HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-07 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of March 7,, 2001
March, 8, 2001
1. Call to order.
AGENDA ITEM/ACT, ION
4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
· There were none.
5.1 Authorize County Executive to sign Deeds of Easement
(Stormwater Drainage Easement Dedication - Branchlands
Channel, South Fork Soccer Park, 211 Bennington Road
and Georgetown Court).
ASSIGNMENT,
Meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m., by the
Chairman. All BOS members present. Also
present was the County Attorney and Clerk to the
Board.
En~ineerir~: Forward documents to Mr. Tucker for"
signature.
· AUTHORIT;O C,0un,ty Executive to sign deeds of easement.
5.2 Readopt Resolution Approving the Issuance of Industrial
Developrr~w~t Authority Bonds in an Amount not to Exceed
$16,150,000 for The Covenant School, Inc.
· ADOPTED re=~_!ution.
5.3 change Contract for Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers.
· ADOPTED resolution and authorized County Executive to sign
Annual Contribution Contract Transfer and Assumption
Agreemem.
'5.4 Participation in VDOT Revenue Shadng Program for FY
2001-02.
· APPROVED with funds directed to Old Lynchburg Road spot
im~ovements (Mr. Perkins oppo_.._~l). .
5.5 SP-2000-64. David Weber (Tdton PCS). (deferred from
February 14, 2001) (applicant requests deferral to March
21, 2001).
· MOVED to March 21, 2001 agenda.
5.6 Appropriation: DMV Traffic Safety Grant A101-15-57015,
$1,500 (Form #20050).
· APPROVED.
5.7 Appropriation: Criminal Records Systems Improvement
Clerk: Forward signed resolution to
McGuireWoods.
Cler.. k; Fomrard signed documents to Ron White.
Clerk: Forward letter and fOrm to VdoT with copy
to Planning.
.P!annina staff'. Provide information for March 21
agenda.
Clerk: FonNard to Melvin Breeden and copy
appropriate persons.
Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy
Grant 01-~3557, $12,000 (Form #20051).
* APPROVED.
5.8 Appropriation: Education, $3,000 (Form ~20052).
* APPROVED.
5.9 Appropriation: Education, $187,050 (Form #20053).
, APPROVED.
5.9~ Resolution - 2000-2002 State Budget.
. MOVED to the regular agenda for discussion under Other
M_.~__~s from the Board,
6a. Route 2")0 East Corridor Study, Presentation by VDOT.
. RECEIVED.
appropriate pemons.
Clerk: FonNard to Melvin Breeden and copy
.appropriate persons.
Cl.e~.; Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy
.appr°pdate persons.
6b. Other Transportation Matters.
· Mr. Perkins said he and Mr. Bowerman attended the Earlysville
.. neighborhood meeting concerning Route 743. A number of
None~
Clerk: Include in letter to VdoT.
suggestions were discussed. Juan Wade to mail list of
comments to VdoT.
Ms. Thomas asked that the Board be informed of the next
VdoT meeting concerning the Route 29 South corridor.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Bryan to take a look at the VdoT web
site on the internet. She asked if Mr. Bryan would verify
whether this is VdoT's "official" site and if the information is
accurate.
7. School Board Presentation.
· RECEIVED.
8. Principles, Criteria and Guidelines for Ecologically
Valuable Areas: Identification and Selection, Presentation
by Citizens for Albemarle.
· RECEIVED.
9. Presentation of Easement Maps - Conservation Work in
Albemarle County, Babette Thorpe, Piedmont
Environmental Council.
· REMOVED from the. agenda
10. Calendar Year 2000 - Return of Unbudgeted Tax Revenue.
· DIRECTED staff to take all necessary steps to implement a
split tax rate in calendar year 200t; the tax rate for the first six
months tO be set at $0.72 to effectively return the unbudgeted
tax revenue from the June 2000 tax collection.
11. Court Facilities Presentation.
· SUPPORTED staffs recommendation that the County
Executive and City Manager form a committee with
representatives of both bodies to develop consensus. Once
consensus reach, proceed with Phase I!.
12. Update on Southside Fire/Rescue Station Design and
Budget.
· APPROVED the proposed design and revised budget for the
proje , as recommended by staff.
15. DiSC Report - Overview and Work Process.
o SCHEDULED a work session for April 4. Agreed to allow the
public to speak at the work session. Requested that someone
from staff be available to set out on a chart items in which the
Board reaches a consensus. Suggested that Al Reaser and
someone from the School Board be present for the work
16. Discussion: 2001 Redistricting (continued from February 7,
· ADOPTED the final guidelines and calendar for use in
preparing the 2001 redistricting plans as recommended by
staff.
17. FY 2002 Budget Overview.
· RECEIVED.
18. Appointments.
· APPOINTED Barbara S. Barrett (term to expire June 30, 2004)
and Roxanne White (term to expire (June 30, 2002) to the
~ . Region Tan Community Services Board.
None,
~one.
Clerk: Include on April 4 agenda.
County Executive staff: Proceed as directed by
Board.
County Executive staff:. Proceed as directed by
Board.
County Executive staff: Proceed as directed by
Board.
Planninq staff: Proceed as directed by Board.
County Attome~ Proceed es recommended for a
work session on Apdl 4.
None.
Cle.rk: Update Boards and Commissions and notify
appointees.
· REAPPOINTED John Bunch and JoAnne Ebersold to the
Jefferson Area Bicycle and Walking Advisory Committee, with
terms to expire Jure 30, 2004.
° REAPPOINTED C. Henry Hinnant to the Workforce
Investment Board, with term to expire June 3, 2004.
20. Other Matters not LiSted on the Agenda from the BOARD.
· ADOPTED the attached Resolution regarding the 2000-2002
State Budget.
21. Adjourn.
· The meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
Clerk: Forward resolution to Governor with copy to
Legislators.
/ewc
Attachment I - IDA Resolution
Attachment 2 - Section 8 Annual Contributions Contract Agreement and Resolution
Attachment 3 - 2000-2002 State Budget Resolution.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Attachment I
The Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") has considered
the application of The Covenant School, Inc. ("School") requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue
bonds in an amount not to exceed $16,150,000 ("Bonds"), to be issued at one time or from time to time to
assist the School in financing and refinancing of the following (collectively, "Plan of Financing"): (1) the
acquisition, construction and equipping of a new upper school' for grades 7-12 cons*~ting of approximately
95,000 square feet of classrooms, ofrmes, library, athletic facility and fields and combined
cafeteria/auditorium, together with related utility and infrastructure improvements, to be built on a new 26-
acre campus on Hickory Street near the intersection of Oak Hill Drive and certain other capital
improvements and additions located at the new campus on Hickory Street and (2) amounts required for
reserves, capitalized interest and costs of issuance in connection with the Plan of Financing.
On January 5, 2000, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "Board") approved the
Plan of Financing and the issuance of the Bonds upon the recommendation of the Authority after a public
hearing held on December9, 1999. By Order entered on April 18, 2000 in Case No. CL 99-8127, the
Circuit Court for the County of Albemarle, Virginia, validated the Plan of Financing and the issuance of the
Bonds pursua~ t to Virginia Code Section 15,?.-2654. On December 7, 2000, as evidenced in Record No.
001014, the Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed a petPJon for appeal of such Order. Accordingly,
pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-2657, the Order velidating the Bonds is binding and conclusive.
On January 9, 2001, the Authority approved the issuance of Bonds in an amount up to $14,000,000. On
January 17, 2001, the Board approved the action of the Authority taken at its January 9, 2001 meeting.
The Authority held a new public hearing on February 27, 2001, as required by Section 147(f) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), and Virginia Code Section 15.2-4906. Section
147(f) of the Code also provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private
activity bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds
is located must approve the issuance of the bonds.
The Authority issues its bonds on behalf of Albemarle County, Virginia ("County"); the projects
included in the Plan of Financing are to be located in the County; and the Board constitutes the highest
elected governmental unit of the County.
The Authority has recommended that the Board ratify its previous approval and approve the Plan
of Financing and issuance of the Bonds.
A copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to
be agreed upon, a certilrmate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the
Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
The Board ratifies in full its approval of January 5, 2000 and January 17, 2001, in providing the
following:
1. The Board approves (I) the Plan of Financing and (ii) the issuance of the Bonds pursuant
thereto by the Authority for the benefit of the School, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and
Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a
prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Plan of Financing or the School.
3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations Section
5f.103-2(f)(1), this resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its adoption.
4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia this 7th day of March, 2001
Attachment 2
ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION CONTRACT
TRANSFER AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
This Agreement, entered into as of the. 7th day of March , 2001, between Virginia Housing
Development Authority (the 'q'ransferor') and the County of Albemarle (the "Transferee").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Transferor entered into the Annual Contributions Contract(s) dated November
22, 2000 and designated as Number(s) VA901 and any amendments thereto, (the "Contract") with the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") a copy of which is (or copies are)
attached hereto as Exhibit(s); and
WHEREAS, under the Contract the transferor is responsible for 201 Housing Choice Vouchers
and/or Moderate Rehabilitation in Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Transferor is willing to transfer to the Transferee the portiOn of said Contract(s)
covering 153 units in Albemarle County effective as of the date of this Agreement ("Albemarle County's
Portion"); and
WHEREAS, HUD has consented to or will consent to the transfer of the Contract(s) to the
Transferee; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto do agree to transfer the Albemarle County Portion of the
Contract(s) to the Transferee and further agree that Transferee will use the Funds authorized under the
Albemarle County Portion of the Contract for the same purpose as originally intended, that is, to provide
eligible families with the Housing Choice Vouchers (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 24 part 982)
and/or Moderate Rehabilitation (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 24 part 882); that the same
population as originally intended (CFR 24 part 882 and 982) will be served; and that the subsidy will be
Used in Albemarle County as originally intended.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements ~corrtained herein and other good
and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties do
covenant and agree as follows:
The Transferor does hereby transfer, assign, convey and grant to the Transferee all rights, title,
interest and obligations under the Albemarle County Portion of the Contract.
The Transferee for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby assumes all the rights, title, interest
and obligations under the Albemarle County Portion of the Contract and agrees to be bound by all of the
terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions relating to the Albemarle County Portion of the Contract and
agrees to fully, promptly and properly perform, observe, satisfy and discharge ali of the terms, conditions,
obligations and restrictions of the Contract applicable to the Albemarle County Portion.
Nothing herein contained shall act as a release or waiver of any claim which may arise in
connection with the Transferor's failure to have faithfully discharged all of its duties and responsibilities
under the Contract and/or the Albemarle County Portion of the Contract prior to the date of transfer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto caused these presents to be
executed on their behalf and their seals affixed the day and year written below.
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF
SECTION 8 ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") has consented or
will consent to the transfer of the ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRACT(S) dated November 22, 2000
and designated as number(s) VA901; and
WHEREAS, such transfer requires the Transferee to agree to certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, as Transferee, we desire to agree to the aforesaid conditions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors agrees
that the funds authorized by the transfer will be used for the same purposes as originally intended; that is,
to provide eligible families with the Housing Choice Vouchers (CFR 24 part 982) and/or Moderate
Rehabilitation (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 24 part 882; that the same population as originally
intended (CFR 24 part 882 and 982) will be served; and that the vouchers will be used in Albemarle
County as originally intended.
RESOLUTION
2000-2002 STATE BUDGET
Attachment 3
WHEREAS, the 2001 General Assembly adjoumed on February 24 without enacting a state
budget bill; and
WHEREAS, the budget impasse is centered around the Govemor's commitment to increasing the
personal property tax reimbursement level to 70 percent and ~ Senate's insistence that the state cannot
afford such an increase without cutting essential services and tailing to meet its commitments to local
governments; and
WHEREAS, the lack of a budget agreement means that the Appropriations Act approved by the
2000 General Assembly becomes the budget by default; and
WHEREAS, the 2000 Appropriations Act was built on revenue projections larger than those now
estimated, meaning yet-to-be-determined cuts will have to be made and/or additional funds would have to
be identiF,~d by the state to prevent the budge~t from being out of balance by $421 million; and
WHEREAS, Governor Gilmore has signed Executive Order 74 to bring appropriations and
estimated revenues into balance for the remainder of the biennium; and
WHEREAS, local governments, meanwhile, remain in limbo about state aid to localities as they
prepare their budgets for FY02 and as they try to anticipate state funding changes for the remainder of
the current fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the degree of state funding for items critical to local governments, such as second
year teacher salary and state-supported local employee salary increases, HB 599 funding,
Comprehensive Services Act funding, transportation and school construction funding, foster care
maintenance and adoption payments, and per diems for local and regional jails, remain uncertain or in
jeopardy at this time;
WHEREAS, because the legislature adjoumed without agreeing on the budget and the level of
state reimbursement to localities for personal property tax relief, some local governments are COnfronted
with the question of what to do about sending personal property lax bills.
NOW THEREFORE BE. IT RESOLVED, that State Leaders are urged to preserve and enhance
critical state aid to localities, specit'~,aily in the areas noted above, when approving a budget; and
BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER, that State Leaders act as soon as possible to approve revisions to
the 2000-2002 state budget, so as to not further impede the local government budgeting process.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Stormwater Drainage Easement Dedication- Branchlands
Channel, South Fork Soccer Park, 211 Bennington Road,
and Georgetown Court
S U BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Authorize County Executive to sign deeds of easement
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Mawyer, Hirschman, Muhlberger
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
I N FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Graphic of four easement areas
REVIEWED BY: ~~-"'
BACKGROUND:
This executive summary involves a request for the Board of Supervisors to authorize the County Executive to sign deeds of
easement for' the County to accept four stormwater, drainage, and/or greenway easements, as outlined below:
Branchlands Channel (Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel 10A; Section 6, Parcel 4B; and Section 8 Parcel A): This
property is located in the Rio District and encompasses three separately owned parcels along Hillsdale Drive from the
Woodlands Day School to the north and the intersection of Hillsdale and Greenbrier Drives to the south. All of the property
owners have offered to dedicate the easements. This easement is approximately 0.6 acres and consists of an intermittent
stream and overgrown trees and grasses. The Branchlands Pro party Association owns the majority of land along either
side of the Channel. The Association is requesting the County take over maintenance to the Channel. Approximately 25
lots in the Branchlands Community are potentially susceptible to flooding if debris and overgrown vegetation are not
regularly removed. The Channel accepts stormwater runoff fram a network of regional stormwater management facilities
including Berkmar, Four Seasons, Church Road, Branchlands Forebay and Basin, as well as the planned Birnham Basin.
The County currently has easements covering the Branchlands Pond and forebay across Hillsdale Dirve from the channel.
This whole matrix of stormwater basins and channels is essential for proper drainage and public safety. In this respect,
public oversight and responsibility for the system is warranted. The Department of Engineering & Public Works is prepared
to undertake maintenance of the channel as part of an overal maintenance plan for the facilities and channels in that
vicinity.
South Fork Soccer Park (Part of Tax Map 46, Parcel 22, Polo Grounds Road): The Board approved SP-00-048 for
the South Fork Soccer Park, located in the Rio District, on September 6, 2000. Condition #9 of that approval requires the
owner to "reserve a 100 foot wide strip of land the length of the property abutting the northern side of the Rivanna River
for the Rivanna Greenway ." While the primary intent of this dedication is for greenway development, County staff has also
worked with the applicant through the plan review process to establish a healthy riparian corridor along the Rivanna River
to standards consistent with the Water Protection Ordinance. As an outcome, part of the site's approved stormwater
management strategy is the dedication of a riparian (stream buffer) easement that will allow for the stream buffer area to
naturalize into a riparian forest, while still allowing for a County greenway and canoe access, reasonable passive use by
the users of the park, and continued archeological research. As designed, the easement will be co-held by the County
and the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District. This is a creative partnership that will allow the County to
develop recreational opportunities at the site while the District oversees the environmental protection aspects of the deed.
Increasingly, the District has become involved in the promotion and holding of riparian easements, and this project will
provide a high-visibility demonstration of that program. Another provision of the deed allows for educational workshops
on r~parian protection to be held at the site. The parties involved have all worked cooperatively to draft the deed of
easement and see this as a good example of collaborative resource protection. The Soil & Water District Board of
Directors approved co-holding the easement and the deed language at their January 31,200'1 meeting.
AG ENDA TITLE:
Stormwater Drainage Easement Dedication - Branchlands Channel, South Fork Soccer Park, 211
Georgetown Court
March 7, 2001
Page 2
Bennington Road, and
3. 211 Bennington Road (Tax Map 60A, Section 3, Block I, Parcel '12): This parcel is located in the Jack Jouett District.
The property owner has expressed intent to dedicate a permanent drainage easement to the County for the purpose of
a drainage repair project. Since the expans ion of Georgetown Road in the early 1990's, stormwater runoff tends to flood
the side and front yard of this parcel. After passing through a small, meandering channel, water enters a yard drain and
an underground 18-inch stormpipe. The Engineering Department and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT)
met with the property owner to discuss possible solutions to the drainage problem. The proposed solution consists of
extending a pipe upstream of the existing yard drain and reshaping the channel to capture the water in a more efficient
manner. VDoT will supply the County with a 25-foot section of 18" stormpipe. The County will pay installation and grading
charges associated with this drainage improvement project. The County will also be responsible fo r future repairs to the
pipe, if needed.
