA, as the state has increased administrative
responsibilities, but not administrative funding dollars to localities.
We support the following: 1) full funding of the state pool for CSA, with
allocations based on realistic anticipated levels of need; 2) a state cap on local
expenditures in order to combat higher local costs for serving mandated children, costs
which often are driven by unanticipated placements in a locality; and 3) increased state
funding for CSA administrative costs. We believe that the categories of populations
mandated for services should not be expanded unless the state pays all the costs. We also
urge the state to be proactive in making residential facilities and service providers
available, especially in rural areas.
In a further effort to help contain costs and provide some relief to local
governments, we recommend that the state establish contracts with CSA providers to
provide for a uniform contract management process, improve vendor accountability and
control costs. We encourage the state to consider penalties for individuals who have had
children removed from their care due to abuse or neglect. We also support local and
regional efforts to address areas of cost sharing among localities by procuring services
through group negotiation.
Local governments remained concerned about possible fiscal impacts of changes
in match rates for certain services funded through CSA. The FY09/FY10 budget
modified the local share of funding for community and residential services on a “phased-
in” basis, by lowering the local share for community-based services as an incentive to
serve children who can be appropriately cared for in the community, and increasing the
local share for residential services. Approved definitions did not include some services
provided in the community, and therefore they will not qualify for a lower local match.
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT
7
AREAS OF CONTINUING CONCERN
The Planning District’s member localities recognize economic development and
workforce training as essential to the continued viability of the Commonwealth. We
support policies that closely link the goals of economic and workforce development and
the state’s efforts to streamline and integrate workforce activities and revenue sources.
We also support increased state funding for workforce development programs.
• We support the governor’s Economic and Workforce Development Strategic Plan
for the Commonwealth that more clearly defines responsibilities of state and local
governments and emphasizes regional cooperation in economic, workforce and tourism
development. includes new tools for local governments to use in attracting economic
development opportunities.
• We support enhanced funding for the Regional Competitiveness Act to continue
meaningful opportunities for regional projects. We also support enhanced state funding
for the Industrial Site Development Fund, the Governor’s Opportunity Fund and tourism
initiatives that help promote economic development in localities and regions.
• We encourage the state and local governments to work with other entities to
identify and promote local, regional and state agricultural products.
• We appreciate and encourage continuing state incentives and support for
expanding expediting deployment and reducing the cost of broadband technology,
particularly in underserved areas.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that environmental quality should be
funded and promoted through a comprehensive approach, and address air and water
quality, solid waste management, land conservation, climate change and land use
policies. We are committed to protection and enhancement of the environment and
recognize the need to achieve a proper balance between environmental regulation and the
socio-economic health of our communities within the constraints of available revenues.
Such an approach requires regional cooperation due to the inter-jurisdictional nature of
many environmental resources, and adequate state funding to support local and regional
efforts.
We believe the following:
• The state should not impose a fee, tax or surcharge on water, sewer, solid waste or
other local services to pay for state environmental programs. To do so would set a
disturbing precedent whereby the state could levy surcharges on local user fees to fund
state priorities.
• The legislature should provide funding for wastewater treatment and other
necessary assistance to localities as it works to clean up the state’s impaired waterways,
ECONOMIC and WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
8
while ensuring that system design standards remain compatible with any new state
requirements. The state also should explore alternative means of preventing and
remediating water pollution.
• The state should not enact legislation mandating expansion of the area covered by
the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Instead, the state should 1) provide legal, financial
and technical support to localities that wish to comply with any of the Act’s provisions,
2) allow localities to use other practices to improve water quality, and 3) provide funding
for other strategies that address point and non-point source pollution.
• We support legislative and regulatory action to ensure that alternative on-site
sewage systems (AOSS) will be operated and maintained in a manner that protects public
health and the environment.
• The state should be a partner and advocate for localities in water supply
development and should work with and assist localities in addressing water supply issues,
including investing in regional projects. Also, the state’s water supply planning efforts
should continue to involve local governments.
• The state should expand the list of localities that may, by ordinance, require
conservation of trees during the development process.
• We support increased local government representation on the Biosolids Use
Regulation Advisory Committee (BURAC).
The Planning District’s member localities recognize that special attention must be given
to developing circumstances under which people, especially the disabled, the poor, the
young and the elderly, can achieve their full potential. Funding reductions to community
agencies are especially troublesome, as their activities often end up preventing more
costly services later. The delivery of health and human services must be a collaborative
effort from federal, state and local agencies. We urge the General Assembly to ensure
funding is available to continue such valuable preventive services.
• We oppose any changes in state funding or policies that result in an increase of
the local share of costs for human services.
• The state should increase funding to the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime
Control Act (VJCCCA) program, which has produced a nearly 50% drop in Department
of Juvenile Justice commitments since 1998. Further, the state should maintain a
formula-driven allocation process for VJCCCA funding.
• The state should provide sufficient funding to allow Community Services Boards
(CSBs) to meet the challenges of providing a community-based system of care, including
maximizing the use of Medicaid funding. We believe children with mental health needs
should be treated in the mental health system, where CSBs are the point of entry. We
support state action to increase investment in the MR waiver program for adults and
young people and Medicaid reimbursement for children’s dental services. We also
oppose any shifting of Medicaid matching requirements from the state to localities.
HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES
9
• We support funding for mental health and substance abuse services at juvenile
detention centers.
• We oppose new state or federal entitlement programs that require additional local
funding.
• We support sufficient state funding for local social services facilities and for local
departments to maintain adequate office space to deliver services. We also request that
the state provide funds for staffing local social services departments to 1) determine
eligibility for residents seeking social services such as Medicaid, food stamps and
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and 2) meet child and family services
review goals. We also support state assistance for providing pre-admission screening
services for nursing homes and for prompt investigation and services in cases involving
abuse, neglect or exploitation of the elderly or disabled. We support the provision of
sufficient state funding to match all available federal dollars for the administration of
mandated services within the Department of Social Services, and to meet the staffing
standards for local departments to provide services as stipulated in state law.
• We support continued state funding for local Disability Services Boards, as well
as restored state dollars for the Rehabilitative Services Incentive Fund.
• We support sufficient state funding assistance for older residents, to include
companion and in home services, home delivered meals and transportation.
• We support the continued operation and enhancement of early intervention and
prevention programs (and renewal of CSA Trust Fund dollars to support them), including
school-based prevention programs which can make a difference in children’s lives. This
would include the state’s program for at-risk four-year-olds, the Child Health Partnership
and Healthy Families programs.
• The legislature should provide full funding to assist low-income working and
TANF (and former TANF) families with childcare costs. These dollars help working-
class parents pay for supervised day care facilities and support efforts for families to
become self-sufficient. We oppose any initiatives to shift traditional federal and state
childcare administrative responsibility and costs to local governments. We believe the
current funding and program responsibility for TANF employment services should
remain within the social services realm. We also support a TANF plan that takes into
account and fully funds state and local implementation and support services costs.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that every citizen should have an
opportunity to afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. The state and local governments
should work toward expanding and preserving the supply and improving the quality of
affordable housing for the elderly, the disabled and low- and moderate-income
households. Regional housing solutions and planning should be implemented whenever
possible.
• We support changes to the Code to allow 1) local flexibility in the operation of
affordable housing programs, 2) for creation of a state housing trust fund, 3)
establishment of affordable dwelling unit ordinances, 4) the award of grants and loans to
HOUSING
10
low- or moderate-income persons to aid in purchasing dwellings, and 5) the provision of
other funding to encourage affordable housing initiatives.
• We support enabling legislation that allows property tax relief for community
land trusts that hold land for the purpose of providing affordable homeownership.
• We support measures to prevent homelessness and to assist the chronic homeless.
• We support incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic
structures.
• We support retaining local discretion to regulate the allowance of manufactured
homes in zoning districts that permit single-family dwellings.
• We encourage and support the use of, and request state incentives for using
environmentally friendly (green) building materials and techniques, which can contribute
to the long-term health, vitality and sustainability of the region.
The Planning District’s member localities encourage state financial support, cooperation
and assistance for law enforcement, emergency medical care, criminal justice activities
and fire services responsibilities carried out locally.
• We urge the state to make Compensation Board funding a top priority, fully
funding local positions that fall under its purview. It should not increase the local share of
funding constitutional offices or divert funding away from local offices, but increase
money needed for their operation, as local governments have continued to provide much
supplemental funding for constitutional officer budgets.
• We urge continued state funding of the HB 599 law enforcement program (in
accordance with Code of Virginia provisions), drug courts and the Pre-Release and Post-
Incarceration Services (PAPIS), Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts.
• The state should continue to allow exemptions from the federal prisoner offset
and maintain the per diem payment to localities for housing state-responsible prisoners.
• We urge state funding for the Volunteer Firefighters’ and Rescue Squad Workers’
Service Award Program and other incentives that would help recruit and retain
emergency service providers. Further, the state should improve access to and support for
training for volunteer and paid providers.
• We encourage shared funding by the state of the costs to construct and operate
regional jails; however, we do not believe the state should operate local and regional jails.
• We urge local involvement in planning processes for homeland security measures.
• We support state funding to develop supervised visitation centers to protect
children during visitation with non-custodial parents, when ordered by a court.
PUBLIC SAFETY
11
The Planning District’s member localities believe that since so many governmental
actions take place at the local level, a strong local government system is essential. Local
governments must have the freedom and tools to carry out their responsibilities.
• We support legislation to enhance the ability of local governments to provide
services required by citizens and to meet their responsibilities in state/local partnerships.
Accordingly, we support a requirement for state agencies to notify localities of planned
construction projects that may affect the locality’s comprehensive plan.
• We oppose intrusive legislation involving purchasing procedures; local
government authority to establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for
local employees; matters that can be adopted by resolution or ordinance; and procedures
for adopting ordinances.
• We request that any changes to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
preserve 1) a local governing body’s ability to meet in closed session, 2) the list of
records currently exempt from disclosure under FOIA, and 3) provisions concerning
creation of customized computer records. We support changes to allow local and regional
public bodies to conduct electronic meetings as now permitted for state public bodies.
• We support local requests to the state for enabling legislation to increase the
income and financial worth limitations for real property tax exemption or deferral
programs.
• We encourage clarification of Code provisions that stipulate law enforcement
responsibilities when transporting persons for whom a temporary detention order has
been issued for emergency medical treatment or evaluation.
• We oppose any changes to state law that further weaken a locality’s ability to
regulate noise or the discharge of firearms.
• We support expanding local authority to regulate smoking in public places.
• The legislature should adopt legislation to clarify that local government entities
are not obligated under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act to mark private
water, sewer and other lines on private property or lines it does not own or operate.
• We support legislative changes to enable the manufacture and sale of products
from Eades Distillery in Nelson County.
• The state should amend the Code to require litigants in civil cases to pay for the
costs associated with compensating jury members.
• We support increased state funding for regional planning districts.
• We support legislation to increase permissible fees for courthouse maintenance.
• The state should ensure that local connectivity and compatibility are considered in
any centralizing of state computer functions.
• We support authorization for localities to make donations to nonprofit entities
engaged in providing energy efficiency services or promoting energy efficiency.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE and LAWS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
2009 Strategic Plan Performance Report and 2009
Community Profile Highlights
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review of 2009 Strategic Plan Performance Report
and Community Profile (data/trends) in preparation for
Board Retreat
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Elliott, and Davis, S.
Allshous e and Ms. L. Allshouse
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 07, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: No
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Since 2001, the Board of Supervisors has formally engaged in the County’s strategic planning. The Board adopted
the County ’s current FY07– FY10 Strategic Plan in July 2007 and directed staff to foc us on enhancing the C ounty ’s
quality of life, protecting its natural resources, managing growth, developing infrastructure, and creating a longrange,
comprehensive funding strategy.
Each year, the Board holds a strategic planning retreat to either begin a new strategic planning cycle or to make
adjustments to the current plan to address emerging trends and challenges. These Board discussions also serve to
inform and guide the longrange and annual operating budget process es that commenc e shortly thereafter.
At the fall 2008 retreat, the Board rev iewed the County’s strategic performance and dis cussed emerging trends and
the financial challenges facing the County. The Board made funding adjustments and extended the c ompletion dates
for three objectives.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
The Board’s Strategic Plan Work Ses sion and the Annual Retreat
DISCU SSION :
The Board’s 2009 Strategic Plan Retreat will be held on October 16, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the Department
of Forestry facility in the Fontaine Research Park.
To ens ure the Board has ample time for discussion at the Retreat, Lori Allshouse, Manager of Strategic Planning
and Performance, will present highlights from the County’s annual Strategic Plan progress report, and Steve
Allshouse, Coordinator of Research and Analysis, w ill highlight emerging trends included in the 2009 Community
Profile at the October 7th Board meeting. The reports will be presented to the Board at this time.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Strategic Plan provides direction for the C ounty’s FiveYear Financ ial Plan proces ses and annual budget.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
This agenda item is intended to inform the Board of the County’s performance related to the Strategic Plan priorities
and to rev iew emerging trends in preparation for the Oc tober 16th Strategic Planning Retreat. No action is required.
Ret urn t o regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2010 Budget Update
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review of current projec ted revenue shortfall for the FY
2010 Budget and recommendations to address the
shortfall
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and W iggans
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 7, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
As dis cus sed by the County Executive in the attached letter, staff is currently projec ting a revenue shortfall of
approximately $4.74 million (2.2%) for the FY 2010 Budget (Attachment A). The shortfall is primarily attributed to
less than anticipated revenues from property taxes, other local taxes (inc luding sales, business license, and
food/beverage taxes), and the State of Virginia. Based on the County’s current rev enue allocation policies, the
shortfall will result in $2.67 million less for schools, $1.77 million less for local government, and $0.3 million less for
capital projects.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Fund the County’s future needs.
DISCU SSION :
At the Board meeting on October 7, 2009, staff will present the Board with detailed information about the specific
revenues that are currently projecting at less than budget and the staff’s recommendation to the Board on measures
to address the shortfall for local government. The Board will also be presented with information about future
opportunities to review and discuss the FY 2010 Budget and projections for FY 2011.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The current projected revenue shortfall for local government, based on the County’s current revenue allocation
policies, is $1.77 million.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff will be presenting recommendations to address the FY 2010 rev enue shortfall for local government for Board
discussion and approval. Additional information will be provided through email prior to the Board meeting.
ATTAC HMENTS
A Letter from County Ex ecutive
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Dear Fellow Staff Members,
As we hear additional details about the Governor’s budget decisions and get more solid
information about other revenues sources, we are developing a clearer sense of what our
financial situation looks like for the current fiscal year. Although there are still some unknowns,
such as the full extent of State budget reductions, I did want to share this updated information
with you so that you are aware that we are facing a shortfall of some magnitude at this point in
time.
While we only have two months of data on hand to use for our June 30, 2010 end of the
year revenue estimates, we are currently estimating a General Fund shortfall of approximately
$4.74 million or 2.2%. Based on our current revenue allocation policies, including the 60/40
split of new local tax revenues with the School System and the capital funding formula, this
shortfall will result in $2.66 million less for schools, $1.77 million less for local government and
about $0.3 million less for capital. The shortfall can primarily be attributed to Property Taxes,
Other Local Taxes (e.g. sales tax, etc.) and State funding reductions.
Because of the continued decline in revenues, which is beyond what we and virtually all
other Virginia localities and the State were anticipating during our last budget process, we find
ourselves facing a shortfall. As you remember, we have already adopted aggressive and
substantial budget reduction strategies for this year’s budget including:
Reduced General Government departmental expenditures by $2.04 million or 2.6%,
reflecting significant reductions, savings and efficiency measures, including:
expansion of the hiring freeze begun in FY 07/08 to a total of 55 positions, or 8% of
our local government workforce
continued reduction in nonpersonnel operating expenditures, which have now
totaled a $1.4 million or 10% decrease since FY 07/08
No increases in employee compensation
No increases to the vast majority of community and human service agencies
Reduced our Capital Improvements Program budget by $100 million, or 42% over the
next five years
We will have to go beyond the measures above to address our current shortfall, including
evaluating options like using the contingency funds that the Board had set aside for revenue
shortfall for the current year and expanding the hiring freeze and staffing reallocation process.
We will be presenting our plan for responding to the shortfall to the Board of Supervisors at
their October 7th Board meeting, and I will be sharing that information with you also at that
time. While this information is sobering and concerning, I want to reiterate that our approach
remains focused on protecting our workforce and keeping layoffs as a last possibility. I
appreciate your continued dedication to our organization and our citizens, and I’m extremely
proud of the effort that everyone in county government is making to help us get through this
difficult period.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2010 Budget Amendment
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public H earing on the Proposed FY 2010 Budget
Amendment in the amount of $22,088,773.88 and
request approval of Budget Amendment and
Appropriations #2010025, #2010026, #2010027,
#2010028, #2010029, #2010030, #2010031, #2010032,
#2010033, #2010034, #2010035, and #2010036 to
provide funding for various local government, school,
and capital programs.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Wiggans, and Letteri
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 7, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Virginia Code § 15.22507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjus t the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fis cal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such
amendment w hich exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be
accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The
Code section applies to all C ounty funds , i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School SelfSus taining, etc.
The total of the new requested FY 2010 appropriations, itemized below, is $22,088,773.88. Becaus e the cumulativ e
amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted budget, a budget amendment public
hearing is required.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County’s growing needs.
DISCU SSION :
The proposed increase of this FY 2010 Budget Amendment totals $22,088,773.88. The estimated expenses and
revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPEND ITURES
General Fund $ 969,155.03
Special Revenue Funds $ 802,423.20
School Funds $ 10,000.00
School Program Funds $ 28,354.81
Emergency Communication Center Funds $ 84,000.00
Capital Improv ements Funds $ 19,299,803.52
Storm Water Fund $ 895,037.32
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPEND ITURES – All Funds $ 22,088,773.88
ESTIMATED REVEN UES
Local Revenues (Fees, Contributions, Donations) $ 11,327.00
State Revenue $ 50,834.95
Federal Revenue $ 641,633.59
Loan Proceeds $ 11,243,278.54
General Fund Balance $ 968,453.03
Other Fund Balances $ 9,173,246.77
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVEN UES – All Funds $ 22,088,773.88
The budget amendment is comprised of tw elve (12) separate appropriations as follows :
Tw o (2) appropriations (#2010025 and #2010034) totaling $38,979.81 for various education programs and
grants;
One (1) appropriation (#2010026) totaling $371,623.20, reappropriating grant and seized ass et funds;
One (1) appropriation (#2010027) totaling $84,000.00, reappropriating ECC projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2010028) totaling $702,743.42 reappropriating unc ompleted local government
projects from FY09;
One (1) appropriation (#2010029) totaling $16,000.00 from the Board’s contingency to adjust the overtime
budget for fire/res cue;
One (1) appropriation (#2010030) totaling $14,080,067.81, reappropriating general government capital
projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2010031) totaling $5,219,110.71, reappropriating school capital projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2010032) totaling $895,037.32, reappropriating storm w ater capital projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2010033) totaling $266,411.61, reappropriating outstanding purchase orders from
FY09;
One (1) appropriation (#2010035) moving $3,000.00 from the Board’s contingency to General Services for
enforcement of the U ncontrolled Vegetation Ordinance; and
One (1) appropriation (#2010036) to distribute $430,800.00 from the Crozet C rossing Trust Fund to Crozet
Meadow s and Treesdale Park .
A detailed description of these requests is provided on Attachment A.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends approv al of the FY 2010 Budget Amendment in the amount of $22,088,773.88 after the public
hearing, and then approval of Appropriations #2010025, #2010026, #2010027, #2010028, #2010029, #2010030,
#2010031, #2010032, #2010033, #2010034, #2010035, and #2010036 to provide funds for various local government
and school projects and programs as des cribed in Attachment A.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A – Desc ription of Appropriations
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2010025
$5,325.00
R evenue Sourc e: Local Rev enue $ 5,325.00
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $5,000.00 from the William H. Donner
Foundation. The donor requested that this contribution be used for general support. Meriw ether Lewis will be using
this money for instruc tional computer equipment.
Albemarle High School received two donations totaling $325.00. John and Alison D avis on donated $300.00 and
Martha Spano donated $25.00. The donors have reques ted that their contribution be used to help facilitate the
installation of a synthetic turf field at Albemarle High School.
Appropriation #2010026
$371,623.20
R evenue Sourc e: State Rev enue $ 50,834.95
Federal Revenue $ 230,016.78
Fund Balanc e $ 90,771.47
The following grants and s eized asset acc ounts had not expended all funding as of J une 30, 2008 and will require
reappropriation. No additional local funding is required.
Seized ass et monies were received from the D epartment of Criminal Justice Services for the Police
D epartment ($53,417.11) and Commonwealth’s Attorney ($15,121.33). Thes e monies will be used to
purchase evidenc e equipment and traffic enforcement items for the Police Department and office supplies,
furniture, and training/conferences for the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office.
The Riparian Buffer Restoration Grant prov ides funds to match local expenditures to res tore riparian
s tream buffers . U nder this grant, landowners can request 50% reimbursement for the labor and material of
adding new buffer plantings on their property. The Virginia D epartment of Conservation and R ecreation
has granted an extension on this grant to Dec ember 31, 2009, to accommodate plantings in the fall
planting season. The balance to be carried forward is $50,975.14.
In FY 06/07, the Department of Justice awarded the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Department a grant in the
amount of $29,617.00 with a local match of $166.54 for a total grant award of $29,783.54. The purpose of
this grant was to purchase automated external defibrillators, Alzheimer tracking bands, and digital video
equipment and c ameras. The balance to bring forward for FY 09/10 is $2,079.38.
Beginning in FY 08/09, the Department of Motor Vehicles aw arded the Albemarle County Police
D epartment a grant in the amount of $42,000.00 w ith an “inkind” local match of $8,400.00. The purpose of
this grant is to ass ist in overtime expenses, training, and equipment for traffic safety. The traffic safety
activities include: Operation Safe H oliday, Impaired Driver Enforcement Campaigns (3), Clic k it or Ticket
enforcement, and quarterly speed enforcement projects. The amount to carry forward to FY 09/10 is
$11,339.00
In FY 08/09, the Department of Homeland Security awarded the Fire/Rescue D epartment a grant in the
amount of $392,000.00 to ass ist in the mark eting and advertising components of volunteer recruitment.
The funds will be used for advertising and supplies including but not limited to radio, TV, pamphlets, door
hangers, banners, etc. The grant is funded over a fouryear span. The amount to be brought forw ard to FY
09/10 is $68,226.00; in addition to the second year amount of $92,000.00.
In FY 07/08, the Department of Justice awarded Bedford County a grant in the amount of $95,000.00 to
assist in the investigations of internet crimes against children. Bedford designated Albemarle County as
being an area dis trict in the fight against internet crime and is providing Albemarle County w ith
$19,000.00. The amount to be brought forward for FY 09/10 is $1,801.00.
In FY 08/09 the C ommonw ealth of Virginia – DMV awarded the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Office a grant
in the amount of $15,140.00 w ith a local matc h of $4,689.20 for a total grant of $19,829.20. This grant
assists in the purchase of radar units, breath testing units, as well as funding overtime hours for DU I
c heckpoints and speed enforcement. The amount to bring forw ard for FY 09/10 is $5,222.59.
In FY 07/08, the U.S. Department of Jus tice aw arded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant in
the amount of $23,557.00. The purpose of this grant is to as sist in funding overtime hours by current
officers in support of reducing crime and improvement of public safety for more “Community Policing”.
There is no local match. The amount to bring forw ard for FY 09/10 is $22,812.71.
In FY 07/08, the Department of Homeland Security awarded the Fire/Rescue D epartment a grant in the
amount of $309,168.00 with a local match of $77,292.00 for a total grant in the amount of $386,460.00.
This grant will as sist in the purc hase of safe and compliant personal protectiv e equipment. The amount to
bring forward to FY 09/10 is $8,010.22.
The County has received renewed funds from the Federal Government in the form of the Child Care
Quality Initiativ e. These funds w ill be used in conjunction w ith the City of Charlottesville DSS to create a
position that will be housed at Albemarle DSS that w ill serv e both departments under the grant. The
revenues from this grant are 100% federal with no local match. The balance to bring forward for FY 09/10
is $25,127.00
Albemarle County received a federal grant for the Americorps Program. The Americorps w orker serves the
Adult Division of Albemarle County D epartment of Social Servic es (ACDSS) to help achieve the following
s trategic goal of the agency: develop and implement strategies focused on prev ention and early
intervention and ensure that all services meet the need of the c hanging demographics of the c ommunity.
The revenue from this grant are 80% federal with a 20% loc al match. The loc al match will be taken from
existing ACD SS funds. The amount to bring forward for FY 09/10 is $3,068.04.
In FY 07/08, the Department of Criminal Jus tice Services awarded the Commission on Children &
Families a grant in the amount of $5,000.00 in federal funds , $5,000.00 in state funds, and a local match
of $1,667.00. The total grant aw ard of $11,667.00 is to provide 200 servicelearning sessions for 48 weeks
for youth who are atrisk of gang involvement. The local match will be funded by the Community Attention
Agency. The amount to be brought forw ard to FY 09/10 is $1,667.00.
In FY 07/08, the Albemarle County Fire/Rescue D epartment received $12,000.00 from the J&E Berkley
Foundation. These monies are to enable the continuation of a free smoke detector program to bring single
family residences into compliance with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
recommendations. This program targets groups that are at risk and usually c annot afford s moke detectors.
The amount to bring forward for FY 09/10 is $9,447.19.
There is a $2,000.00 balance in the Sheriff Reserve Programs Fund. This money is from contributions that
have been made in support of the volunteer reserve programs. This money is vital to support the many
programs that our volunteer reserves are inv olved w ith, such as Project Lifes aver, child fingerprinting, etc.
These contributions allow the volunteers to perform many servic es without it impacting our regular budget.
Appropriation #2010027
$84,000.00
R evenue Sourc e: Fund Balance $ 84,000.00
The Emergency Communications Center had the follow ing uncompleted projects at the end of FY 08/09 that will
need to be reappropriated into FY 09/10:
APCO Emergency Medical Dispatch Program – $14,000.00
Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Sys tem R eview – $50,000.00
Replacement of Carpeting in the C ommunic ations Center – $20,000.00
Appropriation #2010028
$702,743.42
R evenue Sourc e: Local Rev enue $ 702.00
General Fund Balance $ 702,041.42
The following departments had FY 08/09 funds for spec ific projects that w ere uncompleted at June 30, 2009 and
will require appropriation for use in FY 09/10:
Clerk of Circ uit Court: Parttime and overtime wages – $15,322.00
Sheriff: R eserve programs – $2,017.45
Fire Rescue: Operating supplies and repairs to vehicles and the training burn building – $29,311.57, and
funds related to Volunteer Recruitment and Retention initiativ es and advertis ing – $172,475.40
General Servic es: Contrac t s ervices for stormwater management and building maintenanc e – $29,300.00
Community Development: H istoric Preservation Committee grant – $702.00
Office of Housing: Community Development Loan Fund – $203,615.00
Job Opportunity Fund – $250,000.00
Appropriation #2010029
$16,000.00
R evenue Sourc e: Board Contingency $ 16,000.00
During the FY 09/10 budget development process, $16,000.00 in overtime wages was erroneously omitted from
Fire/Rescue’s budget. This appropriation restores this funding.
Appropriation #2010030
$ 14,080,067.81
R evenue Sourc e: Federal Rev enue $ 330,062.00
Loan Proceeds $11,243,278.54
Gen. Govt. CIP Fund Balanc e $ 2,506,727.27
This request reappropriates a portion of the remaining balances of active General Government Capital
Improv ement projects that were uncompleted as of June 30, 2009. Among the projec ts included in this request are
several fire department requests, the C roz et Library, Crozet Streetsc ape and Juvenile Court Building renovations.
The remaining project reappropriations are under additional review and w ill be presented to the Board in November
for consideration.
Appropriation #2010031
$ 5,219,110.71
R evenue Sourc e: School CIP Fund Balance $ 5,219,110.71
This request reappropriates a portion of the remaining balances of active School Capital Improvement projects that
were uncompleted as of J une 30, 2009. Among the projects included in this request are construction projects at
the Vehic le Maintenance Facility, Brow nsville Elementary , Greer Elementary and Albemarle H igh Schools. The
remaining project reappropriations are under additional review and will be presented to the Board in November for
consideration.
Appropriation #2010032
$ 895,037.32
R evenue Sourc e: Federal Revenue $ 53,200.00
Stormwater CIP Fund Balance $ 841,837.32
This request reappropriates a portion of the remaining balances of Stormw ater Management projects that were
uncompleted as of June 30, 2009. Among the projects included in this request are D owntow n Crozet and
Woodbrook. The remaining project reappropriations are under additional review and w ill be presented to the Board
in November for consideration.
Appropriation #2010033
$266,411.61
R evenue Sourc e: Fund Balance $266,411.61
Several departments had funding for projects approved in FY 08/09 that had not been completed as of J une 30,
2009. This request reappropriates the remaining balances for the uncompleted projects for which purchase orders
were outstanding as of June 30, 2009.
Appropriation #2010034
$33,654.81
R evenue Sourc e: Local Rev enue $ 5,300.00
Federal Revenue $ 28,354.81
At its June 25, 2009 meeting, the School Board discussed the request of Whitehous e Mariah, LLC that the School
Board ex ecute a quitclaim deed conv eying an unidentified halfacre parc el owned previously by the W hite Hall
School Dis trict Trustees to Zoe Enterprises, LLC. Following discuss ions with staff, Whitehouse Mariah agreed to
compensate the Board in the amount of $5,000.00 for the quitclaim conveyance. W e have received the check from
Whitehouse LLC and the Board has requested that these funds be depos ited into the School Board Res erve.
Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $300.00 from Michael and Carol Atchison. The donors
have requested that their contribution be used to help facilitate the installation of a synthetic turf field at Albemarle
High School. The current balance for the AHS Synthetic Turf Project is $1,100.00 inc luding this donation. The high
schools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receive matching funds from an anonymous donor. The balance
required to consider construction is $650,000.00 leaving Albemarle H igh School with a balance of $323,900.00 to
garner matching funds .
Greer Elementary School has been aw arded a USDA Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program grant in the amount of
$28,354.81. These funds will be used to provide students w ith nutrition education and a fresh fruit or vegetable
snack twice a week.
Appropriation #2010035
$3,000.00
R evenue Sourc e: Board Contingency $ 3,000.00
At the September 2, 2009 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board approved adoption of an ordinance limiting
height of uncontrolled v egetation in the development areas. Implementation of this program is estimated to cost
$3,000.00 in recurring funds to pay for mowing services . This appropriation w ill not increase the total budget.
Appropriation #2010036
$430,800.00
R evenue Sourc e: Crozet Cros sings Fund $430,800.00
On January 30, 2008 the Trustees of the Crozet Cros sings H ousing Trus t Fund approv ed the commitment of
$184,400.00 to the ex pansion of Croz et Meadows and $246,400.00 for the development of Treesdale Park. The
Treesdale Park commitment was revis ed and recommitted on May 7, 2009. Combined these developments will
add 126 new affordable housing rental units to the County’s housing s toc k and rehabilitate 28 existing units.
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 4,
Animals and Fow l, Artic le II, Dogs, Sec tion 4
200, Running at Large Prohibited
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to receiv e c omments on a proposed
ordinance to designate the Montvue Subdivision as an
additional Rural area of the County where it is
unlawful for the owner of any dog to permit such dog
to run at large
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Miller
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
A GENDA DATE:
October 7, 2009
A CTION: X
INFORMATION:
C ONSENT AGENDA:
AC TION : INFORMATION :
A TTACHMENTS: Yes
R EVIEWED B Y:
BACK GROUND :
Virginia Code Section 3.26538 authoriz es governing bodies of counties to prohibit dogs from running at large.