4. Georgetown Court (Tax Map 60A'I, Parcels 40A; 40B; 41A; 4'1B; 42A): These five parcels are located in the Jack Jouett
District and include #57 through #65 Court Place. All five property owners have expressed intent to dedicate a permanent
drainage easement to the County for the purpose of maintenance and repair to the stormwater facility currently located
at the rear of each parcel. As part of final site plan approval for the Georgetown Court Subdivision, the County required
the developer to install a stormwater management basin located at the rear of these parcels. The basin now serves as
a regional stormwater management facility. Runoff to the basin originates from portions of the Subdivision, as well as the
adjacent Barclay Place Apartments. The latter development occurred after the basin was completed. The owner of Tax
Map 60A1, Parcel 40A requested that the basin be reduced in size, two inlet areas repaired, and repairs be made to the
eroded outlet pipe at the bottom of the basin. If the Board approves dedication of the drainage easement, then the County
will corn plete the necessary repairs and assume regular maintenance responsibilities for this bas in.
DISCUSSION:
For the Branchlands properties and the South Fork Soccer Park, County staff has worked with the owners and County
Attorney's Office to draft deeds of easement. For the Bennington Road and Georgetown Court projects, the owners have
agreed to sign the deeds of easement, and the documents will be drafted upon Board approval.
This process of the County acquiring easements for the purposes of drainage and stormwater control is consistent with the
approach the Board approved at their April 5, 2000 meeting. That guidance pertained to County acquisition of drainage
easements for all new development projects, with the understanding that public responsibility for maintenance of the drainage
system would increase. For three of the projects listed above (Branchlands, Bennington Road, and Georgetown Court), the
situation does not pertain to future development, but existing development where drainage problems exist and maintenance
responsibility is currently in private hands. As stated in the executive summary for the 4/5/00 Board meeting, private interests,
including owners' associations, often do not possess the technical and financial capabilities to repair and maintain these
systems.
There is an element of drainage and stormwater projects that is complaint driven~ and this is necessary given the fact that
existing storm systems are not always adequate, especially as new development takes place. However, there can also be
a proactive and strategic element to the program. The Department of Engineering & Public Works is preparing a series of
stormwater master plans for the Development Areas. These plans will develop a list of watershed improvement projects in
a proactive fashion to address multiple objectives. We do not expect these master plans to eliminate complaint-driven projects,
but the master plans will help the County prioritize individual projects and place them in an overall framework based on
watershed and community needs. This information is provided to give the Board a sense of how the program is evolving.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the County Executive to sign the deeds of easement for the Branchlands Channel, the South Fork Soccer Park, 211
Bennington Road, and Georgetown Court.
01.040
Stormwater Drainage Easement Dedications
2. South Fork
Soccer Park
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
8amud ~
March l2,2001
Ms. Renee B. Fain
McGuireWoods
One James Center
901 East Cary Street
Richmond, VA 23219-4030
Dear Renee::
At its meeting on March 7, 2001, the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached resolution
authorizing the issuance of Industrial Development Authority revenue bonds for The Covenant School,
Inc.
Enclosed please find an orginial signed and sealed resolution. In addition, per your request, I
have enclosed two executed and sealed copies of the documents signed by the Authority. If I can be of
further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
/ewc
Endosures (3)
CC:
Dr. Ronald Sykes, Headmaster
Mr. James M. Bowling, IV
-Printed on recycled paper
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the
"County"), certifies as follows:
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held on
March 7, 2001, at the time and place established by such Board for its regular meetings, at which
the following members were present and absent:
PRESENT: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman; Ms. Charlotte ¥.
Humphris; Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin.
On a motion by tV~. Humphris, seconded Mr. Bowerman, the attached Resolution
was adopted by a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors, of Albemarle County,
Virginia, by a roll call vote, being recorded as follows:
MEMBER VOTE
Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Mr. David P. Bowemmn
Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris
Mr. Walter F. Perkins
Ms. Sally H. Thomas
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
The Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") has
considered the application of The Covenant School, Inc. ("SchoolD requesting the issuance of
the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $16,150,000 ("Bonds"), to be issued at
one time or t~om time to time to assist the School in financing and refinancing of the following
(collectively, "Plan of Financing!'): (1) the acquisition, construction and equipping of a new
upper school for grades 7-12 consisting of approximately 95,000 square feet of classrooms,
offices, library, athletic facility and fields and combined cafeteria/auditorium, together with
related utility and infrastructure improvements, to be built on a new 26-acre campus on Hickory
Street near the intersection of Oak Hill Drive and certain other capital improvements and
additions located at the new campus on Hickory Street and (2) amounts required for reserves,
capitalized interest and costs of issuance in connection with the Plan of Financing.
On January 5, 2000, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "Board")
approved the Plan of Financing and the issuance of the Bonds upon the recommendation of the
Authority after a public hearing held on December 9, 1999. By Order entered on April 18, 2000
in Case No. CL 99-8127, the Circuit Court for the County of Albemarle, Virginia, validated the
Plan of Financing and the issuance of the Bonds pursuant to Virginia Code Section I5.2-2654.
On December 7, 2000, as evidenced in Record No. 001014, the Supreme Court of Virginia
dismissed a petition for appeal of such Order. Accordingly, pursuant to Virginia Code Section
15.2-2657, the Order validating the Bonds is binding and conclusive. On January 9, 2001, the
Authority approved the issuance of Bonds in an amount up to $14,000,000. On January 17,
2001, the Board approved the action of the Authority taken at its January 9, 2001 meeting.
The Authority held a new public hearing on February 27, 2001, as required by Section
147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), and Virginia Code Section
15.2-4906. Section 147(0 of the Code also provides that the governmental unit having
jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the area in which any facility
financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the
bondsi
The Authority issues its bonds on behalf of Albemarle County, Virginia ("County"); the
projects included in the Plan of Financing are to be located in the County; and the Board
constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County.
The Authority has recommended that the Board ratify its previous approval and approve
the Plan of Financing and issuance of the Bonds.
A copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the
terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have
been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
TheBoard ratifies in full its approval of January 5, 2000 and January 17, 2001, in
providing the following:
1. The Board approves (i) the Plan of Financing and (ii) the issuance of the Bonds
pursuant thereto by the Authority for the benefit of the School, as required by Section 147(f) of
the Code and Section 15.2-4906 ofthe Virginia Code.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a
prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Plan of Financing or the
School
3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations
Section 5f.103-2(f)(1), this resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date
of its adoption.
4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia this 7th day of
March, 2001.
[SEAL]
Clerk, Boar~of Supe]~isors of
Albemarle ~Virginia
-2-
February27,2001
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County, Virginia
County Office Building
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia
Proposed Plan of Financing for The Covenant School, Inc.
The Covenant School, Inc. ("School") has requested that the Industrial Development
Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority")issue up to $16,150,000 of its revenue
bonds ("Bonds") at one time or from time to time to assist the School in the financing or
refinancing of the following (collectively, "Plan of Financing").' (1) the acquisition, construction
and equipping of a new upper school for grades 7-12 consisting of approximately 95,000 square
feet of classrooms, offices, library, athletic facility and fields and combined cafeteria/auditorium,
together with related utility and infrastructure improvements, to be buik on a new 26-acre
campus on Hickory Street near the intersection of Oak Hill Drive and certain other capital
improvements and additions located at the new campus on Hickory Street and-(2) amounts
required for reserves, capitalized interest and costs of issuance in connection with the Plan of
Financing.
As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached hereto ("Resolution"), the
Authority has agreed to issue its Bonds as requested. The Authority has conducted a public
hearing on the proposed Plan of Financing and has recommended that you approve the issuance
of the Bonds as required by Section 147(0 oft he Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,
and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. By Order entered on
April 18, 2000, in Case No. CL 99-8127, the Circuit Court for the County of Albemarle, Virginia
validated the Plan of Finance and the issuance of the Bonds pursuant to Virginia Code Section
15.2-2654.
Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and the
action taken by the Authority, (2) the Fiscal Impact Statement required pursuant to Virginia
Code Section 15.2-4907, and (3) the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence your
approval.
Secretary, Industrial ;Dire~nelloapment puthority of
Albemarle County, Virginia
. CERTIFICATE
The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia ("Authority") certifies as follows:
1. A meeting of the Authority was duly called and held on February 27, 2001, at
4:00 o'clock p.m. in the conference room on the fourth floor of the County Office Building at
401 Mclntire Road, in Charlottesville, Virginia, pursuant to proper notice given' to each Director
of the Authority before such meeting. The meeting was open to the public. The time of the
meeting and the place at which the meeting was held provided a reasonable opportunity for
persons of differing, views to appear and be heard.
2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public hearing on the
application of The Covenant School, Inc. and that a notice of the hearing was published once a
week for two successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in Albemarle County,
Virginia ("Notice"), with the second publication appearing not less than seven days nor more
than twenty-one days prior to the hearing, date. A copy of the Notice has been filed with the
minutes of the Authority and is attached as Exhibit A.
3. A summary of the statements made at the public hearing is attached as Exhibit B.
4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true; correct and complete copy of a resolution
("Resolution") adopted at such meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present at
such meeting. The Resolution constitutes all formal action taken by the Authority at such
meeting relating to matters referred to in the Resolution. The Resolution has not been repealed,
revoked, rescinded or amended and is in full force and effect on this date.
5. The Resolution referred to in paragraph 4, together with resolutions adopted on
December 9, 1999 and January 9, 2001, constitute all formal action taken by the Authority
relating to matters referred to in the Resolution. The Resolution has not been repealed, revoked,
rescinded or amended and is in full force and effect on the date hereof.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority, this 27th day of February, 2001.
[SEAL]:
Exhibits:
Albemarle ~o~y, ~irgi~ia ' ~ r ,. [
A -C013y of Certified Notice from Newspaper
B - Summary of Statements
C - Public Hearing Resolution
02/25/01
FAX 8049787214 DAILY PROGRESS
The Daily Progress "
P.O. BOX ~030
CHARLO .TTES qLLF gA
TELEPHo NE: '(804J978-72i0
-CERTIFICATE OF PUBL./CA'qON .--
I HELRE~¥ CERT~Ey THaT I~E ATTACHF_~ NO%CiE WAS FUBLiSHED IN
THE DAILY PROGR. ESE,, A NEWSPAPER IN CF[ARLOTCESV~LLF_., VIRGINIA,.
AND A~FE&RED IN THE.I'SSUE(,S) DATED .
200I
GIVEN UNOER MYHANO ~-i95.'[~ 'DAYOF -=~UC...r¢"~. 2001
SHARON M. LAMS. B.U$1NES;S OFFICE MANAG-~..
EXItlBIT A
ON ~O~O~EO
R~NUE BOND RNAN~NG
INE J$~l~ D~E[OPME~
A~ARLE COUNt,
VIRGINIA
~arng on ~s a~]i~l~n
The ~na~l
Wl~v,,e, Virgi~ 22903,
0UeSling lhe AU~0r~
nUa bond~ at cna
c~C~en and eqNmpOl.~
7-12 c~no~bn~ of
ro~ ofll~s. ~bm~
~ m~Bd udliF and
s~uro ~p~em~,
~ H~oty S~ ~eat
ceaafl ~lher m~l[at impm~
l~e n~ ~mp~ o~
~ ~d (2) ~o~
necm~n w~ mo Plan
T~s is~Jar4:8 :~ re~ra~
Com~n~a~ 0t VmrglAla
~ m~ng P~ of ~ Com-
monwmaJm o~ ~e ~r any
be p~d~g lo ~e
~ bOn~
be conlmusfl ~ ad~umed.
~e hem at ~OO o'c~ ~.~
?ebr~ 2L 3~01.
~had~. n ~e ~n/erence
wtfe, ~ina, Any pa~n
ut ~e P~p~d p~j~g[
oeaf at Ihe h~ng,~d P~I
Pis ar ~er Wawa. )n.o~Odan r~
vUJ~ Virgi~a uU~ b~
EXIqlRIT B TO CERTII:ICATE
Summary of Statements
Representatives of The Covenant School, Inc. and McGuireWoods LLP, Bond Counsel,
appeared before the Authority to explain the proposed plan of financing.
E~~C
RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $16,150,000
REVENUE BONDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE COVENANT SCHOOL, INC.
The Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, a political
subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Authority"), is empowered by the Industrial
Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 49, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended ("Act"), to issue its revenue bonds for the purpose of financing facilities for private,
accredited and nonprofit institutions of collegiate, elementary, secondary or graduate education
in the Commonwealth of Virginia Whose primary purpose is to provide collegiate, elementary,
secondary or graduate education and not to provide religious training or theological education.
The Authority has received a request from The Covenant School, Inc., a not-for-profit
Vi~;ginia nonstock corporation ("School"), requesting that the Authoritv issue its revenue bonds
at one time or from time to time to assist the School in financing or refinancing of the following
(collectively, "Plan of Financing"): (1) the acquisition, construction and equipping of a new
upper school for grades 7~12 consisting of approximately 95,000 square feet of classrooms,
offices, library, athletic facility and fields and combined cafeteria/auditorium, together with
related utility and infrastructure improvements, to be built on a new 26-acre campus on Hickory
Street near the intersection of Oak Hill Drive and certain other capital improvements and
additions located-at the new campus on Hickory Street and (2) amounts required for reserves,
capitalized interest and costs of issuance in connection with the Plan of Financing.
The Authority previously approved the Plan of Financing and the issuance of the Bonds
by resolution following a public hearing held on December 9, 1999, and the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County previously approved the Plan of Financing and the issuance of
the Bonds by resolution of January 5, 2000. By Order entered on April 18, 2000 in Case No. CL
99-8127, the Circuit Court for the County of Albemarle, Virginia validated the issuance of the
Bonds pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-2654. On December 7, 2000, as evidenced by
Record No. 001014, the Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed a petition for appeal of such
Order. Accordingly, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-2657, the Order validating the
Bonds is binding and conclusive. On January 9, 2001, the Authority approved the issuance of
Bonds in an amount up to $14,000,000.
The School has represented that the Plan of Financing will require an issue of revenue
bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $16,150,000 (the "Bonds"). The School
has caused a notice of public hearing to be published in accordance with the Act and the Internal
Revenue Code for an issuance of Bonds in an amount not to exceed $15,400,000. The School
represents that the issuance of Bonds in an amount not to exceed $16,150,000 is an insubstantial
deviation from the principal amount stated in the public notice.
The Bonds are expected to be offered for sale by Davenport & Company LLC (the
"Underwriter") pursuant to one or more Official Statements to be dated the date of their delivery,.
prepared in connection with the sale and delivery of the Bonds, the form of which has been
provided to the Authority.
The Bonds are expected to be sold in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$16,150,000, bearing an average interest rate not to exceed 8.0% per annum, and having a final
maturity not later than December 1, 2033 (collectively, the "Bond Terms'f).
Such assistance will benefit the inhabitants of Albemarle County, Virginia and the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
' The Authority hereby ratifies in full its approvals of December 9, 1999, and January 9,
2001 in providing the following:
1. It is hereby found and determined that (a) the Plan of Financing will be in the
public interest of the inhabitants of Albemarle County, Virginia and the Commonwealth of
Virginia, (b) the School is a private, accredited and nonprofit institution of elementary and
secondary education whose primary purpose is to provide elementary and secondary education
and not to provide religious training or theological education, and (c) the Plan of Financing
consists of facilities for use as academic or administration buildings and other structures or
applications usual and customary to an elementary, and secondary school campus.
2. The Authority hereby agrees to assist the School in the Plan of Financing by
undertaking the issuance at one time or from time to time of its revenue bonds in an amount not
to exceed $16,150,~000 upon terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the Authority and the
School in conformance with the Bond Terms. The bonds will be issued pursuant to documents
satisfactory to the Authority. The bonds may be issued in one or more series at one time or from
time to time.
3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed
immediately with the Plan of Financing, the Authority agrees that the School may proceed with
its plans, enter into contracts for land, construction, materials and equipment pursuant to the Plan
of Financing, and take such other steps as it may deem appropriate in connection with the Plan of
Financing; provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be deemed to authorize the
School to obligate the Authority without its consent in each instance to the payment of any
moneys or the performance of any acts in connection with the Plan of Financing. The Authority
agrees that the School may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds for all expenditures
and costs so incurred by it, provided such expenditures and costs are properly reimbursable
under the Act and applicable federal laws.
4. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Authority, either of whom may act, are
each hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds to or for the account of the
Underwriter and the Financing Instruments to the other parties thereto upon approval of their
final form, tems and conditions consistent with the Bond Terms. The sale of the Bonds to the
-2-
Underwriter pursuant to the Bond Purchase Agreement is hereby approved and authorized,
provided such sale shall be consistent with the Bond Terms.
5. At the request of the School, the Authority approves McGuireWoods LLP as
Bond Counsel in connection with the issuance of the bonds.
6. All costs and expenses in connection with the Plan of Financing, including the
fees and expenses of Bond Counsel and Authority Counsel, shall be paid by the School or, to the
extent permitted by applicable law, from the proceeds of the bonds. If for any reason such bonds
are not issued, it is Understood that all such expenses shall be paid by the School and that the
Authority shall have no responsibility therefor.
7. The Authority recommends that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, ratify its previous action and approve the Plan of Financing and the issuance of the
Bonds. No bonds may be issued pursuant to this resolution until such time as the issuance of the
bonds has been approved by such Board of Supervisors.
8. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
-3-
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia ("Authority") certifies that the foregoing is a true, correct and complete copy of
a resolution adopted by a majority of the Directors of the Authority present and voting at a
meeting duly called and held on February 27, 2001, in accordance with law, and that such
resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended but is in full force and effect on
this date.
WITNESS the following signature and seal of the Authority, this 27th day of February,
200.1.
ary, i 'al v opment Authority of
Albemarle County, Virginia
\\FIN\40077.6
-4-
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR PROPOSED BOND FINANCING
Date: February 27, 2001
To the Board of Supervisors
of the Albemarle County, Virginia
Applicant:
Facility:
The Covenant School
Educational Facility, including
Capital Improvements and Additions
1. Maximum amount of fmancing sought.
$16,150,000
Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be
constructed in the municipality.
$ N/A
3. Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates.
$ N/A
4. Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates.
$ N/A
5. Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates.
$ N/A
6. (a)
Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be
purchased from Virginia companies within the locality.
$ 55,000
(b)
Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be
purchased from non-Virginia companies within the
locality.
$ 165,000
(c)
Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be
purchased from Virginia companies within the locality.
$ 285,000
(d)
Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be
purchased from non-Virginia companies within the
locality.
$ 120,000
7. Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis.
110
Average annual salary per employee. $ 28,275
,,,/Chairman, Industrial DevelopCnkAuthority of
~ Albemarle County, Virginia
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Request to change contract for Section 8 Housing Choice
Vouchers
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to transfer rental you chers from VHDA to an Annual
Contributions Contract with the US Dept. of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Roxanne White, Ron White
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: ×
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes (2) - Resolution & Agreement
REVIEWED BY:
/
The Albemarle County Office of Housing currently administers the Section 8 Rental Assistance programs under a number of
contracts. The County has Annual Contribution Contracts (ACC) directly with HUD and one with the Virginia Housing
Development Authority (VHDA). The VHDA contract covers a portion of vouchers received by VHDA for the state with 201
of those vouchers allotted to Albemarle County.
VHDA has, after over a year of study and consultation, determined that decentralizing some of its administration may be
beneficial to the program and to localities particularly those with existing ACCs with HUD. The meth od of decentralizing the
program is to allow localities to transfer vouchers under VHDA's ACC to an ACC of their own directly with HUD Staff is
requesting approval of a resolution to make such a transfer.
DISCUSSION:
Although Albemarle County's portion of VHDA's ACC is 201 vouchers, only 157 vouchers are under lease. This is due to a
moratorium by VHDA on re-issuance of vouchers because of budget constraints. The moratorium has resulted in a loss of
one or two vouchers each month.
Based on average assistance provided per voucher, VHDA has projected Albemarle County's portion of transfer vouchers will
total 153. While this is a loss from the 201 allotted vouchers, we will not lose any additional.
VHDA currently pays Albemarle County $29 per month for adm nistering each voucher. An ACC with HUD will provide a
minimum of $47.40/month per voucher or an annual increase of approximately $33,000. Additional costs to the County should
be minimal, primarily associated with issuing checks to landlords an d tenants. A portion of the increased fees may be used
to obtain hardware and software for producing checks in the office, rather than increasing the workload in Finance. The
transfer will not require additional staffing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution based on the transfer
· Removing existing duplicity in program administration
· Assurance of a firm number of vouchers
· Increased fees to support program administration
01.038
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF
SECTION 8 ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (~HUD~) has consented or will
consent to the transfer of the ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRACT(S) dated NOvember 22, 2000
and designated as number(s) V~q01; and
WHEREAS, such transfer requires the Transferee to agree to certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, as Transferee, we desire to agree to the aforesaid conditions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors agrees
that the funds authorized by the transfer will be used for the same purposes as originally int~3d~; that
is, to provide eligible families with the Housing Choice VOuchers (CFR 24 part 982) and/or MOderate
RehabilitatiOn (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 24 part 882; that the same population as originally
intended (CFR 24 part 882 and 982) will be served; and that the vouchers will be used in Albemarle
County as originally intended.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing wrfting is a true, correct copy of a R~n
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of five to zero on March 7, 2001.
Rev. 01/16/01
ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION CONTRACT
TRANSFER AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
This Agreement, entered into as of the __ day of .... 2001, between Virginia
Housing Development Authority (the "Transferor') and the County of Albemarle (the "Transferee").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Transferor entered into the Annual Contributions Contract(s) dated November 22,
2000 and designated as Number(s) VA901 and any amendments thereto, (the "Contract") with the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") a copy of which is (or copies are) attached
hereto as Exhibit(s); and
WHEREAS, under the Contract the transferor is responsible for 153 Housing Choice Vouchers
and/or Moderate Rehabilitation in Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Transferor is willing to transfer to the Transferee the portion of said Contract(s)
covering 153 units in Albemarle County effective as of the date of this Agreement ("Albemarle County's
PortionU); and
WHEREAS, HUD has consented to or will consent to the transfer of the Contract(s) to the
Transferee; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto do agree to transfer the Albemarle County Portion of the Contract(s)
to the Transferee and further agree that Transferee will use the Funds authorized under the Albemarle
County Portion of the Contract for the same purpose as originally intended, that is, to provide eligible
families with the Housing Choice Vouchers (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 24 part 982) and/or
Moderate Rehabilitation (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 24 part 882); that the same population as
originally intended (CFR 24 part 882 and 982) will be served; and that the subsidy will be used in
Albemarle County as originally intended.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements contained herein and other good
and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency .of which are hereby acknowledged, -the parties do
covenant and agree as follows:
The Transferor does hereby transfer, assign, convey and grant to the Transferee all dghts, title,
interest and obligations under the Albemarle County Portion of the Contract.
The Transferee for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby assumes all the dghts, title, interest
and obligations under the Albemarle Coun.b/Portion of the Contract and agrees to be bound by all of the
terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions relating to the Albemarle County Portion of the Contract
and agrees to fully, promptly and properly perform, observe, satisfy and discharge all of the terms,
conditions, obligations and restrictions of the Contract applicable to the Albemarle County Portion.
Nothing herein contained shall act as a release or waiver of any claim which may adse in
connection with the Transferor's failure to have faithfully discharged all of its duties and responsibilities
under the Contract and/or the Albemarle County Portion of the Contract prior to the date of transfer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto caused these presents to be executed
on their behalf and their seals affixed the day and year written below.
A'I-rEST: TRANSFEROR:
By:
Its
Date:
ATTEST:
TRANSFEP.~I~E:
Its COJ~, ty Execut,ve -~
Rev. 01/16/01
David R Bowerman
Lindsay G. Dottier, ,Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphfis
Jack Joueff
COUNTY OF ALBEMARI F
Office of Board of Supendsors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hah
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Mille~
County Primary and Secondary Road Fund
(Revenue Sharing Program)
Code of Virginia, Section 33.1-75.1
Fiscal Year 2001-02
County of Albemarle
March 8, 2001
Mr. James S. Givens
State Secondary Roads Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Givens:
The County of Albemarle, Virginia, indicates by this letter its official intent to participate in the "Revenue
Shadng Program" for Fiscal Year 2001-02. The County will provide up to $500,000 for this program, to be
matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis from funds of the State of Virginia.
The County has worked with its Resident Engineer and developed the attached eligible project (Old
Lynchburg Road, spot improvements) to be undertaken with these funds. The County also understands
that the program will be reduced on a pro rata basis if requests exceed available funds.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas, Chairman
SHT/ewc
Attachment
cc: Jim Bryan
Wayne Cilimberg
Printed on recycled paper
Rev l~}Allgg$
District: Culpeper p~e ± of _~
Residenc Charlottesville
Designation of Funds
FY 2001-2002 Revenue Sharing
Albemarle County
Project # and UPC # County State 6 Year Proj. Funded Project from: Res Engr Ad_re_in by ~'hmding Split FItWA Proposed
or Route # and Local Match Match Plan w/Rev, Shar.~ Length Bridge Apprvd Description of VDOT or PE / RW/ 534 Adv.
Street Name ($) ($) Priority Only (Y/N) (mi/lan) To: VPD (y/N) (Y/N) Proposed Work County Constr Codes Date
0631-002- ,C 500,00C 500,000 13 N 5.5 mi. 1.35 Mi. S. Rte. 1-64 1500 N y Spot Improvements VDOT Dec-01
Old Lynchburg Rd. Route 708
UPC # 15329
Total $500,000 $ 500,000
County State
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Revenue Sharing Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request by the County to participate in the 2001-2002 VDOT
Revenue Sharing Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2001
ACTION:
.CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
VDOT's Revenue Sharing Program provides an opportunity for the County to receive up to an additional $500,000 for road
improvements. The program requires a dollar-for-dollar match by the county. The result is a total commitment of up to
$1,000,000 toward improvements to the local road system. The County's match is allocated in its Capital Improvements
Program (CIP). The Revenue Sharing Program enables the County to better implement the Priority List of Road
Improvements approved by the Board by providing an additional infusion of funds which can accelerate the planning and
construction of roads projects on the list. The County has participated in this program since 1988.
DISCUSSION:
The County must formally request participation in the FY 2001-02 program by March 30, 2001. Attached is a draft letter of
intent to participate in the program VDOT has identified in the Six Year Secondary Road Plan the Old Lynchburg Road
spot safety improvement project (from Rt. 631 to Rt. 708) for FY 2001-02 Revenue Sharing funds. It should be noted that
while specific projects are listed in the Six Year Plan to receive these funds, the Revenue Sharing Program is flexible and
funds can be shifted to other transportation projects in the future as agreed to by VDOT.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the County participate in the Revenue Sharing Program, requesting a total of $500,000 (to be matched
with available County CIP funds) for the Old Lynchburg Road spot safety improvement project and authorize the Ch airman
to sign the attach ed letter notifying VDOT of our intent to partici pate in the program.
01.042
County Primary and Secondary Road Fund
(Revenue Sharing Program)
Code of Virginia, Section 33.1-75.1
Fiscal Year 2001-02
County of Albemarle
March 8, 2001
Mr. James S. Givens
State Secondary Roads Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
DRAFT
Dear Mr. Givens:
The County of Albemarle, Virginia, indicates by this letter its official intent to participate in the "Revenue Sharing Program"
for Fiscal Year 2001-02. The County will provide up to $500,000 for this program, to be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis
from funds of the State of Virginia.
The County has worked with its Resident Engineer and developed the attached eligible project (Old Lynchburg Road, spot
improvements) to be undertaken with these funds. The County also understands that the program will be reduced on a pro
rata basis if requests exceed available funds.
Sincerely,
Sally Thomas
Chairman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
~CHMOND, 23219-2000
January 26, 2001
JAMES S. GIVENS
STATE SECONDARY ROADS ENGiNE. ER
Boards of Supervisors of All Counties
And the City of Suffolk Council
Re:
County Primary and Secondary Road Fund
(Revenue Sharing Program)
Fiscal Year 2001-02
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors
And Members of the Council:
The County Primary and Secondary Road Fund, more commonly known as the
"Revenue Sharing Program," allows the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) to provide state funds to match local funds for the construction, maintenance,
or improvement of primary and secondary highways in your county. This money may
also be used for the addition of subdivision streets otherwise eligible Under Section
33.1-72.1, Code of Virginia. Such a cooperative program between local governments
and YDOT allows for an increased number of road improvements throughout the
Commonwealth. In the current fiscal year, 46 counties chose to participate in the
Revenue Sharing Program, thereby providing $30 million for additional improvements
to the primary and secondary systems statewide.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board's annual allocation of state funds in
Fiscal Year 2000-01 for this program was $15 million as specified in the General
Assembly's Appropriations Act. If your county wishes to participate in the program
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002, the Board .of Supervisors or City Council must
notify VDOT of:
· its intent to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program,
· the amount of local funds to be provided, not to exceed $500,000, and
· the prioritized list of eligible projects with individual estimated project costs.
The Resident Engineer for your locality will work with you to identify a list of
one or more improvement projects to be undertaken with these funds. Your Resident
Engineer will also help you establish estimated project costs and will prepare the
necessary detailed information so that the submitted projects can be reviewed for
program funding eligibility. The Secondary Roads Division of VDOT must receive this
information on the attached forms by March 30, 2001.
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
The submittal of this package should be coordinated through the Resident
Engineer's office. The Resident Engineer's office should forward this package,
along with a prepared Designation of Funds form, to:
Mr. James S. Givens
State Secondary Roads Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
Secondary Roads Division
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Note: a sample letter of notification of desire to participate in the 2001-02
Revenue Sharing Program and a Designation of Funds form are attached for your
reference.
In the event that localities throughout the state request a total in excess of the
available funds, the Commonwealth's participation will be adjusted downwards on a
pro rata basis to remain within the limits of the appropriation. The adjustment may
require that the lowest priority project be dropped from the program or that the scope
of some projects be reduced. You will be notified of the preliminary amount available
to youe::locality in April-2001; this amount will be subject to approval by the
Commonwealth Transportation Board in July of 2001.
Conversely, should total requests require less than the available funds, those
counties which initially requested the $500,000 maximum may apply for a part of the
remaining appropriation as specified in Section 33.1-75.1, Code of Virginia. The
allocation of any remaining funds will be decided in June 2002.
Note: a set of guidelines for administering this program is enclosed to assist you
in making your request.
Thank you for continuing your support of this effort.
Attachments
Sincerely,
/James S. Givens
State Secondary Roads Engineer
CC:
District Administrators
Resident Engineers
GUIDE
to the
REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM
of the
Virginia Department of Transportation
Secondary Roads Division
Memorandum SR-48-92
Richmond, Virginia
March, 1992
Copyright 1992. Commonwealth of Virginia
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
REVENUE SHARING GUIDELINES
CONTENTS
Purpose
Definitions
A. Budget Item Number
B. Construction Improvement
C. County Primary and Secondary Road Fund
D. Incidental Improvements
E. Maintenance
F. Matching Funds
G. New Hardsurfacing (Paving)
H. Plant Mix
I. Project (Eligible)
J. Project Number
K. Secondary Six-Year Plan
Eligible Work 3
A. Deficits on Completed Construction or Improvements
B. Supplemental Funding for Ongoing Construction or Improvements
C. Supplemental Funding for Future Construction or Improvements
D. Construction or Improvements not Included in the Adopted Six-Year Plan
E. Construction or Improvements for the Acceptance of Subdivision Streets
F. Unprogrammed Maintenance
Application Process
5
Approval Process 6
Implementation Process
A. VDOT Administered Work
B. County Administered Work
6
Additional Allocations
8
REVENUE SHARING GUIDELINES
I. PURPOSE
The "Revenue Sharing Program" provides-additional funding for the maintenance or
improvement of the primary and secondary highways systems and eligible additions in the
counties of the Commonwealth, including the former Nansemond County portion of the City of
Suffolk;
The program is administered by the Department of Transportation, in cooperation with
the participating localities, under the Authority of Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia. An
annual appropriation of funds for this program is designated by the Commonwealth
Transportation Board, with statutory limitations on the amount authorized per locality.
Application for program funding must be made by resolution of the governing body of the
jurisdiction in which the road is located. Project funding is allocated by resolution of the
Commonwealth Transportation Board. Construction may be accomplished by the Department of
Transportation or, where appropriate, by the locality :under an agreement with the Department.
II. DEFINITIONS
The following terms are important in understanding the Revenue Shadng Program.
A. Budget Item Number, means a multi-digit code which identifies work to be completed; it is
used for minor activities which are usually done in one year. (See incidental improvements).
B. Construction Improvements, means operations which usually require more than one fiscal
year to complete, and which change or add to the characteristics of a road, facility, or structure.
C. ".,..County Primary and Secondary Road Fund", means the designation given to the
specially funded program developed by the county government and the Department of
Transportation subject to approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. This is more
commonly referred to as the Revenue Sharing Program.
D. Incidental Improvements, means any operation, usually constructed within one year, which
changes the type, width, length, location, or gradient of a road facility, or structure; or the addition
of features not originally provided for such road, faCility, or structure.
E. Maintenance, means activities involved in preserving or restoring the roadway, facility, or
structure to its odginal condition, as neady as possible.
F. Matching Funds, means funds provided by the Commonwealth which are allocated to
eligible items of work in participating counties and the City of Suffolk to supplement, on a dollar-
for-dollar basis, the Iocality's contribution for eligible projects.
G. New Hardsurfacing (Paving), means the first-time paving of a previously unpaved roadway;
usually composed of a multiple course asphalt surface treatment. In order for a road to be
eligible for paving, it must meet the minimum traffic volume cdteria of 50 vehicles per day (VPD).