Section 4200 of the Albemarle County C ode prohibits the owner of any dog to permit such dog from running at large
in the c ounty except in those areas z oned R ural Areas District; howev er, property owners within a R ural Areas
District may petition the Board of Supervisors to extend s uch restrictions to their land. The Board has previously
approved s eventeen (17) requests for extension of these restrictions for Rural Areas District property. In weighing
such requests, the Board has considered whether: 1) the land area can be readily identified and 2) the majority (51%
or more) of property ow ners of the area sign a petition requesting that the Board add that area to the lis t.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for All Citizens
DISCU SSION :
The property ow ners of 18 of the 36 lots in Montvue Subdivision signed a Petition requesting that the Board
designate Montvue Subdivision as an area w here it is unlawful for the owner of any dog to permit such dog to run at
large in the Rural Areas District. The owners of TMP 6069C (2802 Magnolia Drive) also signed the Petition,
although that parcel is tec hnically not part of Montvue Subdivision. The President of the Montvue C itizens
Assoc iation submitted the Petition and a colorcoded plat drawing indic ating the property ow ners’ pos itions to the
Clerk of the Board as required (Attachment B). The owners of 10 lots were opposed or could not be contacted. The
Virginia Department of Transportation owns eight lots and was not contacted. The Ass ociation’s request states that
VDOT ow ns seven lots, how ever, TMP 60B0A6A w as subdivided, and VDOT acquired TMP 60B0A6A1, a small
parcel acquired as part of the rightofw ay acquisitions by VD OT. Sev en of the VD OT lots have rental housing
located on them. A copy of the most recent subdivision plat, which was recorded in the Albemarle C ounty Circuit
Court in 1956, as well as two subsequent plats adding three additional lots to the subdivision, are attached
(Attachment C ).
If the Board w ishes to des ignate Montvue Subdivision, including TMP 6069C , as an area w here it is unlawful for
dogs to run at large, an ordinance amendment to Section 4200 of the County code is required. A draft ordinance
designating that area is attached (Attachment A). A GIS map show ing the property proposed for designation is also
attached (Attachment D).
The attac hed draft ordinance also inc ludes minor clerical changes to the descriptions of the existing designated
areas for consistency and to correct previous clerical errors.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This ordinance does not have any anticipated budget impact.
RECOMMENDA TION :
Staff recommends that, after the public hearing, if the Board wishes to designate Montvue Subdivision, including
TMP 6069C, as an area where dogs are prohibited from running at large, that it adopt the attached ordinance.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Draft Ordinance
B – Montvue Subdivision Property owners’ petition and plat
C – Three recorded subdivision plats
D – GIS map
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Draft: September 29, 2009
1
ORDINANCE NO. 09-4(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, ARTICLE
II, DOGS, DIVISON 1, IN GENERAL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 4,
Dogs and fowl, Article II, Dogs, Division 1, In General, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4-200 Running at large prohibited
ARTICLE II. DOGS
State law reference-- Va. Code §§ 3.2-6500 et.seq.
DIVISION 1. IN GENERAL
4-200 Running at large prohibited.
A. Dogs shall not run at large in the county except in those areas zoned Rural Areas District;
however, running at large in areas zoned Rural Areas District is prohibited in the following designated
areas:
(1) University of Virginia grounds lying within the county. (7-19-73)
(2) Crozet areas:
(a) Crozet areas, beginning at the point of intersection of Buck Road, State Route
789 and Railroad Avenue, State Route 788; thence, in a northwesterly direction along the southern
boundary of tTax mMap 55, pParcel 51; thence, in a northeasterly direction along the western boundary
of tTax mMap 55, pParcels 51 and 51A, to the point of intersection with tTax mMap, 55 pParcel 50;
thence, in a northwesterly direction along the southern boundary of tTax mMap 55, pParcel 50 to the
point of intersection with tTax mMap 55, pParcel 49; thence, in a northeasterly direction along the
western boundary of tTax mMap 55, pParcel 49 to the point of intersection with tTax mMap 56, pParcel
1; thence, in a northwesterly direction along the western boundaries of tTax mMap 56, pParcel 1 and tTax
mMap 55, pParcel 47 , and following the boundary of tTax mMap 55, pParcel 47 in a northeasterly
direction to the point of intersection with tTax mMap 55, pParcel 48; thence, in a northwesterly direction
along the southern boundary of tTax mMap 55, pParcel 48 and then following the western boundary of
tTax mMap 55, pParcel 48 in a northeasterly direction and continuing in a northeasterly direction along
the western boundaries of tTax mMap 56, pParcels 1B, 3 and 5E, to the point of intersection with the
Sunrise Acres subdivision (tTax mMap 40A), thence, with Sunrise Acres in a clockwise direction to the
intersection with the centerline of White Hall Road, State Route 810; thence, in a southwesterly and
southeasterly direction with State Route 810 to the intersection with Buck Road, State Route 789 and
continuing along Buck Road, State Route 789 to the point of beginning.
(b) The real property commonly known as Claudius Crozet Park, comprised of the
following tax map, sections and parcel numbers: tTax mMap 56A2, sSection 1, pParcel 72; tTax mMap
56A2, sSection 1, pParcel 72A; and tTax mMap 56A2, sSection 4, pParcel A4.
(c) Sunrise Acres Subdivision, as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit court for the county, in Deed Book 367, page 312, and in Plat Book 367, pages 315 and 316.
(3) Country Green Apartments as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 453, page 553. (12-7-77)
Draft: September 29, 2009
2
(4) Waverly Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit
court of the county, in Deed Book 697, page 382;, and Deed Book 781, pages 267 and to 270 271. (12-16-
87)
(5) Whipporwill Hollow as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit
court of the county, in Deed Book 643, pages 285 to 292;, Deed Book 644, pages 269 and 270;, Deed
Book 646, pages 220 to and 221;, Deed Book 657, pages 789 to and 790;, Deed Book 659, pages 561 to
565;, Deed Book 694, pages 544 to and 545;, and Deed Book 867, page 253. (12-16-87)
(6) Key West/Cedar Hills Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 353, pages 193 to 197;, Deed Book 365, page 202;, Deed
Book 37l, page 474;, Deed Book 388, page 514;, Deed Book 393, page 417;, Deed Book 410, page 577;,
Deed Book 420, page 259;, Deed Book 505, page 607;, Deed Book 530, page 35l;, Deed Book 543, page
114;, Deed Book 661, page 44;, Deed Book 692, page 453;, and Deed Book 809, page 623. (9-7-88)
(7) North Pines Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 703, pages 742, 743 and to 744. (1-17-90)
(8) The Meadows in Crozet as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 651, page 149. (8-8-90)
(9) Milton Heights Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 343, page 64. (8-17-94)
(10) Shadwell Estates Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 339, page 458. (8-17-94)
(11) Thurston Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit
court of the county, in Deed Book 637, page 456. (12-7-94)
(12) Lexington Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county in Deed Book 564, page 088. (3-12-97)
(13) Bedford Hills Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county in Deed Book 365, page 212. (12-2-98)
(14) Westmont Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 1513, page 201, and in Deed Book 1617, page 510. (5-3-
00)
(15) Blue Springs Farm Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 1341, page 121.
(16) Farmington Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county in Deed Book 203, page 53;, Deed Book 203, page 233, Deed Book 205, page
504;, Deed Book 206, page 44;, Deed Book 207, page 370;, Deed Book 207, page 483;, Deed Book 208,
page 130;, Deed Book 209, page 195;, Deed Book 213, page 296;, Deed Book 216, page 44;, Deed Book
223, page 146;, Deed Book 240, page 203;, Deed Book 246, page 183;, Deed Book 247, page 315;, Deed
Book 247, page 355;, Deed Book 290, page 214;, Deed Book 292, page 485;, Deed Book 296, page 205;,
Deed Book 325, page 225;, Deed Book 357, page 527;, Deed Book 394, page 63;, and Deed Book 463,
page 72;, together with all streets and roads abutting the lots depicted on the said plats.
Draft: September 29, 2009
3
(17) Section One of Corville Farm Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of
the clerk of the circuit court of the county in Deed bBook 474, page 003.
(18) Montvue Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit
court of the county in Deed Book 328, pages 86 to 88, Deed Book 343, page 204, and Deed Book 359,
page 585, and including Tax Map 60 Parcel 69C.
B. For the purposes of this section, a dog shall be deemed to “run at large” while roaming,
running or self-hunting off the property of its owner or custodian and not under its owner's or custodian's
immediate control. However, a dog shall not be considered at large if during the hunting season it is on a
bona fide hunt in the company of a licensed hunter or during field trials or training periods when
accompanied by its owner.
C. Any person who permits his dog to run at large shall be deemed to have violated the
provisions of this section.
D. Any dog observed or captured while unlawfully running at large shall be impounded in
accordance with Article III, Impoundment, of this chapter.
(7-19-73; 8-22-73; 9-26-73; 11-15-73; 12-19-73; 1-3-74; 1-23-74; 3-24-77; 5-22-74; 10-9-74, 1-22-75; 3-
10-76; 4-21-76; 12-7-77; 5-22-78; 6-21-78; 10-7-81; 5-21-86; 5-13-87; 9-16-87; 11-4-87; 12-16-87; 9-8-
88; Ord of 1-17-90; Ord. of 8-8-90; Ord. No. 94-4(2), 8-17-94; Ord. No. 94-4(3), 12-7-94; Ord. No. 95-
4(1), 1-4-95; Ord. No. 95-4(2), 9-6-95; Code 1988, § 4-19; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-4(1), 12-2-98;
Ord. 00-4(1), 5-3-00; Ord. 03-4(2), 3-5-03; Ord. 04-4(1), 5-12-04; Ord. 05-4(1), 12-7-05; Ord. 06-4(1),
12-6-06, § 4-213; Ord. 09-4(1), 7-8-09)
State law reference-- Va. Code§ 3.2-6538.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
60B-1B
60B-1A
60B--0B-4
60B--0B-1
60-82+
60B--0C-2
60-81
60B--0A-12+
60B--0A-7+
60B--0A-9
60B--0C-7
60B--0B-2
60B--0A-4
60B--0A-11+
60B--0B-3 60B--0B-5
60-83+
60B--0A-13+
60B--0C-3
60B--0B-6
60B--0A-3
60B--0A-1
60B--0C-6
60B--0B-7
60B--0A-5A
60B--0C-9
60B--0C-860-69C
60B--0A-8
60B--0C-4
60B--0A-6A
60B--0A-2B
60B--0A-10+
60B--0C-5
60B--0B-1A
60B--0B-8
60B--0A-6A1
Montvue DrBarracks Rd Magnolia DrOld Salem
D
rIngleridge FarmOld Forge RdAttachment D
BuildingsMontvue Subdivision
In Favor of Designation
Not in Favor of Designationor Not Contacted
VDOT
0 100 200 300Feet s
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS).Map created by Derek Bedarf, September 2009.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations andare not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.Parcel data reflects plats and deeds recorded through August 2009.
AGEND A TITLE: CPA 2009002 C rozet Mas ter
Plan Five Year Update
SU BJECT/PR OPOSAL/R EQUEST: Review
of Focus Areas for revision to the Master Plan
and public process
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Ragsdale, Catlin, Echols
AGENDA DATE: October 7, 2009
AC TION: X INFOR MATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: IN FORMATION:
ATTACH MENTS: YES
C OUN TY OF ALBEMA RLE
STAFF REPOR T
BA CKGR OUND : On August 20, the C roz et C ommunity Advisory Council (CCAC) endorsed the attached list of
Focus Areas and process/tentative schedule to be used for the Crozet Master Plan update. On September 15, the
Planning Commission unanimously endorsed both the list of topics for the update as w ell as the proc ess and
tentative schedule. On September 17, the CCAC decided to use the monthly CCAC meetings as the venue for the
proposed five community forums which would cover the topic s that are proposed for the update.
DISCUSSION: The list of Foc us Areas is provided as Attachment I. It has not changed since the public reviewed
it in July at an Open House in Crozet. The proposed proces s and schedule is provided as Attachment II.
Process
The proposed process and schedule were created to guide activities between now and July 2010. It reflects a minor
change since the Planning C ommission’s meeting. The September 17 CCAC meeting was taken off the schedule
since it has already taken place. The September 30 Tow n H all meeting is still on the schedule, though, for the
Board’s information on what w ill have occurred by the time the Board receives the staff report. At the reques t of
the CC AC, the dates of know n meetings have been included on this sc hedule, which is still identified as “tentative”
because of the need for flexibility in sequencing topics. Additional meetings may be scheduled if s taff and the
CC AC determine that need ex ists and the Planning Commission concurs.
Yancey Mills Business Park
The Board of Supervis ors has had several discussions over the last few months concerning the timing of the
dis cussion on C PA 0802 Yanc ey Mills Business Park. As the Board may remember, the Planning
Commission recommended that the Yancey Mills Business Park not be studied as an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to allow for a rezoning of the property. Although the Board did not s tudy the proposal, the
Board said at their meeting following the Commission’s meeting that the proposal should be considered with the
Crozet Master Plan update.
Crozet Master Plan update.
In December or January of this y ear, the Board of Supervisors will be receiving the study they reques ted on light
industrial land availability. The results of that study will inform whether there is a need for more light industrial land
to be designated on the County ’s Land Use Plan and/or a need to rez one more industrial land in the County. If it is
determined that there is a need for more land to be designated or zoned, then the Board w ill need to advise on
whether more land s hould be designated or zoned for light industry in or near C roz et. The answ ers to these
questions directly relate to the Crozet Master Plan. The proposed land use map for the Master Plan cannot be
finished until the Board makes these important dec isions.
RECOMMENDA TION: Staff recommends the Board accept the list of Focus Areas for revision and update of the
Crozet Master Plan and accept the general public process and schedule for developing strategies to address the
Focus Areas.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACH MENT I: Focus Areas List dated 82009
ATTACH MENT II: Proposed Tentative Schedule dated 92109
View PC minutes
Ret urn to regular agenda
CROZET MA STER PLAN 2009 U PDATE – August 20, 2009
Albema rle County’s Compre he nsive Plan require s tha t Master Plans suc h a s Crozet’s, a dopte d in 2004, be re vie w e d and
update d e ve ry five years. The Croz et Master Pla n upda te now unde rwa y is not intended to c ha nge the overa ll goa ls set by the
community in 2004, but to look a t specific area s tha t may need modific a tion. The review proc e ss will also c onside r requests
from individua ls for specific c ha nges to the land use map and plan.
Focus Ar e a Identification:
Feature s of the plan that ma y ne e d modification ha ve been identifie d by the Crozet Community Advisory Counc il (CCAC), the
public , c ounty staff, the Pla nning Commission, a nd the Board of Supe rvisors. A questionna ire c ompleted by re side nts of the
Croze t Grow th Area and the ir ne ighbors in we ste rn A lbemarle during June 2009 establishe d ma ny of the public ’s c entral
areas of c onc e rn regarding the pla n. The Plan upda te will also involve further refineme nt, a dditional strate gie s, or other
adjustme nts to the master pla n to a ddress ambiguitie s a nd omissions in the plan.
Critic al Foc us Area issue s that have been ide ntifie d:
LAND USE
Addressing Population issue The ma ster plan text re fe rs to a buildout popula tion of 12,000, how e ve r
the land use de signations and de nsitie s shown on the c urre nt plan map a llow for a greater pote ntia l
ultimate popula tion of up to 24,760.
Density at the fringe of the deve lopme nt area. (not expa nd de velopment a re a s)
DowntownPromotion of the vita lity of small businesse s in the central Croz e t business distric t
(Downtown), a ddressing public infra structure needs (suc h a s sidewalks tha t c onnect neighborhoods to
downtown), boundaries of Downtow n, potential historic district, and pa rking.
Business and industry on Route 250, including a pr oposal at I64/Rt. 250 in the Yancey Mills ar e a
(outside of the Gr owth Area)The c urrent master pla n discourages furthe r c ommercial de ve lopme nt
along Route 250; however, citiz e n re quests to change the plan have bee n re c e ived and must be
considered with this update.
Crozet’s prospe c ts for greater ec onomic selfsufficie nc y
Other Foc us Areas to Re vie w :
PRESERV IN G CROZET AS A SMALL TOWN
Mainte na nc e of the community’s determination to pre se rve and enha nc e its small town c ha ra c te r, its neighborhoods, and
its distinc t ide ntity, and public sa fe ty /crime pre ve ntion
TRANSPOR TATION
Strategies for ne e de d transportation improvements and a ssuring adequacy for ne w developme nt.
Providing for side walks, bike pa ths, tra ils and gree nwa y pa ths in Croze t a long with bus and ra il se rvice.
Review ma ste r pla n recommende d inte rconnections (ne w roads) betwe e n O ld Trail Drive a nd Croz et
Avenue (Route 240).
Expectations for w idth, functiona lity, a nd appearance (Entra nce Corridor Guide lines) of Croz e t A ve nue,
Three Notc h’d Roa d, and Easte rn A ve nue.