H. Plant Mix, means an asphalt-based compound used in highway construction and
maintenance. For a road to be eligible for plant mix, it should:
Have an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 500 or greater;
Be a major secondary and serve as a major transportation facility in the locality;
Be classified as "tolerable" in accordance with established standards for such
determination; and
Consist of an overlay necessary to restore the typical section and/or riding
surface of the roadway.
I. Project (Eligible), means work including construction, improvement, maintenance, and
additions costs.
J. Project Number, means a multi-digit code which identifies work to be completed; it is used in
conjunction with construction.
K. Secondary Six-Year Plan, means the official listing of projects to be constructed, which is
developed jointly by the Department of Transportation and the county governments. (Section
33.1-70.01, Code of Virginia).
III. ELIGIBLE WORK
Revenue Sharing funds may be used to finance eligible work on a county's primary or
secondary system. Below is a list of work which could be considered eligible for ReVenue
Sharing funds, and examples of each.
A. Deficits on Completed Construction or Improvements.
When the Resident Engineer has a completed project with a deficit, the county may
request that the deficit be financed with Revenue Sharing funds provided the county is willing to
contribute one half of the deficit as its portion.
Example:
Actual Cost = $120,000
Available project funding = $100,000
Actual Deficit = $ 20,000
County participation = $ 10,000
State match = $ 10,000
Revenue Shadng Funding = $ 20,000
B. Supplemental Funding for Ongoing Construction or Improvements.
When the Resident Engineer anticipates the cost to complete the construction or
improvement will exceed the financing currently committed to this work, the county may request
that the anticipated deficit be financed with Revenue Shadng funds provided the county is willing
to contribute one half of the anticipated deficit as its portion.
Example:
Available project funding = $100,000
Estimated cost = $..1.50,000
Estimated Deficit = $ 50,000
County participation = $ 25,000
State match = $. 25,000
Revenue Shadng Funding -- $ 50,000
C. Supplemental Funding for Future Construction or Improvements Listed in the
Adopted Six-Year Plan.
When the Resident Engineer anticipates allocations (in addition to those proposed in the adopted
Six-Year Plan) will be required to completely finance a project, the county may request
permission to provide one half of such additional financing with the remaining one half provided
by state matching funds. This includes, but is not limited to, such things as signalization
additional preliminary engineering, or acquisition of additional right-of-way. This procedure may
be utilized to accelerate the funding of a project and thereby permit its completion eadier than
otherwise would have been possible.
D. Construction or Improvements not Included in the Adopted Six-Year Plan.
When the Resident Engineer believes that the necessary work may be completed within
the fiscal year, the county may request one half the funds to construct a project not currently in
the Six-Year Plan. However, in such cases, the county funds, together with the state matching
funds, must finance the entire estimated cost of the project within the' fiscal year involved.
E. Construction or Improvements Necessary for the Acceptance of~Specific
Subdivision Streets Otherwise Eligible for Acceptance into the System for Maintenance.
The construction or improvements (widening, surface treating, etc.) necessary for the
acceptance of certain subdivision streets otherwise eligible under Section 33.1-72.1, Code of
Virginia, for acceptance into the secondary system. The work should be completed within the
fiscal year involved.
F. Unprogrammed Maintenance Whose Accomplishment is Consistent with the
Department's Operating Policies.
Examples of this type of work include normal maintenance replacement activities such as
guardrail replacement, plant mix overlays, sidewalks and curb & gutter repair.
IV. APPLICATION PROCESS
Application for Revenue Sharing Funds may be made only by the governing body of the
county or the City of Suffolk in which the road is located. The following process describes the
steps which occur in determining the funding available for each participating locality to finance
eligible projects.
VDOT's State.Second.ary Roads Engineer sends a letter inviting all county
governments to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program for the coming fiscal
year.
The County Government determines its intent to participate in the program, and
the amount of county funds to be provided. The County Government and
Resident Engineer jointly prepare a prioritized plan to recommend assignment of
requested funds to eligible projects. This prioritized plan should:
*list what is to be included for each project (example: length of road, width of
road, estimated cost, etc.);
*identify who will administer each project (see Subsection 33.1-75.1 [B],
regarding when a project may be administered by a county).
While there is no limit on the amount of funds the county may contribute, the
amount of funds eligible for State matching funds may .not exceed the statutory
limitation.
The Resident Engineer submits the detailed prioritized plan developed in Step 2
of the process with recommendations to the Secondary Roads Division, with a
copy to the appropriate District Administrator.
This prioritized plan must be received by the date specified in the invitation letter.
VDOT's Secondary Roads Division notifies the county governments of the
amount of State matching funds available for use in their counties, subject to the
approval of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. If the total requests
exceed the amount available according to statute, each participating county will
receive State matching funds on a pro rata basis, and the prioritized plan will be
adjusted accordingly.
V. APPROVAL PROCESS
The following process describes the steps which occur in securing approval of the
Statewide Revenue Shadng Program from the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
VDOT's Secondary Roads Division reviews the individual plans, and if found to
be acceptable, develops the Statewide Plan and recommends it be submitted to
the Commonwealth Transportation Board for approval. The Maintenance and
Programming and Scheduling Divisions will also review the plans as appropriate
for their areas of responsibility.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board approves the Statewide Program,
including allocations to specific projects in each county's plan. Upon approval of
the Plan, it constitutes the "....county primary and secondary road fund." Any
modification of the approved program must be agreed upon by the county
government and VDOT and approved by the Commonwealth Transportation
Board.
VI. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
A. VDOT Administered Work
The following process describes the steps which occur in the implementation of the
Revenu~-:Shadng Program, beginning with the approval by the Commonwealth Transportation
Board and ending with the payment by the county and subsequent state match.
VDOT's Secondary Roads Division authorizes the Fiscal Division to reserve the
State Matching funds for the approved specific projects. These monies are
placed in a special VDOT account for this purpose.
If applicable, the Secondary Roads Division prepares county/state agreements
which govern the performance of work administered by VDOT. The agreement
must be executed pdor to incurring any cost to be financed from the Revenue
Sharing Program.
The Fiscal Division bills the county for its share of the estimated cost of work to
be performed; the money is collected prior to the beginning of work in
accordance with current billing procedures.
After the project is completed, the Fiscal Division makes final billing to the county
for its share of the actual costs incurred, in excess of those provided in Step 3. If
the county's share of the actual cost is less than the estimated cost, the
difference may be refunded to the county or reassigned to another Revenue
Sharing project.
6
If a County Government wishes to cancel a project begun under the Revenue Sharing
Program during Preliminary Engineering (PE) or Right of Way (R/W) phases but prior to the
Construction phase, it may do so by Board of Supervisors' resolution The Department retains
the sole option to require reimbursement by the county of all State matching funds spent from the
time the project was begun until it is canceled.
If construction does not begin before the end of the fiscal year involved, the county must
· pay the Department its share, or certify that the money is held in a special fund account
specifically earmarked for the project(s). This must occur by June 30 of the fiscal year or it may
result in loss of state matching funds.
B. County Administered Work
The following process describes the steps which occur in the implementation of the
Revenue Sharing Program, beginning with the approval by the Commonwealth Transportation
Board and ending with the payment by the county and subsequent state match.
VDOT's Secondary Roads Division authorizes the Fiscal Division to reserve the
State Matching funds for the approved specific projects. These monies are
placed in a special VDOT account for this purpose.
The Secondary Roads Division prepares county/state agreements which govern
the performance of work administered by the county, the agreement must be
executed prior to incurring any cost to be financed from the Revenue 'Sharing
Program,
After all work is completed, the County makes a final billing to VDOT for its share
of the actual costs incurred. If actual cost is less than that provided by the
agreement, the difference may be reassigned to another Revenue Sharing
project in the county, or refunded to the VDOT Revenue Sharing account.
If a County Govemment wishes to cancel a project begun under the Revenue Sharing
Program before it is completed, it may do so by Board of Supervisors' resolution. The
Department retains the sole option to require reimbursement by the county of all State matching
funds spent from the time the project was begun until it is canceled.
VII. ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS
One month pdor to the end of any fiscal year in which less than $10 million has been
allocated from state funds under Section 33.1-75.1 [DJ of the Code of Virqinia, those counties
requesting $500,000 may be allowed an additional allocation. The difference between the
amount allocated and the $10 million shall be allocated at the discretion of the Commonwealth
Transportation Board among the counties receiving the maximum allocation.
8
VIII. SECTION 33.1-75.1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
Special funds for systems in certain counties
A. From, and as a first priority of, annual allocations of state funds for the maintenance,
improvement, construction, or reconstruction of the systems of state highways, the
Commonwealth Transportation Board shaft make an equivalent matching allocation to any county
for designations by the governing body of up to twenty-five percent or $500,000, whichever is
greater, of funds received by it during the current fiscal year pursuant to the State and Local
Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, hereinafter referred to as "revenue sharing funds," for use by the
Commonwealth Transportation Board to construct, maintain or improve the primary and
secondary highway systems within such county. Such funds appropriated by the Commonwealth
Transportation Board and such federal revenue sharing funds shall be placed in special fund
accounts of the Board and county, respectively, both to be known as the". .... County primary
and secondary road fund," and shaft be used solely for the purposes of either (i) maintaining,
~mproving or constructing the primary and secondary highway systems within such county, or (ii)
bringing subdivision streets, used as such prior to July 1, 1988, up to standards sufficient to
qualify them for inclusion in the state primary and secondary system of highways. The governing
body may place an equivalent amount from county general funds in such fund in lieu of such
federal revenue sharing funds. After due consultation and exchange of recommendations with the
Board, the governing body of such county shaft determine what portion of such funds shaft be
used for construction, and what portion for maintenance or improvement, .of primary and
secondary roads in such county. That portion so designated by the governing body for
construction shaft be allocated to specific projects by the Board;- that portion designated: by the
governing body for maintenance or improvement shall be allocated to specific'roads by the
governing body. The county shaft pay over to the Board that amount of its .special fund account
needed for a project upon notice by the Board of its intent to proceed with the project. Projects
identified by the board of supervisors for.construCtion with revenue sharing funds need not be
included in the county's six-year plan.
B. Upon indication by the resident engineer of a county that a project or l~rojects funded pursuant
to subsection A of this section cannot be implemented by the Department of Transportation Within
the fiscal year for which such revenue sharing funds have been allocated, the Department may
contract with the county for the implementation of the project or projects by the county. Such
contract may cover either a single project or may provide for the county's implementation of
several projects during the fiscal year. Upon approval by the Department, the county may expend
from its special fund created under subsection A of this section funds to undertake the
implementation of a particular project or projects. The county wi//undertake implementation of the
particular project or projects by obtaining the necessary permits from the Department of
Transportation in order to ensure that the improvement is consistent with the Department's
standards for such improvements.
C. Total state funds allocated statewide under this section shall not exceed $10 million in any one
fiscal year.
D. Notwithstanding the limitations specified in subsection A of this section, one month prior to the
end of any fiscal year in which less than $10 million has been a/located from state funds under
this section, those counties requesting more than $500,000 may be allowed an additional
a/location. The difference between the amount first allocated and $10 miftion shaft be aftocated at
the discretion of the Commonwealth Transportation Board among the counties receiving the
maximum allocation under subsection A of this section.
9
McGuireWoods LLP
Court Square Building
310 Fourth Street N.E., Suite 300
P.O. Box 1288
Charlottesville, VA 22902-1288
Phone: 804.977.2500
Fax: 804.980.2222
www. mcguirewoods.com
Valerie W. Long
Direct: 804.977.2545
McGU]REWCDDS
v[ong@mcguirewoods.con~
Direct Fax: 804.980.2265
February 28, 2001
VIA FACSIMILE (804) 296-5800
Ms. Ella W. Carey
Clerk
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Re: SP 00-64 Weber (Triton PCS - CVR 347D)
Dear Ella:
As we discussed earlier this afternoon, on behalf of our client Tdton PCS, Inc, I
respectfully request a deferral of the Board of Supervisors' consideration of SP 00-64 Weber
(Triton PCS - CVR 347D) until Wednesday, March 21, 2001. This will provide additional time for
Triton to continue investigating various options for treatment of the ground equipment
associated with the proposed wireless telecommunications facility.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or require any
additional information in connection with this request. I appreciate your assistance.
Very truly yours,
Valerie W. Long
VWL/hll
CC:
Joan McDowell, Department of Planning and Community Development (via facsimile)
Dale Finocchi, Crown Communications, Inc.
James Baran, Triton PCS, Inc.
\\REA\53574.1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - DMV Traffic Safety Grant A101-15-57015
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Request approval of Appropriation 20050 in the amount of
$1,5OO.O0.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Ms.White,Messrs.Tucker,Breeden,Walters, Miller
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: × INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Traffic activity continues to increase in the County of Albemarle. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles recognizes this
problem and has funded grants using federal pass through monies to ncrease traffic enforcement through selective
enforcement assignments employing officers working overtime. This mini-grant commenced November 24, 2000 and extended
through December 31, 2000.
DISCUSSION:
The total grant is $1,500.00. There is no local match.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation 20050 in the amount of $1,500.00.
01.034
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR HOLIDAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
YES
NO
GRANT
X
X
20050
AMOUNT
1 1535 31013 120000 OVERTIME $1,394.00
I 1535 31013 210000 FICA 106.00
TOTAL $1,500.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1535 33000 330011 FEDERAL DMV GRANT $1,500.00
TOTAL $1,500.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
FEB 22. 2001
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Criminal Records Systems improvement
Grant 01-B3557
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation 20051 in the amount of
$12,000.00.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs.: Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Miller
Mss. White, Cavaliere
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
This grant renewal request involves expanding the capabilities of the Police records management system (RMS). The funding
requested is for equipment, data file conversion, and training. Installation will be handled by County Information Services
personnel.
The equipment, data conversion and training, combined with previously acquired software and document imaging and scanning
equipment will greatly extend the capability to generate reports from the Police RMS. The Police Department will be able to
scan and store case files, incident reports, accident reports, photos, diagrams, and other printed matter to be incorporated into
the RMS. Training will be provided by OSSI, provider of the Pistol 2000 RMS program.
DISCUSSION:
The equipment will be funded by a $9,000.00 federal grant and local match of $3,000.00. The local match will be funded from
current operations and does not require additio hal funds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 20051 in the amount of $12,000.00.
01.035
01-035.doc
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 00101
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
YES
NO
GRANT
X
X
20051
AMOUNT
1 1526 31013 550402 TRAINING $2,500.00
1 1526 31013 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 7,500.00
1 1526 31013 800711 SOFTVVARE 2,000.00
TOTAL $12,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1526 33000 330001 FEDERAL GRANT $9,000.00
2 1526 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM G/F $3,000.00
TOTAL $12,000.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
AP P ROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
FEB 22. 2001
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Education
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation #20052 for tuition fees for
English as a Second Language classes and the purchase of
football equipment for Monticello High School.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Castner, E~reeden; Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2001
ACTION: x
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on December 14, 2000, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
Monticello High School Donation
Monticello High School received a donation from Matthew and May Blundin in the amount of $1,800.00. This donation will be
used to purchase football equipment.
English as a Second Language Class
Albemarle County Adu It Basic Education provides tuition classes tailored to the individualized needs of the clients of private
companies, institutions and agencies when needed to supplement our existing classes. Additional revenue in the amount of
$200.00 was received from the City of Charlottesville Department of Social Services and $1,000.00 from students for tuition
fees for English as a Second Language class.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $3.000.00, as detailed on Appropriation
#20052.
01.036
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
YES
NO
SCHOOL
X
X
20052
PURCHASE OF FOOTBALL EQUIPMENT AND ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSES.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 2304 61105 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies $1,800.00
1 3116 63348 132100 Teacher Wages $1,114.72
1 3116 63348 210000 FICA $85.28
TOTAL $3,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $1,800.00
2 3116 16000 161206 Tuition-Adult Ed $1,200.00
TOTAL $3,000.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
FEB 22. 2001
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Education
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation #20053, in the amount of
$187,050.00, for various school programs.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Breeden; Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
.ACTION: x INFORMATION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION: IN FORMATION:
ATTACH M E N TS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on January 11, 2001, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
Crozet Elementary School Donation
Crozet Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,300.00 from the Crozet School PTO. This donation will
be used to help cover expenses incurred with the Artist in Residency Program.
Lacrosse Field Donation
The Albemarle County Lacrosse Boosters Association is coordinating the renovation of the lacrosse field on Lamb's Road. The
Charlottesville-Albemarle Foundation has made a donation in the amount of $5,000.00. This donation will be used to help pay
expenses incurred for the renovation of the lacrosse field.
Sutherland Middle School Donation
Sutherland Middle School received a donation in the amount of $750.00 from Grace Community Church. This donation will
be used to purchase books, miscellaneous supplies for teachers, clinic supplies and to replace classroom equipment.
Re-appropriation of School Board Reserve and Fund Balance
Utilize $180,000.00 from the Fund Balance and $20,000.00 from the non-recurring Reserve to offset steep and unforeseen
increases in the cost of fuel for both buses and heating. Utilize $27,500.00 from the recurring Reserve to fund an additional
Support Analyst, effective January 3, 2001. Utilize $26,600.00 from the recurring Reserve for an additional 1.15 FTE of English
as a Second Language staffing, effective January 3, 2001. Utilize $28,000 from the recurring Reserve to hire a Coordinator
for Testing and Guidance to assist Dr. Kevin Hughes, effective January 15, 2001.
RECOMMENDATIONh
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $187,050.00, as detailed on Appropriation
#20053.
01.037
APPROPRIATION REQU EST
FISCAL YEAR:
00/01
NUMBER
20053
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
X
FUND:
SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS.
CODE
1 2203 61101 301210
EXPENDITURE
DESCRI PTI ON AMOUNT
Contract Services $1,300.00
I 2433 62420 331200 Repair& Maint
5,000.00
I 2255 61101 601200
I 2255 61101 580000
1 2255 62220 600400
1 2255 61101 800100
Books & Subscriptions
Misc. Expenses
Clinic Supplies
RepaidReplace-Equip
200.00
150.00
200.00
200.00
1 2410 60100
I 2432 62320
I 2433 62420
1 2115 62190
1 2115 6219O
I 2115 62190
1 2115 62190
1 2115 62190
1 2115 62190
1 2100 61112
I 2100 61112
I 2100 61112
I 2100 61112
1 2100 61112
1 2100 61112
1 2111 61311
1 2111 61311
1 2111 61311
1 2111 61311
1 2111 61311
1 2111 61311
999981 School Board Reserve
600800 Vehicle/Equip-Fuel
510800 Heating Services
114300 Salaries-Other Tech
210000 FICA
221000 VRS
231000 Health Ins
232000 Dental Ins
241000 VRS Group Life
112100 Salaries-Teacher
21OO00 FICA
221000 VRS
231000 Health Ins
232000 Dental Ins
241000 VRS Group Life
111400 Salaries-Other Manag
210000 FICA
221000 VRS
231000 Health Ins
232000 Dental Ins
241000 VRS Group Life
(102,100.00)
160,000.00
40,000.00
21,877.00
1,674.00
2,827.00
917.00
30.00
175.00
21,062.00
1,611.00
2,721.00
1,000.00
38.00
168.00
22,290.00
1,705.00
2,88O.0O
917.00
30.00
178.00
TOTAL $187,050.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109Donation $7,050.00
2 2000 51000 510100 Approp-Fund Balance 180,000.00
TOTAL $187,050.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATU RE DATE
FEB 22. 2001
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Perennial Stream Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report prOvided for information purposes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Mawyer, Hirschman, Kelsey
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: 1/22/,0~Report from Engineering &
REVIEWED BY..' ~''''~ e,v t
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission held a work session on January 30, 2001 on the topic of how to define perennial streams in the
Water Protection Ordinance (WPO) and other County policy documents. Prior to the work session, several commissioners
had expressed concern about which streams are considered perennial for purposes of the WPO, and the accuracy of the
method currently employed. In particular, this was a topic of discussion during the review of several recent site plans, including
the Baker-Butler Elementary School and Home Depot.
In response to the Commission's requested work session, staff from the Department of Engineering & Public Works prepared
a report that provides background on the subject, offers alternative means to define perennial streams, and discusses
implications of changing the definition for the Land Use Plan and the Neighborhood Model. The report also addresses enabling
code for defining perennial streams and the relationsliip between stream designa!ions and stormwater master planning for the
Development Areas.
DISCUSSION:
During the work session, the Commission discussed the various alternatives outlined in the report and the implications of
changing the definition. In summary, both commissioners and staffed gained a broader appreciation of the dimensions and
complexities of the subject, and the importance of this topic for the Development Areas.
Several of the commissioners expressed support for the County's proposed stormwater master planning process, which would
identify stream protection zones in the Development Areas based on stream values, rather than a determination of whether
a stream is perennial or intermittent.
The Commission, as a whole, did not recommend a specific course of action, but did specifically recommend that the report
be shared with the Board of Supervisors.
RECOMMENDATION:
The report is provided to the Board for information purposes.
01.039
cOUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS
TO:
FROM:
V/A:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development
David J. Hirschman, Water Resources Manager~
Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering & Public Works
Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering
January 22, 2001
Defmition of Perennial Stream in the Water Protection Ordinance
In preparation for the Planning Commission's requested work session on this topic, I have
prepared the following report. The report is divided into the following sections:
Section 1, What is the Issue?, frames the discussion and provides some background on the
subject.
Section 2, What Solutions & Approaches are Available?, outlines four different approaches for
modifying the regulatory program for perennial streams.
Section 3, what are the Implications for Changing the Definition?, provides a discussion relating
any proposed changes to the Land Use Plan, enabling code through the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act and Regulations, and the County's proposed stormwater master planning
process for the Development Areas.
Section 4, Recommendations, contains our Department's input with regard to an amendment
process.
The Attachment includes a variety of definitions and a technical approach for determining a
perennial stream.
Memorandum- Definition of Perennial Streams in the Hater Protection Ordinance
January 22, 2001
Page 2
1. WHAT IS THE ISSUE?
The Water Protection Ordinance (W-PO) was adopted in 1998 and contains provisions for erosion
and sediment control, stormwater management, and the protection of stream buffer areas. This
ordinance was adopted under authority of various components of state code, namely:
· The Virginia Erosion & Sediment Control Act
· The Virginia Stormwater Management Act
· The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA)
According to the WPO, a stream buffer is "an area of land at or near a tributary streambank
and/or nontidal wetland that has intrinsic water quality value due to the ecological and biological
processes it performs or is otherwise sensitive to changes which may result in significant
degradation to the quality of state waters."
This defin fion came directly from the definition of"Resource Protection Area" (RPA) in the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations (9 VAC 10-20 et
seq.). These regulations were instrumental in establishing the requirement for a 100-foot wide
undisturbed buffer area adjacent to designated RPAs for localities within Virginia's Tidewater
region (generally east of Interstate 95). As with any regulatory program, the state regulations had
to establish, with more of less precision, where the 100-foot buffer requirements would apply.
At the time the original regulations were adopted, the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
Department used a definition that was simple and clear for the local governments that would
have to implement the program and for those regulated by the new requirement. In short, the
regulations defined "Tributary Stream" as "any perennial stream that is so depicted on the most
recent U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map (scale 1:24, 000)."
Since and prior to that time, this type of definition for "perennial stream" has become a
widespread standard for local governments, including Albemarle County, and natural resource
agencies. In addition, the definition has never ceased to generate controversy. The heart of the
matter is as follows:
The USGS maps were not produced for a regulatory application, including the designation on
the maps of dashed (intermittent) versus solid blue line (perennial) streams. These streams
were mapped primarily using aerial photography with limited field verification.
Professionals in the field will readily admit that the stream designations on the maps are
inaccurate, with the error tending toward designating many small perennial streams as
intermittent, especially in topography characteristic of the Piedmont. It is also possible that
some streams designated as perennial on the maps are indeed intermittent, but this type of
error is very uncommon for the Piedmont region.
The strength of the definition from a regulatory perspective is anyone can look at these maps and
know immediately where a stream buffer requirement would apply and where it won't. For those
Memorandum - De£mition of Perennial Streams in th~ Writer Protedti0n Ordinance
January 22, 2001
Page 3
subject to the regulations, plans can be prepared without the uncertainty of a field determination.
For local government managers, limited staff resources can be applied to enforcing the buffer
requirements in known locations rather than applying these resources to the technically complex
task of field determining perennial streams. The USGS maps are not perfect, but do represent a
comprehensive mapping of streams by a technical agency in a manner that has never been
replicated on a national scale. The latter concern is partially alleviated by emerging GIS
technology, which allows for desktop modeling of streams in a way that would produce a more
accurate map than the original USGS quadrangles. However, this exercise would still require the
allocation of staff time and financial resources to produce a legitimate product. These various
issues and topics are addressed below.
This issue presents a sense of ddjit vu for those involved with the adoption of the original Water
Resources Protection Areas Ordinance in 1991. As Alyson Sappington from the Thomas
Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District explains:
This debate seems all too familiar, as I recall months of discussion back in 1989/90, led by
Peyton Robertson [Water Resources Manager, t989-1992J, irt seems to me that the
arguments for and against using the USGS maps were the same...Striking a balance
between something administratively workable and defensible in court, and having hydrologic
accuracy is difficult, to say the least (even with a great definition of "perennial"). The
consensus l O years ago was that the topo maps were
clearly inaccurate, but the resources were not available to come up with something more
accurate. Even ground truthing on a case-by-case basis wouM lead to ''professional
experts" disagreeing, and ultimate court cases. [ believe that if resources are now available,
a more accurate map shouM be developed specifically for the implementation of the
ordinance. Regardless, any map is better than case-by-case site inspections ... Although the
world is "gray", the "black & white" of a map will be much more defensible. I believe this
discussion will continue to have two sides -- The "technical/scientifically oriented"folks who
can't live with inaccuracy vs. the "implementation/administration"folks who can't live with
an administrative nightmare. (AIyson Sappington, email to Nick Evans, copied to David
Hirschman, 12/13/00)
2. WHAT SOLUTIONS & APPROACHES ARE AVAILABLE?
There are a number of approaches and solutions for addressing the perennial stream question.
We can explore these, keeping in mind that any solution should help us to achieve a broader
objective. The "Purposes" section of the WPO (Section 17-102) establishes the big picture, or
mission, that is the ordinance's foundation. Various alternatives for amending the ordinance
should be weighed against their ability to better effect these stated purposes. These purposes are
our guideposts towards implementing and continuing to improve the ordinance. With that in
mind, the following approaches are outlined for categorizing streams in the WPO.
Memorandum - Definition of Perennial Streams in the Water Protection Ordinance
January 22, 2001
Page 4
Approach #1 -- Produce a Better Stream Map. As mentioned above, using GIS, existing data
layers, and limited field verification, County staff could produce a WPO stream map that better
reflects actual conditions of stream flow. Sources available include the Albemarle County Soil
Survey (which has more streams than the USGS map and three classifications), VirGIS stream
layers, neTM planimetric maps due in the spring ofthis year (10-foot contours in the Rural Areas
and 5-foot contours in the Development Areas), and drainage areas derived from the GIS.
Technical criteria would have to be developed for designating perennial versus intermittent
streams based on the available resources. This option would retain the advantage of being a
known source for stream buffer designations without a field determination for every development
site. In relation to the other approaches outlined below, producing a new stream map would
necessitate more up-front resources in terms of staff time and fimding, but would be relatively
straight forward to administer once the map is produced.
Approach #2 -- Base Perennial Streams on Field Determinations. Currently, this is not a
widely used practice by local governments because the field methods are technical and not
widely agreed upon, implementation would be very time-consuming both in making and
defending field determinations, and applicants would not know if a stream buffer would apply
until the field assessment is conducted. However, methods are currently being explored by
federal, state, and local agencies. We are still collecting information on available methods, but
such a technique would almost certainly rely on a combination of soils in the streambed, channel
characteristics, vegetation, stream aquatic life, and/or historic data, with provisions made for
determinations made during droughts or periods of unusual wetness (see attached procedures
from the Withamsburg Environmental Group).
While this approach would provide the most accurate assessment of perennial streams, it would
also be the most subjective and labor-intensive for a regulatory application. Procedurally, the
decision would have to be made as to whether the applicant's consultant or County staff was to
make the field determination, and scenarios of"battling experts" would arise in certain instances.
The process would likely include measures for the applicant's consultant to provide data in
support of removing a perennial designation and stream buffer requirement that was previously
made by the County. In these cases, some type of appeal process would have to be instituted.
Approach #3 -- A Combination of #1 & #2. Another possible approach would be to produce a
map that included streams that, for regulatory purposes, are definitely perennial and definitely
intermittent (based on drainage area or other available data), with an undefined "mid-range."
Only the streams in the undefined middle category would need a field determination. This
approach would mitigate some of the weaknesses of Approaches #1 and 2 in their pure forms,
but would still have some inherent inaccuracies and administrative difficulties.
Approach #4 -- Reorient Stream Buffer Protection To Stream Values. If one steps back
from this issue, it becomes somewhat of an academic exercise as to whether a stream is
intermittent or perennial as a threshold for protection. After all, the Purposes section of the WPO
Memorandum - Definition of Perennial Streams in the Water Protection Ordinance
January 22, 2001
Page 5
(Section 17-102) says nothing about intermittent versus perennial streams, but establishes the
values that streams have that deserve protection. These values include: biological and ecological
fimctions, drainage, natural recharge of groundwater, and all reasonable public uses. The
purposes also include controlling nonpoint source pollution, erosion and sedimentation, and
stream channel erosion. In essence, the perennial/intermittent dichotomy is a pragmatic way to
establish which streams are likely to have these values, or to establish a reasonable regulatory
cut-off for application of the stream buffer provisions of the ordinance.
However, one could envision a program that totally abandons the intermittent/perennial
dichotomy because we know that some small headwaters streams have great value, while some
larger perennial streams in intensively developed areas have already been "sacrificed" (e.g.,
Branchlands channel). Some would even argue that the real way to protect a watershed is to
focus protection efforts on the headwaters. Furthermore, the intermittent and perennial
classifications are, in many ways, a false dichotomy. There are definitely intermittent streams
and perennial streams, but where one becomes the other is subject to both spatial and temporal
variability along a single stream channel (depending on long-term climatic conditions, upstream
development, and other factors). This is why methods employed for the field determination of
perennial streams are a matter requiring some academic rigor, as well as inevitable uncertainty.
How could such an approach on values be implemented? It is, indeed, the most labor intensive
because the values would have to be identified and tagged to individual stream reaches. It is, in
fact, an approach that County staffhas already begun to pursue for the Development Areas. As a
complement to the master plans, envisioned by the DISC study, we have initiated planning for
stormwater master plans in each Development Area, including a field assessment of all known
streams within these areas. The stream values that are included in the scope of work are:
biological health and habitat value, stream bed and channel stability/erosion, storm and sanitary
sewer infrastructure, obstructions and stream crossings, relationship to existing and future
development, aesthetic quality, stream buffer conditions, wetlands, formal and colloquial
recreational use and value (with reference to the Greenway Plan), and available water quality
information. The plan envisions profitizing streams for protection and restoration based on
these values, and then amending the WPO and Design Manual to incorporate the findings.
Presumably, the Open Space Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, could also be
amended based on the findings (see the Recommendations section of this report). It must be
noted that only the Development Areas are included in this project.
Of course, some combination of Approaches #1 - 4 can ultimately be applied to create a program
that is sensitive to issues of accuracy, equity, and resources needed for implementation.
Memorandum- Definition ofPerermialS~eamsintheWaterProtection Ordinance
January22,2001
Page 6
3. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGING THE DEFINITION?
While changing the definition of perennial stream appears on the surface to be a simple matter,
there are some ripple effects that should be considered at the outset. Among the related issues
are hoTM any changes would affect the Land Use Plan and DISC effort, whether and how the
changes can be supported by enabling code and regulations, and how to coordinate the changes
with our current project to develop stormwater master plans for the Development Areas. Each of
these is discussed in mm below.
· What Are The Implications for the Land Use Plan & DISC?
The original formulation of the WPO was guided by a stakeholder committee (focus group).
During those meetings, it was stressed that any standards devised in the ordinance for water
protection should be consistent with the Land Use Plan. More pointedly, the committee
stressed that water protection standards should not make development more difficult in the
Development Areas vis-?t-vis the Rural Areas (at that time, there were no stormwater
requirements in the Rural Areas outside of the reservoir watershed). County staff took this
message to heart, and this is reflected not only in the ordinance itself, but in the computation
procedures used for stormwater management. This element of the WPO was made explicit
during work sessions and in executive summaries when the ordinance was being considered
for adoption.
With regard to stream buffers, this principle is manifested in the fact that there are more
allowable encroachments into the buffer within the Development Areas than in the Rural
Areas. Also, in the Water Supply Protection Area, buffers follow all streams, both
intermittent and perennial (intermittent streams must often be identified in the field).
If the definition of perennial stream was expanded to cover more streams, then the effect on
the Land Use Plan must be considered. The truth of the matter is that, with our rolling
Piedmont topography and relatively high stream density, there are many small streams that
produce flow that could easily be considered perennial. In many cases, there are spring fed
streams with drainage areas as small as 10 to 15 acres that produce consistent flow during
normal years (the small stream being covered at the Northern Elementary School is an
example). These topographic conditions set Albemarle County apart from the mandatory
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act counties to the east.
As an example, the following recently developed sites in the Development Areas have filled
on top of or encroach onto small streams that would probably be considered perennial:
Monticello High School, Charlottesville Catholic School, CAAR Building at Branchlands,
Food Lion (Rt. 29), Martha Jefferson Offices in Crozet, Adventureland, Lowes, Carriage
Hill, and the entrance to the North Fork Research Park. Other sites on top of perennial
streams include Rio Hill Shopping Center, Woodbrook Shopping Center, almost all of
Memorandum - Definition of Perennial Streams in the Water Protection Ordinance
January 22, 2001
Page 7
Branchlands, the Senior Center, Shoppers World, the Gardens Shopping Center, Keglar's,
Toys-R-Us, Wal-Mart, and the Antiquer's Mall/Fed Ex. site.