ENVIRON MENT AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Priority area s a nd for public inve stme nt in infrastructure a nd services (roa ds, fa c ilities, public buildings)
Growing Gre e ne r; Preservation of stre a ms and woode d a re a s/loss of ope n spa c e ; Protecting the w a te r
supply; Pa rks a nd greenways
Recycling; Sc hool fa cility needs a nd re districting, Re la tionship of water supply a nd sewer ca pa c ity to
new developme nt
Go to ne xt a tta chment
Return to e xe c summary
C R OZET MA STER PLA N 2009 U PD ATE (Last Revised 92809)
Process & Tentative Schedule/Approximate D ates
Town Hall Meeting
Sept 30 Update on Master Plan R evision
Community Facilities/Services Updates
C OMMUNITY FOR UMS B EGIN D U RING CC A C OR CC A MEETIN G TIMES (10/092/10) OR DER
A ND SC HEDULING MAY SH IFT DUR IN G TH IS TIME FRAME
October Forum on Land U se Map showing changes we have already heard from
community; some areas on the map will w ait until subsequent topics are addressed
N ovember Dow ntown
D ecember Jobs/housing balance/LI
(Nov & D ecWork sessions with PC & BOS on LI issues)
January 2010 Land Use/D ensity
February Transportation/Greenways/Bike Planning, and Strategies on Community Facilities
STAFF WOR K
Feb – March Staff synthesizes information into preliminary recommendations on
revisions/updates to master plan
March CC AC review of draft recommendations
A pril PC review of draft recommendations from staff and CCAC
PC provides comments and changes
May Community meeting on preliminary draft and recommendations
May PC reviews community comments and advises staff on final changes needed
June Staff prepares final D raft Plan for public hearing
July 2010 Planning C ommission holds public hearing and makes recommendation to Board of
Supervisors
Re turn to exe c summa ry
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 15, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting, work session and public hearing on Tuesday,
September 15, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesv ille, Virginia.
Members attending were Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman; C alvin Morris, D on Franco, Bill Edgerton, Eric Struck o,
Chair and J ulia Monteith, AICP, nonv oting representativ e for the University of Virginia w ere present. Marcia Joseph
was abs ent.
Other officials present were Lori Allshouse, Manager of Strategic Planning and Performanc e; Judy W iegand, Senior
Planner; Lee C atlin, C ommunity Relations Manager; Ron Lilley, Project Manager of Department of Office of
Facilities Development; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Dav id Benish, Chief of Planning; W ay ne C ilimberg,
Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
C all to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Struck o called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and establis hed a quorum.
W ork Sessions:
CCP200800002Crozet Master Plan Five Year Update
Review of focus areas for revision to the Master Plan and public proc ess (R ebecca R agsdale)
In Ms. Ragsdale absence, Ms. Echols and Mr. Benish presented the information.
Ms. Echols presented a Pow erPoint presentation on CCP200800002 Crozet Master Plan Five Year Update and
distributed copies of the tentative schedule.
The C rozet Master Plan (CMP) was the first master plan to be completed in the County and w as adopted by the
Board of Superv isors on December 1, 2004, for the Community of Crozet. The Master Plan process included an
extensive public participation proces s and resulted in a comprehensive plan amendment that updated the land
use designations for Crozet.
The fivey ear update was initiated by the Board of Superv isors in January of this year. The Planning
Commission and Board both endorsed the public participation plan presented by Lee C atlin, Community
Relations Direc tor. The expec tation was that s taff and the Croz et C ommunity Adv isory Council (C CAC) would
bring the list of Focus Areas to the C ommission and Board for endorsement, prior to beginning work on the
revis ion.
Ov er the last sev eral months , s taff and the CCAC have put together the recommended list of Focus Areas. The
proposed list was developed after two public meetings, completion of a community questionnaire, staff input,
and dis cussion at several CCAC meetings. This staff report details the list of Focus Areas and plan to be
follow ed for preparing the recommended revisions to the plan.
Staff recommends that the C ommission review and affirm the Focus Areas for revision and update of the C roz et
Mas ter Plan and endorse the general public proc ess for developing strategies to address the Focus Areas.
Tonight s taff is looking for the Planning Commission’s endorsement of the plan. This item will then go to the Board
of Supervisors in about three weeks for the Board to accept the lis t and the proposed process or modify it. Staff
hopes on October 15, which is a CCAC date, to have the firs t of a series of forums, which is the process they want
to use to gain input to get the rev ision done. From September, 2009 to July, 2010 they are work ing to develop the
recommendations that would then go to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors.
To dev elop the focus area staff has gone through s everal different venues. The Board of Supervisors has given a
directive on which focus areas they are interested in having everyone look at. The Planning C ommission has also
had some endorsements of partic ular areas. They have had some applications from property owners. The CCAC
has had a list of focus areas that they are interested in. Staff has worked with the C CAC and jointly come up w ith
this list. The CCAC has gotten a lot of input from the public . They had an extensive questionnaire. The
questionnaire results hav e been provided in the Commission’s pac ket. The meetings and open houses have been
held to gain input to make sure that it is the right lis t. It is about an update to the Master Plan and not about a
rewrite. There is an opportunity to go really far into this if they want to, but what staff is hearing from the Croz et
community is that the plan is not in bad shape. The plan jus t needs a few changes, some updates and
clarifications.
There are three critical areas that staff is interested in s eeing some clarifications or potential changes:
Addressing the population is sue including the density of the fringe;
The Downtow n; and
Business es and Industries particularly on Route 250 including the Yancey Mills area. Staff is looking at
how the community can improve its prospec ts for economic s elf sufficienc y.
With regards to the population estimate and projection the Master Plan text refers to a population of 12,000 and in
some places 12,500. However, the land use designation s how n on the current Master Plan allow for a greater
potential ultimate population of up to 24,758. The plan with the colors relate to the table, which has the lis t of us es
and the densities. W hen the land use map is updated it will represent the new development that has taken place.
Staff is looking to see whether or not there are any c apacity changes that take place just because of the new
development shown on the plan. Not all parcels develop at their full potential in terms of density. So there w ill be
places w here there w ill be less density that actually develops than what is shown on the plan. Staff w ants to get
that updated so they know w here the starting point is. Staff expects that in this table that there are probably going to
be some adjustments to the densities to make sure that they really fit in with what the expectations for Crozet are.
Both staff and the CCAC have worked v ery hard on developing a list of focus areas.
The map in the packet shows the two other critical areas. The first has to do with Dow ntown. One of the goals of
the Crozet Master Plan is to enhance the vitality of D owntown. There have been s ome reques ts to expand the
Downtow n further north and s ome other ideas about expanding the D owntown further east perhaps to c reate a
relations hip between the ConAgra/Music Today area and the Downtown. So they w ant to look at those tw o areas to
see whether or not any recommendations for adjustments to where the Dow ntown boundaries are warranted.
The plan needs to consider how the historic district w ould relate to the Dow ntown properties. The Crozet D owntown
district is promoting redev elopment of properties in the D owntown area. Some of these properties are contributing
structures to a potential historic district. So knowing what it is they w ant to retain of those properties for the historic
district in the Downtown area is fairly important.
The third area is to look at the business and industry aspects of Crozet. Currently there is an employment area at
the lumber yard and at the Mus ic Today/Ac me area. Those are the expected employment district areas. There w as
another ex pected in the Old Trail area. The Board and Commission have been looking at the Light Industry
inventory. There needs to be a determination made fairly soon as to whether or not the C ounty believes that Croz et
should have more Light Industrial designated land, Light Industrial zoned land or both. The Commission remembers
the Yancey CPA, which w as outside the development area boundaries. The C ommission review ed the Yanc ey
CPA and did not recommend including the land in the development area or with the applicant proceeding with that
proposal. The Board of Superv isors asked that the Commission relook at that issue as part of this Mas ter Plan
process .
There are several other CPA requests including one at the corner of Route 250 and Crozet Avenue. The
Commis sion said that this particular issue should be review ed with the Master Plan. There have been requests to
remove roads from the Master Plan, which will be rev isited at the requests of some applicants.
Other areas for review are not as c ritic al and are more about strategies. One of the most often heard statements in
the questionnaire was the importance of preserving C rozet as a small town. Public safety and crime prevention
were very important. They w ill be relooking at the strategies to see if they need to be enhanced. The transportation
update will need to addres s expectations for functionality and appearance of Crozet Avenue, Three N otc hed Road
and a review of Eastern Avenue. There is also a desire to look at the Entrance Corridor Guidelines to see whether
or not they need to be made specific to Crozet. There is some interest to request the Board to remove the Entrance
Corridor Guidelines for this particular area. The plan did not address a c ouple of the main roads that they need to be
looking at. It did address Eastern Avenue, but that needs to be reviewed to see if that s hould be the plan.
Strategies will also be looked at for transportation improvements in ensuring adequacy of infrastructure for new
development, including new roads. Strategies will be looked at for providing s idew alks, bike paths, trails and
greenway paths in Croz et along w ith bus and rail service. Our existing strategies should be updated as necessary .
Strategies for preservation of streams of wooded areas and looking at loss of open space will be rev iewed as well
as protecting the water supply and building parks and greenways. On the last few master plans staff has been
talking about priority areas for public investment. This plan does not have those kinds of priority areas
establishment w ith the exc eption of the Downtown. Staff w ill w ant to bring this plan into line with the other plans in
how they are recommending priority areas . Other topics to be looked at include: recycling school facility needs and
potential redis tric ting; the need for c ommunity sc hools and the relationship of water supply and sewer capacity in
new development. These things are about relooking at what has already been done to make sure that the strategies
are appropriate or to enhance them. The Guiding Princ iples of the Master Plan that were adopted in 2004 are still
planned to guide this partic ular update.
The public participation plan has been put together to try to get public input from the community mostly through
forums on those particular focus area topics. Staff talk ed to the C CAC about potentially using their meeting dates
and times for holding those forums. There have been s ome discussions about that as w ell as using the time of the
CCA. There is a CCAC meeting on Thursday night.
A tentative schedule was prepared by staff and the CC AC, which was prov ided in the staff report. The Board of
Supervisors at the request of Ann Mallek made a directive to the Planning C ommission that instead of having the
Commis sion begin looking at the update in August that the C ommission would have a recommendation in July .
Staff reviewed the sc hedule to see if there was any way to shorten that time period. The tentative schedule w as
distributed tonight that shortened the time period at the end. The schedule may need to be modified to deal with the
Light Industrial discussion. The Planning Commiss ion will change in January after the election. The new Planning
Commis sion and Board may have some thoughts that might be different. Staff w ants to give those two groups the
opportunity to have some weigh in since they will be the ones that will ultimately looking at the Mas ter Plan. There
may be some shifting around on some of the topics particularly on the new Light Industrial land after the new
members are in place. The revised schedule w ill be reviewed at the CCAC meeting on Thursday.
Staff invited questions from the Commission. She asked if the focus areas that have been identified appropriate. Is
the proc ess scheduling and sequencing of events appropriate? Once the Commis sion has their disc ussion and
heard from the public staff would like the C ommission to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors either
with this particular s et of foc us areas and public participation plan or one that they w ish to rec ommend w ith
modifications.
Mr. Struck o invited questions for staff.
Mr. Loach noted that the population issue is very important to the community . There still seems to be some
vagueness in w hat the original intent of the Master Plan was . The first question is from the implementation handout
that went to the public . Is not the Crozet Master Plan based on a total population of 12,000 with 4,500 households ?
He asked if that was the original intent of the Master Plan.
Mr. Benish replied that the focus of the Master Plan w hen it was drafted was under the ass umption of the Board of
Supervisors that they were looking at a planning horizon at that time. What staff realized w hen the questions came
up about that capacity w as they had a capac ity that far exceeded what they expec ted over that 20 year period that
was entirely inconsistent with that type of target.
Mr. Loach pointed out that he did not k now how that could be. In as much as w hat they had from the Master Plan
from the consultants was a table that showed neighborhoods and within each neighborhood it show ed what the
residential population would be or number of houses per say and the amount of commercial space. W hat they had
at some point was an inc onsistency between the colors on the map and what that table w as. H e noted that he
understands that. The question was is that they were not off by a fac tor of a couple of percentage points to stand a
deviation or two. They w ere off by 100 percent. It seemed when they were off by a 100 percent he did not
understand how the decision was made not to take the colors on the map and make them equivalent to the table
which the community had been told was the population build out. He would be glad to quote Mr. Struck o, Mr.
Rooker and a number of other people w ho were before all of the Planning Commiss ions and Board of Supervisors
who consistently said that this population w as going to be between 12,000 and 12,500. He pointed out that this
number w as not picked by the Crozet Community Association or by the community . It was a number that w as
given as a result of the first D ISC s tudy by the consultant who said that the ideal maximum population for Croz et
was 12,198. What he was saying is that if population is an issue and when he reads in the report that says that
population potentials of upward of 16,000 and abov e he thought that they have to start in their discussions to get
more tow ards what the original goal and intent of the C rozet Master Plan w as. H e noted that he asked Ken Swartz,
who was the consultant, what his plan was built on and he said it w as 12,000. In regards to population he thought
that they now need to make sure that the colors now match the actual plan that was done by the community.
Mr. Benish said that in terms of the foc us areas that was certainly one of the focused areas they w ant to
concentrate on. They need to get the total population and the land use designations right.
Mr. Loach said that his second point was in regards to the paragraph on the third page of the Crozet questionnaire.
His view of the questionnaire was that what it did was to v alidate the work of the Crozet Adv isory Committee.
Essentially on a number of these points the Crozet Advisory Committee has already taken a position. What this
survey has done is to validate the positions they had taken with over 700 people out of a population of 5,000. He
felt that was fairly strategically significant. Again, it does substantiate the work that has already been done by the
community . To that end it say s the open ended qualitative responses will be us ed in developing the next phases of
community input and eventual strategies for addressing the focus area. He asked someone to explain w hat an open
ended qualitative response is and how they feel this w ould be more strategic significant than the survey in
address ing the focus areas. He felt that a lot of these points have been tak en up by the committee and that the
survey validates what the committee has done.
Ms. Catlin clarified that the questionnaire had some ques tions that w ere on a scale of 1 to 10 and rate these kinds of
things. Some w ere open ended questions that said if one believes this then why or tell us other c omments. Those
are the open ended questions that staff is referring to. The open ended questions were the ones staff was not able
to put together how many people ans wered this or that. It w as more subjec tive in terms of people giving opinions.
That is the information they will be delving into more that they w ill be giving out to the subcommittees and that the
CCAC will be examining as they are looking to put together strategies over the next couple of months. It is all
information that is from the questionnaire.
Ms. Porterfield asked w hich is the chick en and eggs the 12,000 or 24,000 number.
Ms. Echols replied that in terms of the s taff’s approach it is working with the community on getting at what w ould be
the ideal work out.
Staff wants it to be an iterated process where firs t they start by looking at the map and w hat has dev eloped and
what has not developed. If there are areas that have been developed or at least platted showing a lot less
dens ity then what they were intended to have that is going to start to reduce the capacity number. The other
thing is to start looking at the colors on the map. There are s ome areas circled on the map. The dark colors
have the highest intensity. In Old Trail it does not show the plan for the density or the intensity that is expected
in that area. The W esthall rezoning w as a R6 development w ith proffered plan. It w as shown in a C T4 area,
which had a tremendous amount of potential for both development and mixture of uses with some fairly high
intensity us es. The first thing they would be looking at is where they have these properties they w ould look at
the centers. There is another area that has been platted, which does not look lik e w hat is shown on the map.
The second thing has to do w ith looking at the fringes. What the table has are numbers that perhaps are in
excess of what the ex pectation for this area should be.
In terms of w hat the table say s it talk s about the net residential density of 4.5 acres in the c enter of a hamlet
but mostly the neighborhood villages 12 dwelling units per acre and up to 18 dwelling units per acre in the center
of a neighborhood village. Onc e they look at these c enters and decide w hether that really w as suppose to be a
center and does it really make s ense, that des ignation may go down and where the centers are they expect
thes e numbers to be revisited and potentially reduc ed. That is the first step towards look ing at the dens ity
picture. They need to look at these areas where there are some residential development shown that is actually
zoned Light Industrial. That is where input is needed from the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commiss ion
on whether those areas should be designated for Light Industrial. That may take out some of the capacity or
designate it for employment uses. Also in the Dow ntown area if there needs to be more area designated for
employment that has residential in it now it will go down. The first step is to look at the map, look at what has
been platted, look at w hat has been developed and then relook at the designations to see if it right. That number
would be added up to see what the map says in terms of capacity and then look at that with the idea of what is
the sewer capacity, what are the road capacity iss ues and work w ith the community to come to w hat ought to
be the ideal build out of Crozet.