Different people may have different responses to this revelation. Possible responses include:
· It is outrageous that so many streams are being buried.
· Stream impacts are an inevitable consequence of the Land Use Plan, given the density of
development, extent of impervious cover, and our topography.
· Some of these impacts could be avoided or minimized if more creative design
approaches were used.
There is some legitimacy to all these points of view.. If we could compress the philosophies
of the Land Use Plan, the DISC neighborhood model, and the Water Protection Ordinance
into a single "Development Areas Stream Doctrine," it may look like this:
· Some measure of stream impact is inevitable within the Development Areas. These
areas account for 35 square miles out of a County total of 730. If we accept some stream
impacts associated with higher density development within the Development Areas, we
hope to preserve our streams and rural stream uses to the fullest extent within the
remaining 695 square miles.
· We should reduce and mitigate stream impacts in the Development Areas through
innovative technologies for stormwater management, and through creative site design
that respects topography. Respecting site topography presents the highest challenge for
sites being developed for regional service and industrial uses.
· There are some streams and stream Valleys in the Development Areas that are absolutely~
essential to preserve for their ecological integrity, passive recreational use, and sense of
refuge from the built environment. These should be identified proactively and protected
through the WPO, Comprehensive Plan, easement programs, and other mechanisms
(some may already be protected, in part, by the WPO and/or Open Space Plan).
If this makes sense, then it should be used to inform our decisions about how and where to
extend stream buffer requirements in the Development Areas.
In the Rural Areas, on the other hand, the argument could be made based on the Land Use
Plan to expand stream buffer coverage.through one of the approaches listed above (e.g., a
better map, limited field determination, etc.). As noted, stream buffers are already associated
with all streams in the Water Supply Protection Area.
· What Changes Are Supported By The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act Regulations?
Albemarle County's enabling authority to adopt a stream buffer program as part of the WPO
extends from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and associated Regulations (as adopted
by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board).
Memorandum-Definition ofPerennialS~eamsintheW~erProte~ion Ordinance
January22,2001
Page 8
The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department (CBLAD) is currently in the process of
proposing amendments to the regulations. The public comment period on these changes
concluded in December 2000. Of note for our discussion are proposed changes to the
definition of"Tributary Stream" (new language is underlined):
"Tributary stream" means any perennial stream that is so depicted on the
most recent U.S. Geological Survey 71/2 minute topographic quadrangle map
(scale 1:24000), or any stream segment that has a drainage areas of at least 320
acres (one-hal_f square mile), or both. Alternately, local governments may
conduct mOre thorough investigations to accurately determine the perenniali_ty q£
streams.
In interpreting this proposed change, CBLAD explains:
This amendment is intended to provide local governments and applicants forpermits to use
or develop land with additional options for identifying tributary streams, around which
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area must be designated. Since the language is optional,
local governments will not have to redesignate their Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas.
However, most local governments use the plan of development review process as an
opportunity to refine the boundaries of the RPA, in particular, using more complete and site-
specific information than may have been used in the original, more general designation
process. This amendment provides an "administrative" option to use a specified drainage
area as a threshoM for determining which streams are to be considered "tributary streams,"
and thus must have CBPAs designated around them. This acreage number is consistent
with a number considered for use by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality as a threshoM for determining perennially in their
water protection permitting programs. The regulation advisory committee agreed that a
drainage area of this size is probably conservative. That is, it is small enough that it is not
likely to eliminate many streams that are truly perennial and, therefore, shouM be subject
to the RPA criteria. The building industry representatives on the committee agreed that their
industry wouM be willing to accept this number and the risk that some intermittent streams
might be included, because they are satisfied that this option for designating tributary
(perenniaO streams shouM speed the permitting process and, thus, save them time and
money. (Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board, Explanation of Proposed Amendments,
Chesapeake Bay Designation and Management Regulations, 9 VAC 10-20 et seq., Virginia
Administrative Code).
It is evident from this explanation that the issue Albemarle is dealing with is not unique, and
that CBLAD is interested in providing more flexibility to refine perennial (tributary) stream
definitions. CBLAD staff is currently working on a guidance document for those local
governments that wish to take advantage of this option. The guidance document is not
complete at this time. The State of North Carolina and the Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences are also working on guidance materials to address methods for determining
perennial streams. This is very much an emerging topic that requires scientific, technical,
and admirfistrative deliberation.
Memorandum - Definition of Perennial Streams in the Water Protection Ordinance
January 22, 2001
Page 9
Coordination With The Proposed Stormwater Master Plans for th e Development Areas
The Stormwater Master Planning process is intended to complement master planning
associated with DISC. It is acknowledged that planning for stormwater and stream corridor
protection will be essential to deriving effective master plans for each Development Area. As
stated in the Request for Proposals, the stormwater master plans involve the following:
The drainage area master planning process is envisioned as a multi-year initiative to
provide proactive stormwater planning and implementation for the County's designated
Development Areas. These are areas where the Land Use Plan specifies that development
shouM be concentrated. Accordingly, issues of local and regional flooding, stream channel
and corridor protection, and water quality and living resources are expected to be acute.
The drainage area master planning process will resolve to anticipate, prevent, mitigate, and
correct stormwater impacts in coordination with the County's land use goals.
The master planning process objectives are as follows:
· Identify opportunities for regional stormwater management.
· Identify build-out floOdplain elevations and discharges and current andfutureproblem
areas.
· Prioritize stream channels and stream valleysforprotection and restoration based on
criteria to be developed, including, but not limited to, biological health, geographic
relationship to existing and future development, aesthetic quality, existing stream buffer
conditions, formal and colloquial passive recreational use, and available water quality
information.
· Develop a watershedproject list for traditional and non-traditional BMPs to be funded
and constructed in addition to and/or in Heu of on-site BMPs.
· Provide appropriate GIS layers for incorporation into the County's system.
· Provide guidance, implementation tools, and a preliminary budget for stormwater
financing.
The status of the master planning is that consultants have been interviewed and CH2M Hill
selected as the successful consultant. A detailed scope of work is currently being negotiated.
Grant funding through the state's Water Quality Improvement Fund has been requested to
enhance local funds for the project. The first year of work may only include the Hollymead,
Piney Mountain, and Pantops Development Areas (these were identified as priority areas to
begin the master planning based on future development potential).
As stated above, the proposed master planning process involves detailed stream assessments
within the Development Areas, and amendments to the WPO based on the findings.
Amending the Open Space Plan (Major and Locally Important Stream Valleys) would also be
an excellent application of the results. Therefore, we are interested that any ordinance
amendments proposed in the near term be consistent with this effort.
Memorandum - Definition of Perennial Streams in the Water Protection Ordinance
January 22, 2001
Page 10
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Since the WPO was originally configured to have variable requirements in the Development
Areas, Water Supply Protection Areas, and Rural Areas, we feel that this principle could be
carried through to any ordinance and program modifications that may be promoted by the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The following should be considered:
o
Development Areas: We believe that the proposed stormwater master planning process
(Approach #4) will produce the most comprehensive and effective means to determine which
streams should be covered by stream buffer requirements. However, this process will likely
take a number of years. Ifa more near-term solution is desired, then Approach #3 should be
pursued, with preference given to a fairly comprehensive stream map and very limited field
determination. This will involve producing a better stream map, and possibly doing field
determinations in a subset of cases. Field determination procedures will have to be
developed carefully, with attention to accuracy, equity, and staffresources. Guidance
materials from CBLAD, North Carolina, VIMS, and other sources should be consulted.
Depending upon the extent to which field determinations would be needed, additional
technical staff must be considered.
Rural Areas: In the Rural Areas, stream buffer requirements are more stringent, but stream
buffer limits are still tied to the USGS maps. With many rural subdivisions, additional
stream buffering along intermittent streams is incorporated into the site's stormwater plan
(credits for stormwater management are given for extra, voluntary buffeting). It seems
consistent with the Land Use Plan and Comprehensive Plan to extend stream buffer limits,
again based on a combination of Approaches #1 and #3. Given the size of the Rural Areas
and the number of stream miles involved, our preference would be to do as much as possible
through better mapping (Approach #1).
Water Supply Protection Areas: Since stream buffers follow all streams, we have a certain
number of intermittent streams that we must field delineate each year, primarily for
subdivision plats and building permits. County staff involved with this process acknowledge
both its effectiveness at protecting streams and its tendency towards subjectivity, as well as
the time commitment involved. We feel that if changes are made in the other areas, then
some benefit would be derived from producing a better map for the Water Supply Protection
Area using our GIS resources. In this case, intermittent streams instead of perennial would
be modeled. The advantage would be to save staff time on field delineations and interject
more predictability into the process. For instance, more people applying for building permits
would know ahead of time whether a stream buffer applies to their property. Also,
coordination between the development departments would be enhanced because staff would
know up front when to require stream buffer designations on plats and plans.
Memorandum- Definition of Perennial Streams in the Water Protection Ordinance
January 22, 2001
Page 11
What Documents Need to Be Amended? Of course, the WPO definition of perennial
stream is the crux of this discussion. However, other documents that coUld be amended
include the Interim Design Manual (used to help applicants comply with the WPO) and the
Open Space and Critical Resources Plan. The former already has a chapter devoted to stream
buffers, and any new procedures or stream buffer designations (e.g., a new stream map)
should be included in this document, and ultimately the Engineering Design Manual. The
Open Space Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan, is a critical document
used during the review ofrezoning applications, waivers, special use permits, and other
applications. The identification of "Major and Locally Important Stream Valleys" is one of
the fimctions of this plan. Again, this function relates to Approach #4 in terms of identifying
values of streams and stream valleys that warrant protection. Revising this plan based on the
results of the stormwater master planning is highly recommended. Its use in the planning
process is much broader on discretionary issues that come before the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors than the WPO, which is used primarily to ensure site development
compliance with certain standards.
o
What is the Process for Making Ordinance and Program Changes? Amending the WPO
will require approval by the Board of Supervisors with recommendations from the Planning
Commission. Based on past ordinance efforts, this will also require involvement from
stakeholders through the amendment process. Conceivably, the definition of perennial
stream in the WPO could be changed in a matter of months. However, the technical and
administrative structure to actually implement the change would take much longer to
develop, as this would necessitate creating the criteria and procedures for the determination
of perennial streams through the site development process. This is also the stage where lively
stakeholder involvement would be envisioned because this is where actual outcomes on
individual properties become manifest. Those who currently own property within the
Development Areas may take particular note of this process. Staff resources for this effort
would have to be intensive and sustained in order to accomplish the task successfully.
It is our recommendation that ordinance revisions and the technical and administrative
processes to implement therh be managed concurrently. We would not want a change to be
made to the WPO without the ability to actually carry it out. If directed as a priority by the
County Executive's Office, we anticipate an amendment process taking one to two years to
complete.
Thank your for the opportunity to comment on this subject. We are certainly available for
continued discussion and would welcome comments and suggestions from your staff, the
Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors.
/djh
Copy:
Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive
Stephen Bowler, Watershed Manager
Mark Chambers, Water Resources Plan Reviewer/Inspector
Memorandum- Def'mition of Perennial Streams in the Water P/otection Ordinahce
January 22, 2001
Page 12
ATTACHMENT - VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF PERENNIAL STREAM
Through the course of this discussion, various definitions for perennial stream have been
forwarded by Planning Commission members and others. The various candidates include:
Perennial stream: A stream that maintains water in its channel throughout the year. Defined as a
solid blue line on the 1:24,000 USGS to topographic maps.
--Forestry BMP Guide for Virginia
Perennial Flowing Stream means a stream that historically flowed continuously during all
seasons of the year during dry as well as wet years.
--WATER RIGHTS COMPACT ENTERED INTO BY THE STATE OF MONTANA
AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Perennial Stream or River Any watercourse that is either shown on the USGS 7.5 minute map
series as a solid blue line or under normal conditions flows year-round.
-EL DORADO COUNTY, CA
Perennial stream - A stream that carries water throughout the year and is generally fed by
groundwater. The water surface of a perennial stream generally lies below the water table of the
groundwater source.
--A Gu/de to Tennessee's Water Resources
Perennial Stream -- A stream containing surface water throughout an average rainfall year, as
shown on the most recent 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle published by the United States
Geological Survey, as confirmed by field verification.
--TOWN OF WASHINGTON GROVE, MD
Perennial Stream
a. Streams that flow throughout the year and from source to mouth.
b. The stream channel is below the water table.
--Dictionary of Geological Terms
Perennial Stream -- "A Stream or reach of stream that flows continuously throughout the year
and.whose upper surface generally stands lower than the water table in the
region adjoining the stream."
--American Geological Institute Glossary of Geology
IAMSBURG
· .NVIRONMENTAL
INC.
Environmental Consulran'-~s
QUALITATIVE FIELD PROCEDURES
FOR PERENNIAL STREAM DETERMINATIONS
1. Streamflow
· Presence or absence of flowing water dependent upon antecedent moisture conditions.
2. Channel Geometry · Perennial systems typically exhibit a def'med and consistent geometric shape.
· Channel parameters include bank height, channel width, bank slope, and channel slope.
3. Streambed Soils*
· Perermial streams
- Absence of characteristics associated with a fluctuating water table (i.e. iron oxide concentrations,
oxidized rhizospheres, and iron/manganese concretions).
- Sandy soils contain a relatively equal distribution of organics throughout the soil profile.
- Presence of gravel and/or cobbles with little or no silts or clays associated with the surface soils.
· Intermittent streams
- Presence of characteristics associated with a fluctuating water ~able (i.e. iron oxide concentrations,
oxidized rhizospheres, and iron/manganese concretions).
- Mineral soils with matrix and mottles of contrasting color, chroma variable, often > 1.
- Organics not evenly distributed throughout the matrix of sandy soils and/or organic streaking evident
m the surface horizon.
- Presence of organic pan (i.e. accumulation of organic materials in bed layers) suggesting absence of
flow during some period of the year.
4. Vegetation*
· Perennial streams
- In lower energy systems (i.e. low gradient bottom[ands or areas situated just above tidal influence),
presence of species with a submerged-aquatic or floating leaved-aquatic life history strategy.
- In higher energy systems, a general absence of rooted vegetation.
· Intermittent drainage system.
- Presence of annuals or emergent perennials that require exposure (no inundation) at some point during
the growing season.
5. Benthic Macroinvertebrates
· Presence of species that have an aquatic life cycle of greater than one year.
· Species identification should be completed by a qualified aquatic ecologist.
6. Vertebrates
· In general, the presence of fish and other vertebrates with an aquatic life cycle of greater than one year.
Note: Aquatic vertebrates can migrate into intermittent waters and subsist in deep pools.
7. Offsite Resources
· USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps.
· Discussions with long-term residents and local interest groups.
· Personal communication with local professionals, including hydrologists, county agents, Natural Resource '-.
Conservation Service (NRCS) technicians, surveyors, foresters, and field engineers.
· Review of aerial photographs.
*Developed with assistance from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS).
Note: "Qualitative Field Procedures for Perennial Stream Determinations" was developed by the Williamsburg
Environmental Group, Inc. (WEG) at the request of the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department (CBLAD).
The utilization of the above-listed parameters by other parties does not constitute an endorsement by WEG or
VIMS. Field assessment of these criteria should be conducted by qualified professionals.
3000 Easter Circle ~ Williamsburg, Virginia 23188 * (757) 220-6869 * FAX (757) 229-4507
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: Resolution of Intent to Change Section 4.2
Critical Slopes Regulations in the Zoning Ordinance
SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Staff requests the
Planning Commission approve this resolution to allow
modificatio ns to the section of the Critical Slopes Regulations
dealing with purpose and intent for the Development Areas,
waivers, and on-site grading,
STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. McCulley; Mr. Cilimberg
AGENDA DATE:
February 13, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: Yes
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: ~¢~/
ITEM NUMBERS:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND: Over the last several years, it has become apparent that the zoning ordinance language dealing with the
protection of critical slopes does not adequately separate the preservation needs for the Rural Areas from the grading
needs in the Development Areas. Waivers of the critical slopes standards are requested for incidental and significant
slopes alike. Protection of significant slopes is prevented with the "by-right" ability to disturb critical slopes with roads,
utilities, and stormwater facilities. Standards for on-site grading of slopes exist only in the County's Erosion and Sediment
Control regulations that do not take into consideration many safety and compatibility issues as well as the long-term
ownership and maintenance needs of the County's property owners.