Ms. Porterfield reiterated that the map and colors are going to be the starting point, which means the s tarting point is
up to the 24,700 population.
Mr. Benish noted that the eye is always on the target of getting the population down to w hat the ex pectation was .
They w ould like to take the planning approach to determine what the best type of mix of uses is and reflect w hat has
happened over time and go through that planning proces s to get dow n to what the real capacity is right now and then
look at that capacity against that 12,000 target. They want to take the planning assessment approach to see where
today that high number is because it is probably not at 24,000.
Ms. Porterfield noted a problem in trying to determine the beginning point since it appears that the text refers to one
thing and the maps refer to something else. She felt that it would be helpful for the disc ussion for ev eryone to know
how they got something that is so dis parate in the original Master Plan.
Mr. Edgerton agreed that it was a good question. In defense on the 12,000 if they look at the planning perimeter of
20 years, which is what a Comprehensive Plan and Master Plan does, he did not k now the 24,000 number that
everybody has been so w orried about was ever anticipated within a 20 year period. He thought that both numbers
are right. The land use c apacity in this area will go above the 12,000. But if the community grows as anticipated
over the nex t 20 years of c ourse they have some variables as in the last year since economic ally things have
slowed way dow n. W hat Ms . Echols and Mr. Benish are saying is obvious ly the right approac h in this 5year
review. This is exactly why they need a 5year review . The right approach is to look at what has happened in the 5
years since the plan was developed as far as dens ity. A lot of the areas on the map and schedules hav e not
developed that way at all. In recalling the rezoning in the last 5 years in Crozet he could not remember a single
rezoning that has accomplished what the schedule said they should as far as density . He questioned if staff has
tracked that information. H e remembered that they were not able to reach the target of growth in the development
area due to market demands.
Mr. Loach noted that with the exception of Foothill Crossing all of the other developments including Old Trail, Liberty
Hall, Westfall, have fallen within the higher brackets of the development density . Again, he pointed out that the
original Master Plan for the 20 year is what they were told they estimated it to build out. In other w ords they would
be at their borders. But they did move s ome of the borders around to accommodate that.
Mr. Benish said that what staff is seeing is that they hav e some intensities of development that are too high for
Crozet regardless of what that minimum number was. It is a form and character that is probably not right for Croz et
right now . They would rather put an eye to where they are right now , how close are they to that 12,000 target, what
the land uses they w ant are and the form that they really want now looking at this 5 years from now and measuring
that. It is with that eye that they are trying to achieve a much lower target here. It is s omething that was the intent
of the original plan.
Mr. Loach noted that there also w ere some other decisions that were made that s ort of nullify the plan. In other
words if they look at the area between ConAgra and 250 w here those higher densities are located there w as
supposed to be a school site in there. The s ites were so they would be a walkable neighbor to the s chool. In the
interim they decided that they would increase Brownsville and H ensley . It kind of negates the need for that. If that
was the idea of making these compac t walkable neighborhoods that by making those other decisions they have k ind
of gotten away from that.
Mr. Benis h noted that s taff’s intent today was to make sure that they have caught the focus areas and not to delve
into too much detail in the substance of thos e. He asked if they are capturing the right ones or are there other areas
that are not covered
Mr. Loach said that this has been discussed at the Crozet Adv isory Committee in depth. So he thought that the
areas have been covered well. He had a concern when they said that the County should decide whether Croz et
needs more LI. It seems that when a growth area comes up with a master plan that is consistent with the Comp
Plan and what that grow th area wants it seems that these sorts of decisions should be within the c ontext of the
community that is going to have to adjust to them. Most of the people in Crozet felt that essentially the master plan
was a contract with the County and they did their part. If they go back to the advisory committee and would tell
them that all of the time and effort that they are putting in is just suggestions and that may or may not be taken into
consideration it w ill have an entirely different impact. He thought that they were going to see that with Places29 as
well.
Mr. Strucko clarified the three c ritical focus areas w ere the land use that delves into the population question, the
Downtow n area is the c entral business region and bus inesses along Route 250 with the question of light industrial
as a possibility.
Ms. Echols referred to attachment F that has a list of the focus areas that have been identified. They are critical
areas of addressing the population, density at the fringe of the dev elopment areas, the Downtown business and
industry on Route 250 including the proposal at I64/Route 250 in the Yancey Mills area outside of the growth area,
and Crozet’s prospec ts for greater economic self sufficiency. The other focus areas are the ones that deal more
with strategies and updating information on w hat they have now in making sure they k now where they w ant to go
with them. Those are pres erving Crozet as a small plan and transportation, environment and community facilities.
Mr. Struck o noted that s taff w anted the C ommission to c onfirm the tentative schedule passed out and attachment F.
Ms. Echols pointed out that staff was most interested in the sequencing and making the C ommission aw are that the
Board wants the Commission to take an action in July of next year.
Mr. Struck o asked if any Commissioner had questions about Attachment F, the focus areas, and the actual tentative
schedule of events. He noted that several of the Commissioners would not be here past September. So he would
have to weigh in whether it is appropriate for him to make a decision on critical areas or should they build in a time
sometime after December for a new Commission to revisit it to give them an opportunity to make any adjustments
they see necessary.
Mr. Morris asked if the CC AC is in agreement with Attachment F, and Mr. Loach replied y es that it was consistent
with the past meetings with staff.
Mr. Franco noted that the evaluation of the changes that have occurred since the plan was adopted will occur in
October. He questioned if the land us e density ought to be in November as the next issue or talk about Downtow n.
Mr. Loach felt that it w as fine the way it was. H e thought that the CCAC can handle any of the changes that they
see will be necessary. He would defer to the CCAC since they act as his advisory group when it c omes to make
these decisions. There have been decisions made. In order to shorten this proc ess the C CAC could reconfirm that
the dec isions they have made are valid. He thought that the schedule is fine.
Mr. Struck o opened for public comment and invited the first speaker to c ome forward.
Mike Marshall, C hairman of the C rozet Adv isory Council, noted that they make a plan and then there is what
happens . He made the follow ing comments.
The CCAC has looked at these focus areas extensiv ely and agree bas ically with w hat has been presented to
the Commission. They see the population issue as the main thing that the community wants addressed. He
asked to make a brief statement to address the reason this is foremost in the community’s mind. As Mr. Loach
said at the time the master plan was drawn Crozet was a town of 2,500 people. In 1980 a Comprehensive Plan
for Crozet was created w hich assigned zoning in all the parcels. The total density in that zoning comes to about
12,000. In 20012002 over a course of about 8 to 10 months s everal large farms in the development area were
sold to developers. The citizens realized that these dev elopers were likely to operate independently and not
necessarily coordinate their plans . The town asked to be master planned so that all of these projects could be
rationalized. They thought that they were going to rationale them within the ultimate population that already
existed. They w ere going to tak e these plans and make sure that the 12,000 made sens e w ith the new
subdivisions that were coming and so forth. That is why the master plan was what it w as in their mind in that
way. In 2004 the plan was adopted.
The first thing that happened was the Old Trail rezoning. The Old Trail rezoning basically assigned all of the
slack in the growth area to Old Trail. The town felt that they had been betrayed and that the plan had not been
follow ed. It immediately rais ed this whole population question in the town. That has persisted to this day . In
response they heard from the county that it was a 20 year plan and it was not going to happen or they actually
had more capacity. Neither of those res ponses actually has satisfied the community in Croz et. As Mr. Loach
said they entered into it willingly and they agreed to be 400 percent than they were and they wanted to be good
citizens about preserving the rural areas, etc. But they felt a little taken advantage of when the implementation
decis ions came around.
He s aid that there is a plan and then there is what happens. In the five years s ince the plan was adopted four
locations have actually materializ ed as Mr. Loach said. It happened in Downtown, Old Trail, Clover Lawn and
the ConAgra area. It is obvious that densities will continue to develop in those four loc ations. They wonder
why other areas are still in the plan for which there is not plaus ible dens ity to come. They see from the county
some understanding of that point of view that it is possible to negotiate out some of these densities. The other
thing that was rev ealed to the c itizen that was unexpec ted was that on these charts one could have a piece of
property zoned R6, but the plan might say that this might be eligible for a rezoning to R 10. It is plausible that it
might be R10. Or it is plausible that one could actually get to 18 on these properties. This information would
be throw n back to the public when they objected to the dens ities that the developers were proposing. They
would ask how this is possible because they w ere busting the population. They would point to the plan and
thes e numbers. So what the public wants is for these numbers to be drawn down closer to w hat they think is
realis tic. There might be some locations in which higher dens ities mak e sense. That is w hy they do go back
and revisit the plan. The fact of the matter is that the horse is out of the barn. Old Trail is much bigger than
what the thought it should be. It may not be possible to achieve a population of 12,000. It jus t may not be
poss ible.
None the less, the town wants the plan to as Mr. Benish was saying to reflect what its expec tations were really
in the first place. The other thing to remember is that when the plan was adopted they did not have what he
would call suitable zoning for Downtow n C rozet. Even though it was supposed to be the densest place in fact it
had a suburban style zoning, which nobody could get into. One had to proof that they had parking places that
they could not proof that they had, etc. So they have rez oned D owntown Crozet. This rezoning mak es the
dens ity Dow ntown a lot more plausible to achieve. So this is a s ucc ess since then.
Because of that another reac tion in the community has been to put townhouses right on the edge. The c itizens
have a pyramidal concept of dens ity. The idea is that as one gets farther from the middle the densities ought to
be lower. That is another thing that the plan does not explicitly lay that out. That is the second objection.
The third thing, of course, is that some property owners on 250 hav e come forward and wanted to be cons idered
for rezoning. The w ay they have been handled so far is that they have been punted down the line and put into
this process. The CCAC are brave about their opinions and they talk them up. He complimented the County
for res ponding for the most part. They still have an agenda that is not completely in agreement w ith the citizen’s
agenda. But they do hear us pretty well.
In the second category of focus areas he thought that it w as understood. But the newer residents don’t
understand some of thes e questions such as do they have enough w ater or w hat about these roads and so
forth. They are going to go back and look at that to make sure that the plan is still coherent. Their
understanding is that the plan as ratified in 2004 is still basically sound in these areas. But they are going to go
back and look. They don’t think they will require many changes.
One other c omment on the survey is that he noticed in the staff report that there is a line on page 3 that says
the s urvey is not scientific and not strategically valid and not a source about making decisions about the master
plan. The CCAC w as fortunate to have a PHD whose job is to do strategically analysis. He is the person w ho
led the subcommittee who devised the survey . He work s for UVA ITC in analysis of things like this. They
were advised by the County that it was not scientific if they could not prevent a person from filling out more than
one survey and they could not. That is w hy it is called a ques tionnaire and not a survey. He noted that 700
was a good number of people out of 3,000 if the children are taken out. They did their best to provide statistics
valid from the community. H e enc ouraged the Commission to go ahead and ratify this. The c ommunity is well
represented by the opinions and personalities on the Advisory Council. He was pleased that the County
proposed that they have the forum meetings c oinc ide w ith the Advisory C ouncil meetings. He felt that this w as
going to make this much more efficient and help attract the public to the meetings. So far so good and it has
their endorsement.
Mr. Struc ko noted that he granted extra time to Mr. Marshall because he is the C hair of the CC AC. H e inv ited other
public comment.
Gardy Bloemers was present as a member of the Scenic 250 Steering Committee and made the follow ing
comments .
Scenic 250 is a gras s roots organization of like minded Albemarle County residents who have been activ ely
involv ed in a wide range of land use issues in the c ounty for well ov er ten years. She noted that she w as also a
resident of Crozet. R oute 250 w est from Charlottesville to the western boundary of Albemarle has rural, scenic
and historic characteristics which makes 250 West a valuable asset to the greater Albemarle County
Charlottesville c ommunity. They believ e the 250 C orridor is not appropriate for large sc ale commercial
development. She w as present tonight to let the Planning Commiss ion and the citiz ens of the Crozet area know
that they are closely following the findings and activities s urrounding the Crozet Master Plan Fiv e Year Update.
The Scenic 250 Steering Committee shares a majority opinion of the respondents to the C CAC questionnaire as
it relates to commerc ial development in the Corridor.
Specifically, she w as referring to the following:
1. Sixtyeight percent of the respondents agreed with the main principle of the 2004 Master Plan that
D owntown Crozet s hould get firs t priority in commerc ial and residential development and development along
R oute 250 should be discouraged.
2. Fiftyeight percent of the respondents oppose no commercial or industrial development in the vicinity of
Yancey Mills/Interstate 64 interc hange.
CC AC has identified business and industry on Route 250 as one of the focus areas that should be cons idered
by the Planning Commission. They are currently aw are of tw o specific requests which if approved would
involv e a substantial and significant increase to existing commercial development and rezoning of agricultural
and residential land to commercial/industrially. Specifically these include the change of zoning to commercial
for the corner parcel along 240/250 as w ell as the proposed Yancey Mill Business Park. This type of expans ion
clearly conflicts with the principles of the original Crozet Master Plan as well as the Comprehens ive Plan. The
grow th area for C rozet is defined by the Comprehensive Plan and was set and its boundaries created to foster
development in a res ponsible manner. They respectfully request the Planning Commission to tak e their
comments into consideration.
Barbara Westbrook, res ident of Crozet and member of the CC AC, spoke.
The 12,500 figure is a very important is sue. As with most everybody in Crozet they were led to believe that
was going to be the build out figure even though the c olors on the map don’t agree with that. In the Master Plan
that 12,000 figure w as mentioned at least 10 to 12 times. It is not just a one time thing that somebody came up
with. It is really important to the Crozet residents. At one time they had a petition signed by at least 1,000
people in favor of keeping the 12,000 figure. She was not sure if it was submitted to the Board of Supervisors .
That is really important to the community.
The subcommittee w orked hard and put a lot of time in on the ques tionnaire. She worked w ith Tim Tolson w ho
was in charge. She felt that was an important thing for the Commis sion to consider when making any decisions
on C rozet. She personally handed out hundreds of flyers try ing to people to come to Planning Commiss ion and
Board of Supervis ors meetings. One time she handed out 500 fly ers regarding a subdivision that was very
controv ersial to its neighbors and not a single person came to the Board meeting after that. She was very
discouraged. She felt that the 700 people who answered the questionnaire would be insulted if they w ere not
really listened to. That questionnaire is very important.
The majority of the Crozet residents do not want to see more c ommercial development on Route 250. She does
not hear Jarman’s Gap Road mentioned very often, but that is one of the most important roads that need to be
improved and has been pushed back and pus hed back. She had heard the figure 2012 tonight. She hoped that
Jarman’s Gap Road does not get pushed back any more because that is a really strong connection between the
western part of Crozet and Downtown Crozet.
Morgan Butler said that he directs the CharlottesvilleAlbemarle project of the Southern Environmental Law Center.
One of the major focus areas proposed is commercial and industrial activity along R oute 250. That focus area
references the Yancey Mills Business Park propos al. They have spok en to the C ommission about the Yanc ey
proposal on two prior occas ions acknowledging that there may conceivably be situations in whic h a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment request like this might make some sense, but voiced some strong concerns
that the drawbacks of this particular proposal would outw eigh its potential benefits. As staff pointed out the
Board of Supervisors has determined that the potential benefits and drawback s of the Yancey proposal could
best be flushed out and evaluated in the context of the Crozet Master Plan revision.
Tonight is not the appropriate time to argue the merits of the proposal. H owever, they w ould like to suggest a
few areas the review of the Yancey proposal should focus on so that the c ommunity receives all of the
information necessary to make as informed a decision as possible.
First, although the proposal is being studied in the context of the Crozet Master Plan they believ e that it is very
important that staff analy sis of the need for additional offic e space and industrial land consider the inventory of
available land throughout the entire county as opposed to just the C rozet area. Similarly if s taff determines
through that county wide evaluation that more such land is needed they believe that it is c ritic al to consider
potential locations throughout the entire county and not just in and near C rozet. Bas ed on the staff report it
sounds like that is a path staff has taken. But they did want to emphasiz e that a county w ide analysis of both
the need and location questions is c ritical.
Second, the report suggests that a potential benefit of the proposal as it c ould c reate employment opportunities
for Crozet residents hoping to keep Crozet from becoming a bedroom community for Charlottesville. In order to
judge this purported benefit they believe that the review of the proposal must include some analysis of the
perc entage of jobs from this proposal that would likely go to Croz et residents.
Third, they believe that the study must explore how the designation of 150 ac res for a business park just outs ide
of Crozet w ould affect efforts and other goals in the mas ter plan to encourage redevelopment and invigorate the
Croz et Dow ntown area.
In closing, the SCIC looks forward to participating in the master plan review process in helping to ensure that
any changes don’t undermine the main principles of the master plan in the county’s key growth management
strategies.
Neil W illiamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said that this evening they were discuss ing including process
scheduling and sequencing.
U nlike Mr. Butler the Free Enterprise Forum does not take positions on projects. So any projects that might be
referenced in this really are process oriented. Sometime ago he had been mos t critical of a decision this group
made with regard to Places29. They deemed that area to be so important that this group is the Steering
Committee for that body. His question is how in this schedule are the concerns that Mr. Butler and Mr. Marshall
raised with regard to punting some of the applications that have been put forth and how are the county’s
conc erns being addressed. Are they placing staff in the position of s aying what the County’s pos ition is?
He w as mostly concerned when he looks at a v ery aggressive schedule w hich has been handed to the
Commission from the Board of Supervisors and how the interested citizens have a c ontext for their discussion.
An inventory of the Light Industrial that is appropriatenes s would be an excellent tool. However, he wondered if
the goals of the Board of Superv isors will be represented. He noted that the boards will be changing shortly .
How will the Planning Commission weigh in? H e was not really clean on that with the schedule that w as
show n. He was sensitive to staff’s need to get this done. He was also concerned that the Planning
Commission, as the organization that will put a stamp on this, won’t have the opportunity to take a look at the
overall county goals in how this particular Comp Plan revision meets those goals . N o development area is an
island. Each one serves a purpose. Each one is important. Every c itizen’s point of view is important. But it
has to be taken in the full context and this is the body to do that.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko c losed the public comment of this deliberation to bring the
matter before the Planning C ommission. He asked that the Commission provide some directive to staff regarding
focus areas and the s chedule
Mr. Loach said that the Commiss ion has heard from the Chairman of the c ommittee saying that the focus areas and
the proces s and schedules set up is cons istent with the CCAC. Therefore, he felt they should accept the schedule
as proposed by staff and more forward.
Mr. Morris agreed to ac cept the schedule set forth by s taff and move forward with the conditions.
Mr. Strucko said that the focus areas hit the key issues. Ev ery body has a different stance on them, but they
certainly are the key is sues that Crozet has been w res tling with. Some they have been w restling with longer than
others. The population ques tion has been around for at least four y ear. The D owntow n area as the business center
has always been the theme in the master planning proc ess and should continue to be one in the fiveyear review .
This is a more recent iss ue regarding business and industry along R oute 250. It has been around about the past
year or so. Mr. Marshall is right that the county kind of punted to the master planning process as the ideal venue to
really weigh in and determine w hether it is in the community’s and county’s interest to have that kind of expansion of
the growth area for the purposes of business and industry . He tends to agree w ith the focus areas. Two of the k ey
focus areas, the critical ones, will be considered by this Commission and one in January , the land use density, will
be considered by a new Commission. There are potentially two or three Commis sioners that won’t remain. He
asked if it is more appropriate to build in a date when the 2010 Commission can potentially reconsider D owntown
and jobs housing balance in LI after December.
Ms. Ec hols noted that is not the way the schedule is intended to be read. The October through February forums are
for the community. This w ould get to the Planning C ommission in April for consideration.
Ms. Porterfield noted that they have a lot of thes e on their plates right now . They hav e two master plans in
development and a master plan update. She reques ted that staff keep in mind that when the new people come on
the board that the reading to get up to speed is going to be really intense. The Board will need to acknowledge that
the new Commissioners will need ex tra time to be able to make informed decisions. It will depend on what happens
with the other ones.
Mr. Loach said as Ms. Echols explained in the beginning, thankfully a good deal of the plan does not need to be
rewritten. To a great extent the plan itself has been a success. Except for The Square, all of the other business es
are new. There are three new shopping c enters. The adult community part in Old Trail has been approved, which
means there w ill be more jobs there. To a great degree the land use planning that has been done and with the
centers , the master plan and Dow ntown it has really done very well. These are just things that have to be tak en
care of. Outside of the population the things that have been brought up are outside of the master plan.
Mr. Strucko reiterated that he had heard no objection regarding the s chedule ex cept Ms. Porterfield’s comments
regarding w ork load. The k ey issues are right where the Commission expected. He as ked if staff had received the
necessary information.
Ms. Echols replied yes. She reiterated that the Planning Commission had endorsed the foc us areas and the
schedule w ith a cautionary note about the need to allow time for the new Planning Commissioners to come up to
speed.
Mr. Struck o agreed that was the consensus of the Planning Commiss ion.
In summary, the Planning C ommission received a Pow erPoint pres entation, took public comment and
endorsed the Focus Areas to be considered in the revision to the Master Plan and the tentative rev iew schedule
with a cautionary note about the need to allow time for the new Planning Commis sioners to c ome up to speed
in 2010. The Planning Commiss ion’s endorsement letter concerning the focus areas and schedule to be
provided to Board of Supervisors and the Crozet Community Advis ory Council.
Return to exec summary
MEMOR AND UM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Meagan H oy, Senior Deputy C lerk
DATE: October 7, 2009
RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
Attached pleas e find an updated listing of vac anc ies on boards and commiss ions through
December 2009 provided for informational purposes only.
The following Boards and Commissions hav e been advertis ed and applications were received
as follow s:
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee: One v acancy, Planning Commissioner.
Don Franco
Jefferson Area Board for A ging: One vac anc y.
Constance Palmer
N atural Heritage Committee: Tw o vacanc ies.
Stephanie D eNicola
Christopher D umler
Pantops Advisory Council: Tw o vacancies.
Jason Dugas
Public Recreation Facilities A uthority: Two vacancies.
No applications received.
R oute 250 W est Task Force: One vacancy.
Randall Switz
The following reappointments require action by the Board:
Land Use Tax A dvisory Board:
Dan Maupin
Montie Pace
Fred Shields
View vac ancy list
Return to regular agenda
1MEMBERTERM EXPIRESNEW TERMEXPIRESWISH TO BE RE-APPOINTED?ACE Appraisal Review Committee Joseph Samuels12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible ACE Appraisal Review Committee Ross Stevens12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible Albemarle County Service Authority Richard Carter12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, Jack JouettAlbemarle County Service Authority Liz Palmer12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, Samuel MillerAlbemarle County Service Authority Doanld Wagner12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, RioBoard of Building Code Appeals Doug Lowe 11/21/200911/21/2014EligibleBoard of Social Services Kate Rosenfield12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, Samuel MillerBoard of Social Services Mary Lou Fowler 12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, Jack Jouett Board of Social Services Brenda Doremus-Daniel12/31/200912/31/2013Ineligible, District, RioCharlottesville/Albemarle Airport Authority Kurt Goodwin 12/1/200912/1/2012Ineligible, Joint appointeeEqualization BoardAlan Collier12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible, District, RivannaEqualization BoardDavid Cooke12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible, District, Jack JouettEqualization BoardVirginia Gardner 12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible, District, White HallEqualization BoardRosa Hudson12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible, District, Scottsville Equalization BoardKathy Rash 12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible, District, Rio Equalization BoardAlice Nye Fitch 12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible, District, Samuel MillerFire Prevention Board of AppealsFred Huckstep11/21/200911/21/2014Eligible Housing Committee Drew Holzwarth 12/31/200912/31/2012EligibleHousing Committee Ida Simmons12/31/200912/31/2012EligibleHousing Committee Paul Beyer12/31/200912/31/2012EligibleHousing Committee Leonard Winslow 12/31/200912/31/2012Ineligible Joint Airport Commission Kurt Goodwin12/1/200912/1/2012Ineligible Joint Airport Commission William Dirickson 12/1/200912/1/2012Yes, as Joint Rep. w/ City Jordan Development Corporation Scott Huang 8/13/20098/13/2010YesJordan Development Corporation Rosa Hudson 8/13/20098/13/2010No Land Use Tax Advisory Board Dan Maupin9/1/20099/1/2011YesLand Use Tax Advisory Board Fred Shields9/1/20099/1/2011YesLand Use Tax Advisory Board Montie Pace 9/1/20099/1/2011Yes Natural Heritage CommitteePeter Warren9/30/20099/30/2013No Natural Heritage CommitteeJason Woodfin 9/30/20099/30/2013No Pantops Community Advisory CouncilAnthony McHaleTBDNo Pantops Community Advisory CouncilAndrew Dracopoli TBDResigned Planning CommissionEric Strucko 12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, Samuel Miller
Planning CommissionAndres Franco12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, Rio Planning CommissionMarcia Joseph 12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, At-largePlanning CommissionBill Edgerton 12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, Jack Jouett Planning CommissionJulia Monteith 12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible, UVA PRFAJoseph Cochran 12/13/2010Resigned NoPRFALee Rasmussen 12/13/2011Resigned No PRFAHamilton Moses12/13/200912/13/2012Eligible PRFADavid Emmitt 12/13/200912/13/2012Eligible PRFAWilliam Lassetter12/13/200912/13/2012Eligible PRFACraig G. Van de Castle12/13/2010NoRSWA Citizens Advisory CommitteeStephen Kirkup12/31/200912/31/2011Ineligible RSWA Citizens Advisory CommitteeTeri Kent12/31/200912/31/2011Eligible RSWA Citizens Advisory CommitteeJeffery Greer12/31/200912/31/2011Route 250 West Task Force Margaret DeMallie9/5/20099/5/2012NoRoute 250 West Task Force Richard Kast 9/5/20099/5/2012No Revised 9/28/09
DISTRICT IFMAGISTERIALAPPOINTMENTNo Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required Action Required Action Required Action Required Advertised, 2 Recv'd Advertised, 2 Recv'd Advertised, 1 Recv'd Advertised, 1 Recv'd No Action Required
No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required Advertised, 1 receivedAdvertised No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required Advertised No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required Advertised, 1 Recv'dDo not fill vacancy
Page 1 of 5
Allan D. Sumpter Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY MONTHLY REPORT
OCTOBER 7, 2009
MONTHLY MEETING
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOS ACTION ITEMS
David Slutzky
• Pedestrian Signal Installations – Installation of pedestrian signal heads at the intersections of
Rio and Berkmar Roads has been delayed due to discovery of a structural problem with the
signal pole on the southwestern quadrant. This issue has resulted in the need to replace the
foundation and pole. The pedestrian installations will be completed as part of the repairs. This
work is expected to be completed in late October.
Ken Boyd
• Pedestrian Safety at Ashwood Blvd & Powell Creek Drive – A safety study has been conducted
at the intersection. The results indicate a four-way stop is not warranted. Pedestrian warning
signs will be installed on Ashwood Blvd. in advance of the intersection. A crosswalk would be
a possible option if a trail were constructed along Thornridge Way to ensure ADA compliance.
• Lego Drive Traffic Calming – Installation of traffic calming measures on this road in Ashcroft
Subdivision is complete.
Dennis Rooker
• Pedestrian Safety at Albemarle High School - A review of the intersections of Lambs Road,
Hydraulic Road, and Whitewood Road is ongoing. Initial recommendations include the
installation of a “countdown” s ystem to indicate crossing time and additional signing to warn
motorists making right turns to yield to pedestrians. Additionally, timing adjustments have been
made to provide more crossing time for those crossing Hydraulic Road. A field visit with
concerned citizens at the site is being planned.
• Pedestrian Signal Installations – Installation of pedestrian signal heads at the intersections of
Hydraulic and Commonwealth Roads is substantially complete. Activation is expected in early
October.
Ann Mallek
• Intersection Safety at Earlysville Road and Reas Ford Road – A review of this intersection has
been completed with a recommendation to install a “stop ahead” pavement message with
rumble strips on Reas Ford Road.
• Route 250 Safety Stud y @ Cory Farms – A preliminary review of this stretch of Route 250 in
the vicinity of the Cory Farms Subdivision and new commercial developments is underway.
• Sugar Hollow Bridge (Route 614) – Work to rehabilitate the timber decked structure is
underway. Crews have begun substructure work that will allow a slight adjustment to the entry
and exit on each approach. Work to replace the deck is expected to begin October 19th. It is
necessary to make adjustments to the piers and abutments that will accommodate new steel
beams that will allow the new superstructure to carry a legal load. The bridge will be closed to
traffic for approximate five (5) weeks. The detour will be Sugar Ridge and Break Heart Roads
(Route 674).
Sally Thomas
• Safety Review on Owensville Road - A request for a safety study on this route has been
requested.
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 2 of 5
Lindsay Dorrier
• Route 726, James River Road - “Narrow road” signs have been installed at a location
approximately three miles from Scottsville.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Albemarle County
• Route 656 Georgetown Road, 0656-002-254, C501
The public hearing package has been approved. Design staff is currently focused on
maintenance of traffic plans and ways to minimize travel impacts to motorists. VDOT is
reviewing feedback from the County on these plans along with proposed lighting alternatives.
• Route 691 Jarmans Gap Road, 0691-002-258 P101, R201, C501
The right-of-way phase for this project remains ongoing.
CONSTRUCTION Active Construction Projects
0631-002-128, C502, B612, B613, B657 Grade, Drain, Asphalt, Utilities, Signals, Landscaping and
Bridges
• Grading work and storm drain installation continues.
• Structure excavation, forming and placing concrete remains ongoing for the substructure of the
proposed Bridge over Norfolk Southern RR Phase 1 along with substructure work on proposed
Bridge over Meadow Creek.
0743-002-282, B658 Bridge and Approaches over North Fork of the Rivanna River
• Place fill at approaches and place rip rap at abutments.
• Form, place steel and concrete for pier cap.
• Assemble prefabricated steel truss superstructure.
(NFO)PM7P-002-F09, P401 Asphalt Plant Mix Schedule (ARRA Funding)
• NBL Rte. 29 from Rte. 760 to FR 178 is expected to be completed b y the middle of the first
week in October. The contractor will then proceed to Rte. 53 from Rte. 20 to 1.5 miles east. It
is anticipated all work will be completed mid-October.
PLANNING, PERMITS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
Land Development Items Total This
Month
Total This
Fiscal
Year
Special Use Permits and Rezoning Application Review 4 4
Site Plan Reviews for new Subdivisions 8 9
New Entrance Plan Reviews 4 6
Total Permits Processed 38 96
Inspection of new Subdivision Street conducted 29 51
Inspection of new entrance conducted 98 225
Miles of Street Accepted in the State System 0.00 .62
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 3 of 5
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Completed
RTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS
Irish Rd (Rt 6) Rt 20 to Nelson County
line Safety review Field modifications complete
Walnut Level Rd
(Rt 668)
Intersection with CCC
Road (Rt 756) Safety review Rt 668 speed limit posted as 35
mph.
Being reviewed
RTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS
Intersection of
Rio and
Hydraulic
Rt 631/743 Pedestrian study Field modifications being drafted.
Intersection of
Hydraulic &
Commonwealth
Rts 743/1315 Pedestrian study Installation underway.
Intersection of
Rio & Berkmar Rts 631/1403 Pedestrian study Planned for installation this
summer.
Intersection of
Hydraulic &
Lambs
Rts 743/667 Pedestrian study Developing logistics for installation.
Richmond Rd
(Rt 250)
Between Peter Jefferson
Parkway and W orrell Dr.
Request from ACPD to
review the crossover due to
the high accident rate
Under review
Irish Rd (Rt 6) Esmont Safety review of Intersections Under review
Whippoorwill Rd.
(Route 839) Entire Route Speed study Under review
Dunlora Drive
(Rt 1177) Entire Route Traffic calming Preliminary review underway to
determine eligibility.
Ivy Road (Rt
250)
Between Crozet Ave. and
Three Notchd Road Speed study Under review
Ashwood Blvd.
(Rt 1670)
Intersection with Powell
Creek Dr. (Rt 1521) Pedestrian study Under review
Hydraulic Rd.
(Rt 743)
Intersection with Lambs
Ln (Rt 657)
Pedestrian study – Crosswalk
Timing Under review
Park Ridge Dr.
(Rt 1250)
Intersection with
Stonegate Ln (Rt 1258) Multi-way stop Under review
MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED
Patching after ADC Pipe replacements on Routes 635 (Craig Store Rd), 713 (Dyers Mill Ln),
795 (Blenheim Rd), 712 (North Garden Ln), and 723 (Chestnut Grove Rd).