DISCUSSION: Staff proposes that a resolution of intent be approved for the modification of the regulations in the
Development Areas. Specific areas of discussion for inclusion in a recommended text amendment include, but are not
limited to:
· making distinctions between the goals and purposes of the Development Areas separate from the Rural Areas
· separating incidental slopes on a property from slopes that are part of a stream valley and regulating these slopes
differently
· designating streams and slopes for protection, based on the County's Open Space Plan and drainage area studies
· including roads, utilities, and stormwater facilities as items to be prohibited from disturbing the County's protected
slopes, without Planning Commission approval
· providing standards for slope grading and retaining walls that result in long-term safety, structural stability, surface
stability, ease of maintenance, prevention of erosion, aesthetics, and complementary relationships to adjoining
properties
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution of Intent to amend portions of Section 4.2
of the Zoning Ordinance and sections related to disturbance of critical slopes.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the purpose of Section 4.2, Critical Slopes, of the Zoning Ordinance is to
direct development away from critical slopes to more suitable terrain in order to protect and
conserve critical slopes, public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas, and to reduce soil
erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with the
development of critical slopes; and
WHEREAS, in order to achieve the state purposes, Section 4.2 establishes minimum
requirements for building sites and the location of structures and improvements, including septic
systems, establishes a procedure for modifying those regulations'in particular cases, and
delineates a limited number of exemptions; and
WHEREAS, the current regulations in Section 4.2 have failed to allow the purposes of
the section to be fully realized for various reasons including, but not limited to, their failure to
adequately distinguish the Comprehensive Plan's varying goals for development and
preservation in different parts of the County; their failure to acknowledge that critical slopes may
have different values depending on their location, including their proximity to waterways; and,
their failure to provide standards for slope grading and retaining walls that would provide long-
term safety, structural and surface stability, ease of maintenance, prevent erosion, be aesthetic,
and be complementary to adjoining properties; and
WHEREAS, the current regulations in Section 4.2 pertaining to modifications and
exemptions have also impeded the purposes of Section 4.2 to be fully realized.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning
Commission hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
as described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public
heating on this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at
the earliest possible date.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: Resolution of Intent to Amend Section 4.2
Area Regulations in the Zoning Ordinance
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Staff requests the
Planning Commission approve this resolution to allow
modifications to Area Regulations for Building Sites.
STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. McCulley; Mr. Cilimberg
AGENDA DATF-
February 13, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ITEM NUMBERS:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: Yes INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND: The zoning ordinance requires a 30,000 square foot building site with a rectangular shape for residential
lots in the rural areas. This shape requirement does not take into account topographical constraints encountered from
time to time. Additionally, septic system installation practice does not require a rectangular area for drainfield installation.
Relief from this requirement is only available through the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION: Staff proposes that a resolution of intent be approved for the modification of the regulations. Specific areas
of discussion for inclusion in a recommended text amendment include, but are not limited to:
· Replacing Planninq Commission discretion with Aqent discretion for approval of modification of the shape of the
30,000 square foot building site
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution of Intent to amend portions of Section 4.2.2
of the Zoning Ordinance.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Section 4.2.2, Area Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance establishes
regulations pertaining to the size, shape and dimension of building sites; and
WltEREAS, the requirements of Section 4.2.2 sometimes fail to take into account for
topographical conditions that may exist on a parcel, and impose minimum shape and dimension
standards that are unnecessary for the installation and maintenance of a septic drainfield.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning
Commission hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 4.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
as described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing on this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at
the earliest possible date.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: Resolution of Intent to Amend
Numerous Sections of the Zoning Ordinance to
Bring the it into Conformity with the County's
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Provide for
Planning Commission establishment of setbacks
for towers; remove the 1:1 height setback and add
provision for easements; provide for distinct "Tier"
review of tower sites based on visibility; add
establish minimum submittal standards.
STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. Sprinkle; Mr. Kamptner
AGENDA DATE: February 13, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: Yes
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND: For some time, the County has been studying the wireless communications
situation' and developing a policy that addresses in a comprehensive manner our philosophy of
making these facilities as invisible as possible. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy
(the "Policy") was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 6, 2000.
DISCUSSION: The zoning text amendments to effect this portion of the Comprehensive Plan
are considered necessary. Staff is moving forward with the first phase of the amendments
which will allow the Planning Commission to establish setbacks for sites under the Policy to
eliminate the recurring variances currently heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals. At this
point, staff is reviewing the Ordinance to make the Phase I changes immediately. The
remainder of the text amendments will follow shortly.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution of Intent to
amend the necessary Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2000, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted
the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy (the "Policf') as part of the County's
ComprehenSive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Policy establishes policies and guidelines for the review of personal
wireless facility applications, and recommends that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to
establish procedural regulations governing the submittal and review of applications for personal
wireless facilities, and substantive regulationS pertaining to their siting, locating and design
(including their size, height and bulk).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of'public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning
Commission hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance as described
herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public-'
hearing on this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at
the earliest possible date.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive i,~.t~)¢~)
V Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Developmen
February 16, 2001
-Resolutions of Intent
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 13, 2001 adopted the following
Resolutions of Intent:
Resolution of Intent to Change Section 4.2 Critical Slopes Regulations in the Zoning Ordinance
Resolution of Intent to Change Section 4.2 Area Regulations in the Zoning Ordinance
Resolution of Intent to Amend Numerous Sections of the Zoning Ordinance to bring them into
conformity with the County's Personal Wireless Service Facility Policy.
Attach please find staff reports, which outline each of the above-noted resolutions. If you have any
questions~ please do not hesitate to contact me.
VWC/jcf
ATTACH M ENTS
COUNTY OF ALgEI'-,,¢ARLE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 ORANGE ROAD
CULPEPER, VA 22701-3819
February 15, 2001
DONALD R. ASKEW
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Route 20/Scottsville Road
Proj: 0020-002-126, PE101, PE102
Fed. Proj: #STP-020-7 (003)
Fed. Proj: #STP-020-7 (004)
Proj: 0020-002-126, RW201, C501, B608
Fed Proj: #BR-020-7
Fr: 0.227 km (0.14.mi.) S of Hardware River
To: 0.93 km (0.11 mi.) North of Hardware River
Albemarle County
Dear Mr. Tucker:
A Combined Design Public Hearing utilizing an open forum will be held for the above
mentioned project on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. in the Walton Middle
School located at 4217 Red Hill Road in Albemarle County.
The purpose of this hearing is to provide you an opportunity, in an open forum, to review and
discuss with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) representatives preliminary plans for the
proposed replacement of the existing Carters Bridge on Route 20 (Scottsville Road) over the Hardware
River. Proposed construction will include the construction of the necessary roadway approaches and
will extend from 0.14 mile south of the Hardware River to 0.11 mile north of the Hardware River in
Albemarle County.
A copy of the map and public notice is attached.
Robert H. Connock, Jr., P.E.
District Construction Engineer
RHCjr:wlr
pc: Mr. J. L. Bryan
Mr. M. W. Coffey
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
I ROUTE 20 / SCOTTSVILLE ROAD I
! l~eplacement of Carters Bridge I
I I
i ALBEMARLE COUNTY _ ._!
I DESIGN PUBLIC NEARING I
! I
I Hearine:
I Tuesday, March27,2001 * * 5:00PMto7:00PM I
Leslie H. Walton Middle School located at 4217'Red Hill i
i Road (Route 708) in Albemarle County south of !
Charlottesville. !
Purpose: i
To 'provide you an opportunity, in an open ferrari, to re- I
view and discuss with VLrginia Department of Transpor- I
ration (VDOT) representatives preliminary plans for the
proposed replacement of the existing Carters Bridge on I
Route 20 (Seottsville Road) over the Hardware River. I
Proposed construction will include the construction of the I
necessary roadway approaches and will extend from 0.14 I
mile south of the Hardware River to 0. I 1 mile north of the I
Hardware River in Albemarle County. I
Review: I
Maps, drawings, an environmental dOCument and other
data pertaining to the proposed project are available for I
review in the VDOT Culpeper District Office located at I
1601 Orange Road in the Town of Culpeper and in the I
VDOT Charlottesville Residency Office lOCated at 701 I
WOT Way in the Community of Shadwell, three miles I
east of Charlottesville. I
Written Statements: I
Verbal statements will be taken at the hearing. Written I
statements and other exhibits relative to the proposed I
project may be submitted at the hearing or sent to the I
Department postmarked no later than 10 days at~er the I
hearing (April 6, 2001). I
Right of Way: I
Relocation assistance, fight of way acquisition, together I
with tentative schedules and construction information will I
be discussed.
Special Assistance: I
If you require special assistance to attend and participate in I
this meeting or need additional information please contact: I
Charlottesville Residency: (804) 293-0011 I
Device for the Hearing Impaired (TDD): 1-800-307-4630
V/R*/NIA Z~EIMRTMENT OF TIMNSFORTATION I
I
Project: 0020-002-126,PE-101 I
Federal Project: STP-020-7 (003)
Project: 0020-002-126,PE-102 I
Federal Project: STP-020-7 (004) I
Project: 0020-002-126,RW-201,C-501,B-608 I
Federal Project: BR-020-7 ( ) I
N
W E ",.-.
%,,
· , / " ,, ::~'
t ' ' '-' /;/
%~ Virginia Department of Transportation
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ROUTE 20
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
REPLACEMENT OF CARTERS BRIDGE
OVER TI~ HARDWARE RIVER
PROJECT: 0020-002-126,PE-101
, "', ,'.; ~ Federal Project: STP-020-7 (003)
\ "% ', Project: 0020-002-126,PE-102
x '-'-~ ~,/,.. Hearing Federal Project: STP-020-7 (004)
--':, ) ' Site
· ,-.~ Project' 0020-002-126,RW-201,C-501,B-608
Br. ./_/ :~%; ,/ ,~ \, Federal Project: BR-020-7 ( )
__,- ~_~'~, .-~ From 0.14 mi. (0 22 lan) south of Hardware River
,-- .~ ~ ; ·
~' :5~ ~ i To: 0.11 mi. (0.19 km) north of Hardware River
'\ ~ ~/ (_ ,: Length: 0.25 Mile (0.41 Kilometer)
,, '., (717~ - ,,: Proposed , :
.... ~ .... ... Prolect ,
/ b.<<. ,-, / '.-, "- Bndge '~ /
~:,,,' L,'~ -,/ ~- / t ~ ! ~ /' ,
· ~:.. / / / I ~,, (708)
x~_; / .... ;c~~ / /'-__2"x % ;-',. ~' \ ~':/
~ ?_e_, /'- / ~ I ,-'" "-, \ .,~'?,'
/ f~$tore .,,' ~/,,,-'~ ~ ~ r' ' '-,: /
..... 'q: > I
zz.,, .,~' / ~ / v . ..., '
,"- r----/ ~ I , / ,
__.! ',?O, .-
{--? // ~ ~ / '??.,~ , ,/ Scale 0 I 2 Miles
~'~-- ~ .~ ~-'° . . .
;
/
(
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the r ...
at the NovemberL~O00 -7, General Election, for:
· Virginia,
ELECTORS FOR
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
THE TABULATION FOR' EACH ELECTOR ENTERED IN THIS ELECTION IS AS FOLLOWS:
Republican Party for Electors for George W. Bush, President and Dick Cheney, Vice President
Peyton Anthony White
H. Evans Thomas V
Gary E. Waddell
Ann H. Garrett
Parker J. Bena
Edith M. Light
Luther E. "Ikey" Miller
George William Thomas, Jr.
Frances M. Sadler
Patsy W. Drain
Philip J. Infantino III
Vincent F. Callahan, Jr.
Gloria Taylor Fisher
Total Votes Received //~ ~q/
(in ~igures)
Democratic Party for Electors for Al Gore, President and Joe Lieberman, Vice President
Jamie W6ods Wampler
Carl U. Eggleston
John S. DiYorio
Richard M. Galecki
Sam Kurzer
Charlotte S. Schooler
Robert L. "Bob" Weinberg
Gary W. Kelly
Rhoda M. Dreyfus
Alice Marie Marshall
Lucy M. Overton
Gladys B. Keating
Sophie Ann Salley
Total Votes Received /~.
(i~ figures)
Libertarian Party for Electors for Harry Browne, President and Art Olivier, Vice President
Stewart L. Engel
Gary R. Westmoreland
Todd D. Pukanecz
William B. Redpath
Wayne F. Schneider
C. Glenn Loucks
James L. Vencil]
Sanford J. Pankin
John H. Cookson
William F. Lavery III
Marie R. Bremm
John S. Buckley
David E. Hultstrom
Total Votes Received
Reform Party for Electors for Pat Buchanan, President and Ezola Foster, Vice President
Wesley Andrew Thomas
Brian D. Buchanan
John J. Ringhoffer, Jr.
Joanne Hansen
Kreg A. Kinney
Ruth C. Rasmussen
George ~latras
Lorraine A. Swedo BrUce Leon Springer.
David G. Hutchison, Sr. Mic. h. aet E,~Crowe
Rowe Neff Eckard III - ~homas.M~.Me~dey :
Total Votes R~e~;t;ea?~d~'~:
' i.~' "-(in,figures)
CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE
Electors for President and Vice President of the United States
General Election
November 7, 2000
Page 2 of 2
Constitution Party for Electors for Howard Phillips, President and Curt Frazier, Vice President
Gladys A. Perkins
John T. Wingfield
Henry Edward Johnson
L. Byron Snapp
Robert E. Walton
Lloyd Thomas Sprinkle
N. "Nick" Tsakanikas
William Eugene Potter
William E. Nowers
Mitchell K. R. Turner
G. N. "Greg" Armstrong
Joseph D. Douglass, Jr.
Edward Yeatts Hopkins
Total Votes Received
//
(in figures)
Green Party for Electors £or Ralph Nader, President and Winona La Duke, Vice President
John Harley Balkwill
George R. Wood
Clifford Barry Anderson
Elaine T. Broadhead
Michael Sean Maraney
Elise Sprunt Sheffield
Edward R. Jahn
Tyla Matteson
George Roger Clarke III
Michael F. Looney
Jacqueline L. Hughes
Mary L. Zoeter
James R. Lowenstern
TotalVotesReceived 2. ~¢~
- (ir] figu~es~
Total Write-In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] .....................................
$&
(in figures)
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of the election held on November 7, 2000, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes
cast at said election for Electors for President and' Vice President of the United States.
Given undpr our hands this _~L ~ day of November, 2000.
A copy teste:
.Chairman
Vice Chairman
,Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
WR I TE- INS C E R TIFI CA TI 0 N
E]
OFFICE TITLE
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
Write-Ins
Invalid Write-Ins ..............................
Valid Write-Ins ................................
General.[~1 Special Election
November 7, 2000
Page 1 of ~2~
TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED
(111/FIGURES)
ENTER TOTAL INVALID
ENTER TOTAL VALID
LIST BELOW IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER, ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHICH, WHEN ADDED TOGETHER, EQUAL NUMBER VALID
ENTERED ABOVE.
CONTINUED ON PAGES ~ THROUGH
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the off/cia/records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 2000, do hereby certify that, with the continuation pages
indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast at said election for the office
in dica ted above.
Given under our hands this ?_~ day of November, 2000.
copy teste:
Board
Secretary, Electoral Board
Omce
PRES
PRES
PRES
PRES
PRES
PRES
PRES
PRES
PRES
PRES
PRES
PRES
PRES
PRES
PRES
Name
BADDLEY, BRENDA
BRADLEY, BILL
DOLE, ELIZABETH
FOLEY, MICK
FRIV
FURLEY, RALPH
HAGELIN
HAGELIN, JOHN
JORDAN, JEREMY C.E.
KEYES, ALLEN
MCCAIN
MCCAIN, JOHN
MORRIS, KATHY
VENTURA, JESSE
YATES, CAULINE
Votes
1
2
1
1
3
1
4
6
1
2
3
8
1
3
1
38 Total Wdte Ins for President
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
at the November 7, 2000 General Election, for:
,Virginia,
MEMBER
UNITED STATES SENATE
J~AMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BAllOT
GEORGE F. ALLEN
CHARLES S. ROBB ...........................
Total Write-In Votes [SEE WR~TE-~NS CERTiFiCATION] ..........
TOTAl. VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN F/GURES)
/Tr 75/
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held On November 7, 2000, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for Member of the Senate in the Congress of the United States.
Given under our hands this ~ ~J~day of NoVember, 2000.
A copy teste:
cctond
Seal
. , Chairman
~- ~ ~,~(, Vice Chairman
k~ , Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION
OFF~CE T~TLE
)General
Special Election
November 7, 2000
Page 1 of ~
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
Write-Ins
Invalid Write-ins
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN RGURES)
ENTER TOTAL NVALID
Valid Write-Ins ....................... ENTER TOTAL VALID
LIST BELOW IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER, ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHICH, WHEN ADDED TOGETHER, EQUAL NUMBER VALID
cONTiNUED ON PAGES ~ THROUGH Z--
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 2000, do hereby certify that, with the continuation pages
indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast at said election for the office
]ndicatedabove. f~__~_
Given under our hands this day of November, 2000.