Cleared pipes and performed ditch work on Routes 674 (Sugar Ridge), 614 (Garth Rd), 658
(Barracks Farm), 29 (Seminole Tr), 743 (Woodlands), 250 (Ivy Rd), 673 (Breakheart), 674
(Sugar Ridge), 614 (Garth Rd), 623 (Snow Hill Ln), 640 (Turkey Sag Rd), 759 (Three Chopt
Rd), 616 (Black Cat Rd), 600 (Stony Point Pass), and 641 (Burnley Station Rd).
Tree cleanup on Routes 53 (Thomas Jefferson Pkwy) and 231 (Gordonsville Rd); day lighting
signs on Routes 743 (Earlysville Rd), 1403 (Berkmar), and 665 (Buck Mtn); tree removal on
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 4 of 5
Routes 676 (Woodlands), 675 (Lake Albemarle), 691 (Ortmand Rd), 692 (Plank Rd), and 602
(Howardsville Tpke).
• Mowing Routes 643 (Polo Grounds Rd), 644 (Burnley Rd), 600 (Stony Pt Pass), 649 (Proffit Rd),
641 (Burnley Station Rd), 640 (Gilbert Station Rd), 231 (Gordonsville Rd), 616 (Black Cat &
Union Mills Rds), 53 (Thomas Jefferson Pkwy), 729 (N. Milton Rd), 22 (Louisa Rd), 1444
(Ricky Rd), 1472 (Old Forge Rd), 676 (Woodlands), 606 (Dickerson), 631 (Rio West), 657
(Lambs Rd), 743 (Earlysville Rd), 656 (Georgetown Rd), 1430 (Solomon Rd), 680 (Browns Gap),
691 (Jarmans Gap), 635 (Miller School), 654 (Barracks Rd), 815 (Bellair Ln), 634 (Spring Valley
Rd), 702 (Reservoir Rd), 782 (Stribling Ave), 810 (Crozet Ave), 692 (Plank Rd), 818 (Locust
Hollow Rd), 633 (Heards Mtn. Rd), 698 (Hungrytown Rd), 748 (Broken Sun Rd), 250 (Ivy Rd and
Rockfish Gap Tpke), 745 (Poorhouse Rd), 745 (Arrowhead Valley Rd), 601 (Garth), 6 (Irish Rd),
630 (Green Creek Rd), 721 (Old Dominion Rd), 717 (Old Sand Rd), 717 (Secretarys Sand Rd), 670
(Damon Rd), 712 (Plank Rd), 692 (Plank Rd), 813 (Starlight Rd), 856 (Burton Ln), 712 (North
Garden Ln), 711 (Burton Rd), 1168 (Shady Grove Ct), 1169 (Homestead Ln), 760 (Red Hill
School Rd), 767 (Rabbit Valley Rd), 774 (Bear Creek Rd), 697 (Sutherland Rd), 633 (Cove
Garden Rd), 699 (Boaz Rd), 719 (Alberene Rd), 715 (Esmont Rd), 627 (Porters Rd), 753
(Paces Store Rd), 631 (Appleberry Mtn Rd), 708 (Red Hill Rd), 723 (Chestnut Grove Rd),
723 (Sharon Rd), and 692 (Plank Rd).
• Grading, machining and adding stone to gravel roads on Routes 640 (Gilbert Station Rd), 746
(Fosters Branch Rd), 611 (Jarmans Gap), 671 (Wesley Chapel), 685 (Barracks Farm), 668 (Fox
Mtn), 673 (Breakheart), 643 (Rio Mills), 606 (Dickerson), 698 (Hungrytown Rd), 748 (Broken
Sun Rd), 634 (Spring Valley Rd), 787 (Gillums Ridge), 824 (Patterson Mill), 636 (Batesville
Rd), 637 (Dick Woods Rd), and 633 (Heards Mtn. Rd).
• Sidewalk cleaning on Routes 1427 (Hillsdale Dr), 250 (Richmond Rd), and 20 (Stony Pt Rd).
• Dust control Routes 250 (Rockfish Gap), 636 (Batesville Rd), 637 (Dickwoods Rd), and 787
(Gillums Ridge Rd).
• Dead animal pick up on all routes
• Bridge work Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road).
• Repair hole Route 678 (Owensville Road).
• Traffic control for UVA football games.
PLANNED MAINTENANCE WORK – NOVEMBER 2009
• Maintenance activities are continuing on various routes. They include:
o Pavement patching.
o Machining gravel roads.
o Dust control.
o Mowing on secondary routes.
o Cleaning ditches and pipes.
o Litter pickup on various routes.
o Tree trimming and removal various routes.
o Repair surface treatment and tar and gravel in failed areas on Route 723 Chestnut Grove
Road.
o Install Pipes Routes 611 (Jarmans Gap Road) and 673 (Slam Gate Road).
o Patrol and maintain Interstate I 64 as required
o Place class II rip rap at wing wall to correct erosion problem at the bridge on Route 691,
Wyant Lane.
o Replace cross pipe Route 20, Valley Street.
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 5 of 5
MAINTENANCE BUDGET
0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 7
0
5
10
15
20
Jul-09 Aug -09 Sep-09 Oct-0 9 Nov-09 Dec-09 J an-10 Feb-10 M ar-10 Apr-1 0 M ay-1 0 Jun-10 MillionsMonths
TOTAL M AINT BUDGET
FORECASTED EXPENDIT URES
CUM ULATIVE ACTUAL
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Amendment to the FY2009/10 through 2014/15 Six
Year Secondary System Construction Program
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work ses sion to consider a proposed amendment to
the Six Year Secondary System Cons truction Program
to trans fer road paving funds to the Broomley R oad (Rt.
677) Railroad Bridge Project and to remov e the
Dickerson Road Project (R t. 606) from the Program.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
Benish, and W ade
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 7, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
At it’s September 5, 2009 meeting, the Board directed staff to proceed with an amendment to the approved VDOT
Six Year Secondary System Construction Program (the “Program”) in order to trans fer unpaved secondary road
funds from the Dickerson Road Paving Project to the Broomley Road Railroad Bridge Improvement Project.
The es timated cost for the Dickerson R oad Paving Project and related bridge improvements is $11,600,000, of
which VDOT has allocated approximately $1.6 million in unpaved road funds to date. The County is not scheduled to
receive any additional paving funds over the next five years; therefore, the D ickerson Road Paving Project could not
move forw ard to cons truction in the foreseeable future.
The ex isting Broomley R oad bridge s tructure has a weight limit of eight tons and cannot be used by large emergency
vehicles. Replacing the bridge is the only means of providing a structure adequate to carry all emergency vehicles.
In order to amend the approved Program, the locality mus t hold a public hearing on the proposed Program
amendment, the Board must adopt a Resolution to approve the Program amendment, and staff must request that
VDOT amend the Program. The public hearing has been set for October 14, 2009. A draft resolution is attached for
the Board’s review prior to the public hearing (Attachment A).
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County’s Growing Needs.
DISCU SSION :
The Amendment to the VD OT Program:
The ac tual amendment to the VDOT Program w ould remove the Dick ers on Road Project from the Program and
would trans fer the $1.6 million in funds allocated for road paving from that Project to the Broomley Road Bridge
Improv ement Project.
Consistency with County Priority List of Road Improvements:
The proposed amendment to the VDOT Program is c ons istent with the County’s Priority List of Secondary
Improv ements and no amendment to the Priority List is necessary at this time. The C ounty’s Priority List was
approved on May 13, 2009. It identifies the Dickerson R oad Project (including road paving and bridge improvements)
as priority #23 and is c ons idered the highest priority road paving project due to its location within the Hollymead
Development Area. How ever, without additional unpaved road fund alloc ations, any future planned road paving
projects are unlikely to be completed in the near future.
The County‘s Priority Lis t also includes a priority list for bridge improvements. There are three bridge projects listed
ahead of the Broomley Road Bridge Improvement Projec t. The status of the three projects is:
Route 743, Advance Mills under construction
Route 708, Dry Bridge Road In VDOT’s Program to be cons tructed in FY13 with Federal Bridge funds
Route 616, Black Cat R oad In VDOT’s Program to be construc ted in FY15 with Federal Bridge funds
The es timated cost of the Broomley Road Bridge Improv ement Projec t, including roadway approac hes , is $4 million
to $5 million. VD OT s taff has indicated that additional w ork is needed to provide a more accurate es timate. VDOT’s
process is to establish a more detailed cost estimate during the project scoping that occurs after a project is placed
in the Program. If approv ed, the $1.6 million will only allow the Broomley Road Bridge Improvement Project to enter
the preliminary engineering phase. Federal bridge funds are estimated to be available to fund the cons truction of this
project in FY 2017.
Use of Road Paving Funds on Other Projects:
The Board of Supervisors has been informed that, pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.123.1:1, reallocation of road
paving funds to a nonpav ing project w ould result in an adjustment in future secondary fund allocations for unpaved
roads (See Attachment B). For each $250,000 or portion thereof removed from road paving projects and applied to
secondary construction projects under this provision, VDOT has indicated that the amount of the C ounty's
nonsurface treated roads used to distribute funds under this section in subsequent years will be reduc ed by one mile
or proportional part of one mile. The $1.6 million that is proposed to be reallocated represents approximately six
miles that would be reduced in subsequent years from the funding formula used by VDOT. VDOT requires that any
Board resolution supporting the proposed amendment must indicate that the Board/C ounty fully understands that this
adjustment will occur (the attached draft resolution includes such language).
The monetary impact of reallocating the $1.6 million is impossible to determine at this time, since the amount of
future alloc ations is unk now n. However, VD OT estimates that the County could expect to receive about $150,000
less per six year period if funding were restored to prev ious funding levels. In current dollars, this would amount to
the reduction of about one average rural rustic project over the six year period.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There will be no budget impact other than a potential reduction in future VD OT unpaved secondary road funds.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
This is a w ork session to review and discuss the proposal/information provided prior to the public hearing scheduled
for October 14, 2009. N o action is required at this time.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Resolution
B – Virginia State Code, § 33.123.1:1. U npaved secondary road fund c reated; alloc ations
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2009, the A lbe ma rle County Board of Supe rvisors a pproved the County Priority
List of Se c ondary Roa d Improve ments for Fisc a l Y e ars 2009/10 through 2104/15 (the “Priority List”) and
authorize d the County Exe cutive to sign the VD OT Se conda ry Syste m Construc tion Progra m for A lbe ma rle
County (the “A lbe ma rle County V D OT Construction Program”); and
WHEREAS, the Priority List include d roa d improve me nts for State Route 606 (Dic ke rson Roa d)
be tw ee n Route 850 and Route 1575 w hic h would include re pla cing two bridge s a nd re construc ting a nd surfa ce
trea ting the existing nonhard surfa ce d roa d, a nd these improve ments a re ide ntifie d in the Albema rle County
V DOT Construction Program a s V D OT Proje ct N umbe rs 0606002296, 0606002297 and 0606002P75 (the
“Dic ke rson Road Proje c t”); and
WHEREAS, the D icke rson Roa d Proje ct is be ing funde d from the U npa ve d Sec onda ry Roa d Fund
provide d by Virginia Code § 33.123.1:1 but, to da te , only $1.6 million of the estimate d $11.6 million cost to ma ke
the improve me nts has be e n a lloca ted by VD OT; and
WHEREAS, the Boa rd ha s ide ntifie d a more urge nt nee d for a bridge replac e me nt projec t on Broomle y
Roa d, referre d to a s the Broomle y Roa d Railroad Bridge Improveme nt Proje ct (the “Broomle y Roa d Proje c t”)
be c ause the existing bridge has a n eight ton limit tha t re stricts its use by c e rtain e me rgenc y vehic les.
NOW, THER EFORE, be it hereby resolve d tha t the Boa rd of Supervisors requests that V DOT a me nd
the Albemarle County VDO T Construc tion Progra m to add the Broomle y Roa d Proje ct, a nd to re move the
D ickerson Roa d Projec t; a nd
BE IT FU RTHER R ESOLV ED tha t the Board re que sts tha t the Unpaved Se conda ry Road Funds
currently a lloc ate d by V DOT for the D icke rson Roa d Proje ct be a dde d to the County’s Se conda ry Syste m
Construc tion Funds to be use d for the Broomle y Roa d Proje ct as provide d by Virginia Code § 33.123.1:1(C); a nd
BE IT FU RTHER R ESOLV ED tha t the Board a cknowle dge s that, a s provide d by Virginia Code §
33.123.1:1(C), for ea c h $250,000 or portion thereof added to the County’s Se c onda ry Syste m Construc tion Funds,
the a mount of the County’s nonsurfa c e tre ate d roa ds use d to distribute Unpa ve d Se c ondary Roa d Funds in
subsequent ye ars shall be reduce d by one mile or proportiona l part of one mile; and
BE IT FU RTHER R ESOLV ED tha t the County Exec utive is a uthoriz ed to sign the VDOT
Construc tion Progra m tha t is a me nde d c onsiste nt w ith this resolution.
G o to next a tta c hment
Re turn to exe c summa ry
Attachment B
§ 33.123.1:1. U npaved s econdary road fund created; allocations.
A. Before funds are alloc ated for distribution for highway construction pursuant to § 33.123.1 B 1, B 2, and B 3, a
fund shall be established for the paving of nonsurface treated secondary roads whic h c arry fifty vehic les or more per
day. Suc h fund shall contain 5.67 percent of the total funds available for highway construction under § 33.123.1 B 1,
B 2, and B 3.
B. Suc h funds shall be dis tributed to counties in the sec ondary system based on the ratio of nonsurfac e treated
roads in each county c arrying fifty vehicles or more per day to the total number of suc h nonsurface treated roads in
the Commonw ealth.
C. The governing body of any county may have funds allocated to the county under this section added to the
county's secondary sys tem construction funds allocated pursuant to § 33.123.4. For each $250,000 or portion
thereof added to secondary construction funds under this provision, the amount of the county's nonsurface treated
roads used to distribute funds under this section in s ubs equent years s hall be reduc ed by one mile or proportional
part of one mile.
(1979, c. 84; 1985, c. 42.)
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Total Compensation Report
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Acceptanc e of market data for use in budget
development for FY1011, subject to available
revenues and proposed rev isions to Voluntary Early
Retirement Incentive Program (VERIP)
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Elliot, and Dav is, and Ms.
Suyes, and Ms. Gerome
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 7, 2009
ACTION: x INFORMATION: x
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
In November 2000, the Sc hool Board and Board of Supervisors approved a Total Compensation Strategy to target
employee s alaries at 100% of market median and benefits slightly abov e the market. The adopted market approved
by the Boards is shown in Attachment #1.
This report details the supporting analysis for the recommendations to ac hieve the adopted Total Compensation
Strategy for last year and for the Boards to consider in giving budget guidance to the C ounty Executive and
Superintendent. These projections are presented to the Boards for their information regarding the FY201011 budget
process . It is noted that all final funding is subject to, and based upon, available revenues and Board direction. This
report provides information on:
1) Compensation Strategies
2) Benefits Strategies
3) Review of VERIP Program
Staff recognizes that due to the projected revenue shortfall, funding to support these recommendations may
not be available. However, this information is provided based on the Joint Board’s adopted process to
maintain our Total Compensation strategy.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents.
By June 30, 2009, the Board of Supervis ors and general government employees will increase collaborative efforts
with the School Board and with employ ees of the schools system to as sist the School D ivision to achieve
recognition as a “world class education system.”
DISCU SSION :
To maintain competitiv e c ompensation based on the adopted strategy, tw o separate, but related ac tions are
required:
1) Ensure a competitive salary scale so that the County/School Divis ion is able to attract and recruit
new employees.
2) Ensure c urrent employees are rewarded for performanc e by maintaining internal equity in their pay
range and also maintaining market competitiveness for similar skills.
To adhere to the Boards' adopted strategy, we implement the follow ing processes each year:
1) Annually survey the adopted market to determine the salary scale adjustment implemented in those
localities /schools for the current fiscal year.
2) Annually survey the adopted market to determine the average total s alary increase granted
employ ees in those loc alities/schools for the current fisc al year.
3) This market data is analyzed to ascertain where the salary scales (both classified employee and
teacher) for Albemarle County stand relative to the adopted market and develop recommendations
for next year’s salary inc reases.
4) Obtain data on what other organizations are projecting for salary increases for the next fiscal year
through a compensation database (W orldatW ork, Eastern Region). This data is used to project the
merit increase percentage and develop the teacher scale, including s tep increases.
Section 1: Board Adopted Process for C ompensation Strategy: Market Analysis and Projections
Last year, the projections based on the Joint Board adopted process presented in October were to inc rease the
classified salary scale by 3%, fund a clas sified merit increase of 3.93% and fund teacher increases by 3.3%.
However, due to revenue shortfalls, w e did not fund any increases. The follow ing information is provided to both
Boards to c onsider regarding development of the FY1011 budget.
Step 1: FY0910. Survey the market to determine if the scale adjustment implemented for classified/
administrator and teacher pay scales achieved the strategy.
C lassified/Administrator Scale Adjustments Target median of adopted mark et
A competitive scale is important in attracting new hires. For classified employ ees, the scale adjustment
impacts new hires and any employees with pay rates that might fall below the new minimums . The
Albemarle County scale was not adjusted in FY0910. In rev iewing the salary scale data for FY0910, our
adopted market also did not adjust their scales . However, s ince we started the previous y ear at 0.76
below market, our current scale remains below market by 0.76 %.
Step 2: FY0910. Survey the market to determine if the total salary increase implemented for
classified pay achieved the strategy.
C lassified Total Salary Increas es Target median of adopted market
W e did not have a salary increas e for FY0910. The median s alary increase amount implemented by our
adopted market in FY0910 was also 0%. How ever, we started last year at 0.35 below mark et, which
results in our salaries remaining below market by 0.35%.
Teacher Scale Adjustments Target top quartile (75th percentile) of adopted market
W e did not apply an increase to the teacher sc ale; however market data indic ates that we are in the top
quartile at most steps. Our teac her scales are in the top quartile at: minimum, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years,
and 30 years. Although we did not quite reach the top quartile at both T20 and T25, we are very close. This
is shown in Attachment # 2.
Step 3: Projections for FY1011. B ased on current market position and scale/salary projections,
determine the changes necessary to achieve the Board approved strategy using the W orldatWork,
Eastern R egion data.
C lassified/Administrator Scale Adjustments
The scale adjustment impacts new hires and any employees w ith pay rates below the new minimums.
Adopted Market Salary Scale Median: 0%
Albemarle Scale R elative to Mark et: 0.76%
WorldatWork projec tion for Eastern Region (including Virginia): 1.5%
FY1011 scale adjustment: 1% as the scale adjustment is considered relative to the merit
increase to minimize compression issues.
C lassified/Administrator Salary Increase (merit percentage)
Adopted Market Median increase: 0%
Albemarle Salary Inc rease Relativ e to Market: 0.35 %
WorldatWork projec tion for Eastern Region (including Virginia): 2.25%
FY1011 salary increase: 2.60%
Teacher Scale and Teacher Average Salary Increase
The teacher sc ale is based on the projected total increase obtained from WorldatWork, which projects a
2.25% salary increase. Any inc rease would include the step inc rease.
W orldatwork Projections Compared to Adopted Market
As the information below illustrates, the Worldatwork projection generally has been a reasonable indic ator to rely on
for our market projections w ith last year being an exception. Howev er, given the current state of the economy and
the challenges faced by local governments and school divisions, it is likely that the coming year will be similar to
last year regarding salary increases. Additionally, information obtained from our adopted market illustrates some of
the budget reduction measures other loc alities have implemented and are seriously c ons idering. (Attachment #3)
Year 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010
W orldatwork
Projection
3.7%3.65%3.65%4%3.3%
Adopted Mark et
Median Increase
4%4%4%3.63%0%
Section 2: Benefits Strategy: Projections for Medical and Dental Insurance Premiums
The Joint Board adopted benefits strategy is to maintain a benefit program that is slightly above market. As the
medical plan is a critical component of the benefits package, the plan design and employee premium levels of our
medical plan are carefully reviewed every year.
FY0910 Plan Year
Medical – Our medical insurance cos ts increased by 6% this year. The annual Board c ontribution amount is
$7,045. There were no plan design changes for this plan year.
Dental – Our dental insurance costs (both Board contribution and employee premiums) increased by 6%. The
annual Board contribution amount for dental is $238.
FY1011 Plan Year Projections – Medical and Dental
Based on claims data and reserve balance, along with trend information provided by our benefits consultant, Tom
MacKay with Keiter, Slabaugh, Penny & H olme, LLC, our estimated medical cost inc rease for FY1011 is 810%.
The Health Care Executive Committee in consult with KSPH has established a target of 20% to maintain in order to
sufficiently cover health insurance claims. This is carefully monitored on an ongoing basis. Currently our reserves
exceed 20% and could be used to offset future premiums.
Our dental insurance cost increase is estimated at 5.4%. As we have just started the new plan year, s taff w ill
continue to monitor claims experience and develop rec ommendations for both plan design and premiums as part of
the County Executive’s and Superintendent’s budget proposals.
Section 3: R eview of VER IP
Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program (VER IP)
Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program (VERIP) w as adopted by the Board of Supervisors and School Board
during the summer of 1993 for both School Division and Local Government employees . VER IP is designed for
employees who have already met Virginia Retirement System (VRS) retirement eligibility standards, but are not yet
65. It gives these employ ees an “early” retirement option that assists with medical ins urance costs and supplements
reduced Social Security benefits. VER IP eligibility is defined as follows :
1) Must meet minimum VRS retirement eligibility standards (age 50 with 10 years of service or age 55
with 5 years of servic e);
2) Have worked for Albemarle County for 10 years immediately prior to retirement; and
3) Be employed in a benefitseligible position at time of retirement
There are tw o parts of VERIP Benefits; both are payable for 5 years or until age 65, whichever comes first:
1) Contribution equivalent to the Board medical contribution given to ac tive fulltime employees; and
2) A monthly amount (“stipend”) based on the differenc e betw een the estimated VRS benefit at
retirement, and the estimated benefit the employee w ould receive with an additional 5 years of
service (or the number of years remaining until the employee reaches age 65, whichever is less)
VERIP s erves to incent ex perienced employees (partic ularly those within 1520 years of retirement) to stay with the
organization at least 10 years in order to qualify for the program benefits . The program also serves as an option for
employees who wish to leave the work force, but are still several years away from qualifying for Soc ial Security
retirement benefits. Although retirees can draw Social Security benefits as early as age 62, Medicare is not offered
until the employee has reached the age of 65. As suc h, VERIP benefits, which include up to 5 years of the Board
contribution toward the employee’s health insurance costs, allow employees w ho otherwise would be forced to
remain in the workforc e an opportunity to retire with their health coverage intact until Medicareeligibility .
In order to sustain the c ore components of the Joint Board Adopted Total Compensation Strategy (which are market
competitive salaries and health insuranc e benefits), it is c ritical to ass ess other components of the Total
Compensation Program. Data from the J oint Board adopted market indic ates that the Voluntary Early Retirement
Incentiv e Program (VERIP) benefits ex ceed market levels. Additionally, the R esource Management Study
recommended that the VER IP program should be reevaluated. As a result, the January 8, 2009 Executive
Summary indicated that the market c ompetitiveness of the stipend portion of the VERIP benefit would be
assessed. To this end, a cross departmental workgroup (w ith staff representation from the School D ivision, AEA,
and Loc al Government) was established to assess the VERIP program. The charter for this task force was to
develop strategies and rec ommendations to the Joint Boards. The w ork group met over the past sev eral months to:
Analyze workforce demographic s, market data and employee survey feedback;
Develop recommendations as to the phaseout of the VERIP s tipend;
Develop recommendations regarding the health insurance benefit as it relates to VER IP.
The following summariz es the team’s rec ommendations.
VERIP Stipend
Current market data (Attachment #4) indicates that the level of benefit offered in terms of the stipend exceeds the
majority of other localities, as few localities offer supplemental retirement benefits. Data from the Joint Board
adopted market Total Rewards Survey conducted in February 2009 indic ates that only 3 out of 40 loc alities offer a
supplemental retirement benefit with no w ork requirement, while 8 loc alities require service to receive supplemental
retirement income. Additionally, the av erage service requirement among those localities offering a retiree benefit is
15 years. The workgroup discussed implementing a s ervice requirement for retirees in order to receive the stipend,
but did not recommend implementing due to a variety of factors (adminis trative complex ities, legal iss ues, market
competitiveness and varying organization staffing needs w hich would not allow for c ommonality among the School
Division and Local Gov ernment). The w orkgroup evaluated several alternatives for phaseout, such as declining
percentages and decreasing years of eligibility. As the monetary value of the benefit to the employ ee was the same
with these alternatives, the consensus was that the dec lining percentages may be easier to communic ate and
administer. In order to honor our organization’s commitments to thos e employees nearing retirement, while moving
toward a market competitive program, the following phaseout of the VERIP program is presented for consideration:
1) Graduated D eclining Percentage Phas eout. The benefit would continue to be pay able for 5 years
or to age 65 (w hichev er comes first) and the stipend amount would remain the same for the payout
period.
2010/2011 No changeVER IP stipend remains 100%
2011/2012 No changeVER IP stipend remains 100%
2012/2013 VERIP stipend amount is calculated at 80%
2013/2014 VERIP stipend amount is calculated at 60%
2014/2015 VERIP stipend amount is calculated at 40%
2015/2016 VERIP stipend amount is calculated at 20%
VERIPC ontribution equiv alent to the Board medical c ontribution
The Board medical c ontribution for FY 09/10 is $7,045 per year for active fulltime employees. A retiring
employee w ho meets the eligibility standards will receive the activ e employee Board contribution for five years
or until age 65, whic hever comes first. This may be taken as a tax able cash payment (added to the monthly
stipend) or applied on a pretax basis tow ard their County medical insurance coverage. The workgroup reviewed
the medical contribution relative to the Joint Board adopted market, both in terms of contribution level and
eligibility requirement. Data indicates that 30 out of 40 respondents provide retiree c overage, with 19 of those
contributing towards that coverage. Twenty two of the respondents require meeting VR S eligibility or 15 years
or more service.
This benefit is extremely valued by retirees. As the stipend will likely be phased out, the team agreed that this
benefit should be review ed in the context of the s tipend phaseout and is not recommending altering this benefit
at this time. Howev er, the market data supports further review of this benefit. The Board may c hoose to direct
staff to review and develop recommendations.
Eligibility for retirees to remain on group medical and dental plans
The current servic e requirement for nonVERIP eligible retirees to remain on the group medical and dental
insurance, while paying the entire contribution is four years. Current policy states:
Salaried Board Members and fulltime or parttime regular employees who are not retiring under VRS and/or
VER IP, are eligible for continuous participation in the County’s group medical and dental insuranc e plan until
they are eligible for Medicare coverage, provided that they meet the follow ing requirements:
1) be 55 y ears of age or older;
2) retire from service or separate from employment in good standing after four (4) or more years of
continuous service or employment; and
3) be participants in the C ounty’s Group medical and dental insurance plan on the day prior to
separation from the County.
The workgroup rec ommends c hanging this polic y to require meeting VRS eligibility for retirement (R educed
retirement is age 50 w ith 10 years of service, or age 55 w ith 5 years of service).
BUDGET IMPACT:
If the VERIP stipend phas eout option is implemented, s tipend costs would begin to dec line starting in FY12 and
end completely by FY20. The following are estimates based on historical trend data:
Estimated Total Stipend
Cost through FY19/20
with Current VERIP
Estimated Total Stipend
Cost through FY19/20
with Phas eout option
Estimated Savings
through FY19/20
using Phas eout option
Local Government $2,024,152
$1,094,233
$929,919
School D ivision $10,876,553
$5,789,521
$5,087,033
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff offers the following for your consideration. The c ompensation projections are based on the Joint Board
process and adopted s trategy:
1) 1% inc rease in the classified salary sc ale.
2) 2.60% merit increase for classified s taff.
3) Teacher increases to reach and/or maintain top quartile (2.25%) to be distributed along the scale.
4) Phase out of the VERIP stipend as proposed. Staff is looking for general feedbac k on this proposal
at this time. This item will come back before the two Boards for final action at the nex t joint
meeting c urrently scheduled for December 2nd.
Staff recommends approv al of the following:
1) That a portion of the ex cess H ealth Care R eserve fund be applied to offset some of the increase in
medical plan costs. The projected inc rease in medical is 810%.
2) That the service requirement for retirees to be eligible to remain on group medical and dental
coverage be revised to require that employees mus t be 55 w ith a minimum of 5 years of service to
be eligible, consistent w ith VRS benefits.
3) That the workgroup prev iously establis hed to review the VERIP stipend benefit develop
recommendations regarding the VER IP health contribution benefit.
ATTAC HMENTS
1 Competitive Market List
2 Teachers’ Scale – Top Quartile Graph
3 Budget Reduction Measures
4 Albemarle C ounty Early R etirement Benefit Survey
Return to regular agenda
Attachment #1
August a Co unt y Hano ver Co unt y
City of Charlottesville James City County
Cit y o f Chesapeake Lo udo un Co unt y
City of Danville Louisa County
City of Harrisonburg Madison Co unt y
Cit y o f Lynchburg Mo nt go mery Co unt y
Cit y o f Ro ano ke Nelso n Co unt y
Cit y o f St aunt o n Orange Co unt y
Cit y o f Virginia Beach Prince William Co unt y
Cit y o f Williamsburg Ro ano ke Co unt y
Buckingham Co unt y Ro ckingham Co unt y
Chest erfield Co unt y Spo t sylvania Co unt y
Fauquier Co unt y Albemarle Co unt y Service Aut ho rit y
Fluvanna Co unt y Mart ha Jefferso n Ho spit al
Greene Co unt y UVA Healt h Syst ems
Albemarle County
Adopted Competitive Market
Attachment #2Top Quartile Comparison 2009-10$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,000$90,000Min5 years10 years15 years20 years25 years30 yearsExperienceSalaryTop QuartileAlbemarle
Not ConsideringSeriously ConsideringHave ImplementedFurloughsLocal Govt79%14%7%Schools100%0%0%LayoffsLocal Govt46%15%38%Schools47%7%47%Service Reductions Local Govt46%15%38%Schools43%7%50%Reduced HoursLocal Govt50%21%29%Schools57%0%43%Employee Benefit ReductionsLocal Govt69%0%31%Schools69%0%31%Pay CutsLocal Govt100%0%0%Schools92%0%8%Hiring FreezeLocal Govt23%0%77%Schools53%13%33%Early Retirement IncentiveLocal Govt77%0%23%Schools62%15%23%
Attachment # 4
Survey Summary
(40 total respondents - 22 counties/cities and 18 schools)
SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT TO VRS
Yes or No 7% offer a supplemental benefit (3 out of 40).
8 other entities offer work programs.
Minimum age?Average minimum age is 53 for the entities offering a benefit
(not including those offering a work program).
Service requirement?Average is 15 years for the entities offering a benefit
(not including those offering a work program).
Other eligibility requirement?None, except one with requirement for "exemplary performance".
Description of supplemental
benefit
Benefit provided is additional retirement income.
Duration?One offers benefit to earlier of 5 years or age 65, one offers for
lifetime, two offers to age 65, and one did not specify duration.
.
HEALTH COVERAGE
Yes or No 75% offer health coverage (30 out of 40).
Minimum age?73% have an age requirement (22 out of 30).
Age is either 55 or 50. Most common age is 50.
Service requirement?70% have a service requirement (21 out of 30)
Average is 13 years of service.
Other eligibility requirement?12 entities have an additional eligibility criteria, other than age and
service. Most common is VRS eligibility.
Employer contribution?63% contribute to retiree medical cost (19 out of 30).
5 entities contribute same as for actives.
Duration?63% offer medical until age 65 (19 out of 30).
3 offer for 5, 7, or 10-15 years.
1 offers to max of end of ERIP or Medicare eligible.
1 offers to max of 5 years or end of ERIP.
4 offer for lifetime. 2 did not specify.
Survey was sent to 56 entites (27 counties/cities, 28 schools and 1 private company).
Participation was 71% (40 respondents).
Does your organization offer a supplemental benefit, in addition to the regular VRS retirement
Do you offer early retiree (< age 65) health coverage?
Albemarle County Early Retirement Benefit Survey, February 2009
https://ia.albemarle.org/BoardReports/ESAttachments/survey summary 2009.xls\Survey, 10/1/2009