A copy teste:
,, ' --' -~. /¢...,r_/Z...rL.~.c_..< ' ' Chairman
~_ ~-~,~.?_, Vice Chairman
_, Secretary
Secretary, ElecToral Board
101 SEN
405 SEN
104 SEN
405 SEN
302 SEN
102 SEN
402 SEN
501 SEN
402 SEN
102 SEN
102 SEN
5O4 SEN
503 SEN
405 SEN
6O2 SEN
201 SEN
201 SEN
6O2 SEN
202 SEN
4O2 SEN
201 SEN
304 SEN
101 SEN
BOYD
BULLS, DWAYNE
CARLACOE
CHAMBERS, BEN
DOLE, ELIZABETH
Faruque, G.M.
FRIV
JACOBS, SAM
JOHNDVIES
Keyes, Alan
LEE, MARK A.
LENERT, JEFF
MARTIN, WORTHY
MOSEKE, DANIEL
MUSCIO, INGA
PAULSC N, PAT
REAMS, GARY
Reems, Gary
SACKEr'F, JESSE
SMITH JR, ROBERT LEO
TAPP, BILL
WACKER, CHARLES
WOOD
-1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
31 Total Write Ins for SEN
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the ~~ -~t~
at the November 7, 2000 General Election, for:
· Virginia,
MEMBER
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
5th District
J~AMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT
JOHN W. BOYD, JR
VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR.
JOSEPH S. SPENCE
Total Write-In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] ......
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(I/ti FIGURES)
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 2000, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for Member of the House of Representatives in the Congress of the
United States.
Given under our hands this ~ day of November, 2000.
copy teste:
( Elccto~ )__ Board / ~---~ ~--~ ~.~..__~__ .Chairman
Sca] Vice Chairman
· / '
~_~/ , Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
WRITE-INS CER TIFI CA TION
OFFICE TITLE
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
Write-Ins
Invalid Write-Ins ..............................
Valid Write-Ins ................................
)~General .~ Special Election
November 7, 2000
Page 1 of ~
TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED
fin FIGURES)
ENTER TOTAL INVALID
ENTER TOTAL VALID
LIST BELOW IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER, ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHICH, WHEN ADDED TOGETHER, EQUAL NUMBER VALID
ENTERED A BO.~
........
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 2000, do hereby certify that, with the continuation pages
indicated; the above is a true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast at said election for the office
indicated above.
Given under our hands this ~ ~ day of November, 2000.
A copy teste:
Secretary, Electoral Board
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
REP5
BAHAR EMILY ESMAILI
BROWN, MICHAEL
CHAMBERS, BEN
COURIC, EMILY
DUDLEY, EARL
ETLIN, DANIEL
FRIV
GRASINGER, JOHN
HELLER, HENRY
HERRERA, MITZI
JACOB, KATIE
KNIGHT, JOHN
MATTHEWS, VALERIE
MCCARDLE, C. JOSHUA
MINOR, TERRENCE
NADER
PEOPLES, EDITH N.
Reems, Gary
RILEY, RANDY R
RUTSCHOW, WILLIAM
SAYESS POLIN A.
SINCERE, RICK
SUTKER, PARIOIA
TERRY, MARY SUE
VA, NIKO
1
1
1
2
1
1
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
33 Total Wdte Ins for REP 5
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
at the November 7, 2000 General Election, for:
· Virginia,
MEMBER
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
7th District
J~AMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT
ERIC I. CANTOR .............................
WARREN A. STEWART ........................
Total Write-In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] ......
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIGURES)
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 2000, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for Member of the House of Representatives in the Congress of the
United States.
Given under our hands thisq ~ day of November, 2000.
A copy teste:
, Chairman
Vice Chairman
, Secretary
Secretary, Electoral E~oard
WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION
OFFICE TITLE
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
General.[] Special Election
Write-Ins
Invalid Write-Ins ..............................
Valid Write-Ins .... · ............................
November 7, 2000
Page I of ~
TOTAL VOTES RECE/VED
fin F/~UnES)
ENTER TOTAL INVALID
ENTER TOTAL VALID
LIST BELOW IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER, ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHICH, WHEN ADDED TOGETHER, EQUAL NUMBER VALID
ENTERED ABOVE.
CONTINUED ON PAGES ~ THROUGH
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 2000, do hereby certify that, with the continuation pages
indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast at said election for the office
indicated above.
Given under our hands this ~/ '/'~day of November, 2000.
A copy teste:
~!.(:/:.: ~. Electoral. Hdard Seat
. \::..
( 't--"'Z"r/- '~/'~ c-"7 , Chairman
'-'~~_,x.r--¢---~. - _,,, , Vice Chairman
~ , Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
REP7
BENDLE, NICK "' 1
BOWER, JO ANNE 1
BOYD 8
COHOON, JOANNE MCGFAT! 1
DARNELL, CHARLES 1-
DAVIS, CRYSTAL 1
DAVIS, JACKIE 1
DAY, DONAL 1'
FRIV 17'
GARNER, AOAM (SIC) 1
GOODE 1
GOODE, VIRGIL 1
GORMAN, MICHAEL 1
GSTATTENBAUER, GREGOR 1
HALL, ROBERT 1
HENRY, PAGET 1
JENKINS, MICHAEL 1
KANE, JAMES 1
KING, LARRY 1
LEE, MARK A. 1
LINDSEY, JOLIE 1
LOVING, LEMONT 1
MACCAL, lAN M. 1
MARTIN, STEVE 2
MOYLES 1
MUSCIO, INGA i
NADER, RALPH 1
PREFONTAINE, STEVE 1
ROBB 1
RUDEL, JOAN 1
SCHOENTHAL, GERHARD 1
SIMMONS, LAUREN 1
SISISKY, NORMAN 1
SMITH, SUZANNE 1
STRAUSS, EDWARD 1
TURNER, STEVEN 1
VADEN, ANN 1
WHIEHEAD, JOHN 1
62 Total Write Ins for..REP-7
Or
at the November 7, 2000 Special Election, for:
, Virginia,
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
QUESTION 1: Shall the Constitution of Virginia be amended, to provide for a
Lottery Proceeds Fund and the distribution of net lottery revenues to the
localities to spend for public education purposes?
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(/iV FIGURES)
QUESTION 2: Shall the Constitution of Virginia be amended by adding a
provision concerning the right of the people to hunt', fish, and harvest game?
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIGURES)
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on'November 7, 2000, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for and against the proposed amendments to the Constitution of Virginia.
Given under our hands this ~ ~'~day of November, 2000.
A copy teste:
· Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
,JnUnT
JAUNI, Inc.
104 Keystone Place
Charlottesville, VA 22902-6200
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Albemarle County Executive
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
February 26, 2001
Dear Bob,
We are pleased to submit our Second Quarter Report for JAUNT services for FY01.
The following is a summary of statistics for services in Albemarle County:
1st Half Estimated Actual Actual Trips
(Jul-Dec). Trips Trips 1 st Qtr
FYO1 FY01 FY00
Agency 8,800 9,449 8,959
Urban Public 10,500 10,627 10,818
Rural Public 10,400 10,038 10,505
JABA/ADC 2,720 2,922 3,087
Night/Wknd 600 1,854 668
29 North 1,700 2,027 1710
Total 35,350 36,317 34,693
Estimated
Hours
FY01
3,500
4,150
5,214
1,275
300
1,725
Actual
Hours
FY01
3,627
4,389
4,854
1,114
597
1,668
Actual
Hours
FY00
3,612
4,372
5,281
1,249
467
1,711
16,164 16,246 16,214
Based on current fmancial and service information, we do not anticipate a budget
shortfall at this time.
Sincerely,
Executive Director
CC:
Juandiego Wade
Clifford Buys
Carolyn Fowler
Phone: (804) 296-3184, (800) 36JAUNT · Operations (804) 296-6174 · Fax: (804) 296-4269 · www. avenue.org/jaunt
Moving Central Virginians For Over 25 Years
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorder, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphri$
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mdntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX {804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
March 12, 2001
Mr. Jim Bryan
Resident Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Mr. Bryan:
At its meeting on March 7, 2001, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions and
comments regarding transportation matters:
Participation in VDOT Revenue Sharing Program for FY 2001-02.
· Approved with funds directed to Old Lynchburg spot improvements
Route 250 East Corridor Study, Presentation by VDOT
* Received report; no action
Other Transportation Matters
· Juan Wade to provide you with list of comments/suggestions made at by Earlysville residents
concerning Route 743;
· Ms. Thomas asked that the Board and County staff be informed of the next VDOT meeting
concerning the Route 20 South;
· Ms. Humphris asked that you take a look at the VDOT web site on the Intemet. She asked if you
would verify if this is VDOT's offidal site and if the information is accurate.
/EWC
cc:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V, Wayne Cilimberg
Juan Wade
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Calendar Year 2000 Unbudgeted Tax Revenue
SU BJ E CT/P RO P OSAL/RE QU EST:
Proposal to Return Calendar Year 2000 Unbudgeted Tax
Revenue
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker/Breeden/Davis
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION: X
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
On April 12, 2000 the Board of Supervisors adopted the FY2001 budget based on a $0.76 real property tax rate for calendar
year 2000. The tax rate generated an approximate 1.2 million dollars of unbudgeted revenue in FY2000 because of the
collection of taxes based on the higher than budgeted tax rate for the first half of calendar year 2000. After discussion
regarding the unbudgeted revenue the Board requested staff to explore ways to return the unbudgeted revenue as soon as
possible. The Board was advised that state law did not authorize the Board to adjust the calendar year 2000 tax rate because
the calendar year 2000 land book had been finalized but that the Board could adjust the calendar year 2001 tax rate to remedy
the situation when the 2001 tax rate is set. On April 19, 2000 the Board directed that the 1.2 million dollars of unbudgeted
revenue be reserved in a separate account until it decided how to address returning the money. The Board directed staff to
investigate the best way to return the unbudgeted revenue to assure that it would be done as soon as possible while minimizing
the administrative costs.
DISCUSSION:
After consultation with Board members it has been determined that the most effective and expeditious method to address the
Board's desire to refund the unbudgeted revenue generated from the first half tax collection in calendar year 2000 is to lower
the tax rate in the first half of calendar year 2001 to the $0.72 rate that the FY2000 budget was based upon, The Board has
the authority to set a different tax rate for the first six months and the last six months of the calendar year. The tax rate for the
last six months of calendar year 2001 would be determined during the budget process and would be based on the revenue
needs identified in the adopted budget for FY2002.
There are several identifiable advantages to this method:
1. It clearly adjusts first half taxes in 2001 by lowering the tax rate by 4 cents to offset the 4 cent tax increase collected
in the first half of 2000 effectively returning the unbudgeted revenue collected in June of 2000 by reducing taxes
collected in June of 2001;
2. It separates the 2000 surplus issues from the FY2002 budget issues so that the FY2002 tax rate is set based on the
County's financial needs in FY2002;
3. It provides additional relief to tax payers by applying the first half of the year 4 cent reduction to property values based
on the 2001 reassessment;
4. There are no significant administrative costs required to implement this method; and
5. It can be implemented quickly by lowering the June 2001 tax bills.
The only identifiable negative impacts of this method are:
1. It will make the administration of the tax collection process in calendar year 2001 more complicated; and
2. The FY2001 revenue reduction wil exceed the 1.2 million dollars of unbudgeted revenue now held in a reserve
account. It is esti mated that the reduction of the tax rate by 4 cents for the first half of calendar year 2001 will lower
taxes collected by approximately 1.4 million dollars because the reduction will be based on the 2001 assessed property
values which are generally greater than the 2000 assessed property values and would include manufactured homes
AGENDA TITLE:
Calendar Year 2000 Unbudgeted Tax Revenue
March 7, 2001
Page 2
and public service properties. The additional 0.2 million dollars will reduce the anticipated FY2001 fund balance that
typically is used for necessary end of year one time expenditures or for debt service reserve purposes.
It should be noted that this method to return the surplus is not dependent upon the legislation introduced by Delegate
Harris that authorizes Albemarle County to adopt an ordinance to return surplus real property tax revenues when the
County determines there is a surplus. That legislation which has been approved by the General Assembly, if signed by
the Governor, will not become law until July 1, 2001, and could not be applied until the December 2001 tax billing. Because
authority exists to implement this proposal sooner than July, that legislation is not necessary to address the return of the
surplus at this time. The legislation will eliminate the restriction which prohibited Albemarle from adjusting the tax rate last
year when the issue first arose. Under this legislation, the Board in the future could adjust the tax rate even after the land
book has been finalized if it determines that there is an unbudgeted real property tax surplus.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board consider directing staff to take all necessary steps to implement a split tax rate in calendar
year 2001; the tax rate for the first 6 months to be set at $0.72 to effectively return the unbudgeted tax revenue from the June
2000 tax collection.
01.045
Budget Message
March 7, 2001
The Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Honorable Members of the Board:
I am pleased to present to you and the citizens of Albemarle County the proposed budget and fiscal plan for Fiscal
Year 2001/2002. The proposed budget totals $171,800,430 which includes the General Fund, School Fund, and
School Self-Sustaining Funds. A summary of the Proposed FY2001/02- FY2005/06 Capital Improvement Program
totaling $113 million and the accompanying Debt Service Fund are also presented in this document to provide a com-
prehensive financial plan designed to implement our County's mission, goals and-financial policies. The primary
mission of our fiscal plan is to ensure that our County remains safe, attractive and a highly desirable place to live,
.work and visit.
Fiscal Planning Goals:
The following goals were used to design this FY 01-02 operating and capital budget and FY 01/02- 05/06 Capital Im-
provement Plan:
· The Personal Property tax rate is maintained at its current level of $4.28/$100 assessed valuation. The Real Prop-
erty tax rate for calendar (tax) year 2001 is proposed at $0.75/$100 of assessed valuation. The $713,020 resulting
from a proposed $0.01 decrease over the 2000 rate is being held in reserve for Board of Supervisors' determination;
· Basic serwces are maintained;
· Current fiscal planning policies are maintained;
· Education and public safety continue to be priorities for the provision of services;
· Employee compensation and benefits are a major priority of the budget in order to ensure our salaries are market
competitive;
· Local revenues are not automatically used to replace or eliminate federal or state programs;
· Fiscal stability is mmntained through an appropriately funded General Fund Balance; and
· Necessary infrastructure improvements are programmed for implementation.
Budget Message
Budget Message
Budget Highlights:
Using the fiscal planning goals listed previously, the budget was balanced with the following items included:
· Revenues for FY 2002 increased by $10.1 million (6.2%) over the current year, reflecting a significant increase in
real property tax due primarily to our biennial assessment (average 12% over two years);
· A one-time revenue collection of $1.2 million due to the rate increase in 2000, has been held in reserve for either
capital needs or toberefundedto taxpayers. In addition, $0.01 of the real property taxrate ($0.713 million) isbeing
held in reserve for possible rate reduction or to fund additional programs or initiatives;
· State and federal revenues increased by $6.8 million (13%) over the current year, due mainly to the reclassification
of the personal property revenues as state revenue, rather than local taxes. It is unclear at the time of this writing
whether ad&'tional funding can be expected from the General Assembly;
· School Division revenues increased by $0.227 million (0.7%) from state and federal sources, and by $3.9 million
(7%) from the General Fund;
· The Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City of Charlottesville provided the City with an additional $0.390 mil-
lion for a total payment of $6.5 million;
· Debt Service of $8.5 million for school construction, renovation and major maintenance projects has been funded;
The General Fund transfer to the capital program has increased by $2.5 million (79%) to help fund a proposed $113
million dollar FY02-FY06 Capital Improvement Program;
· A 13 % contingency reserve averaging $2.8 million per year has been maintained in the five-year capital program;
· Community agencies are proposed to receive an average funding increase of 3%;
· With the construction of the new Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center underway, Atbemarle's share of this new
operation is $266,210, an increase of $121,210 (84%);
· General Government operating base budgets are level-funded;
· Compensation recommendations from the consultants of Palmer and Cay are implemented by mowng positions to
market, adjusting the salary scale 4.5% and providing a 3.9% pay-for-performance pool;
· A Board of Supervisors contingency reserve in the amount of $200,000 has been provided. School Board reserves
total $50,000.
Funding Priorities Addressed in the Budget:
· Administration - Increased public information materials and 10 new voting machines for the Electoral Board;
· Judicial- A digital court recording system for General District Court, as well as a Master Deputy program and ad-
ditional vehicle operating resources in the Sheriff's Department;
· Public Safety- Local fund/ng is provided for a Crime Prevention Coordinator previously funded by a grant, two (2)
additional Police Officers and additional overtime in the Pohce Department. A needed Office Associate II position
was funded in the Fire/Rescue Division, as well as MSA ( mask testing equipment), an expanded training program
and four (4) new thermal imaging cameras, The Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association (JCFRA) received
additional funding for a Tanker Taskforce Equipment Project to help the County fight fires in the rural areas and a
medical equipment exchange program that will help defray the cost of medical equipment provided to the squads;
· Engineering & Public Works- Funding is recommended for a Capital Projects Coordinator to help with the increas-
ing number of future capital projects and a Civil Engineer [I to focus on the County's transportation program;
Budget Message
Budget Message
· Human Services- Funding is recommended for an Assistant Diiector for the Department of Social Services, as well
as an Office Associate IV for the Services Division and a Day Care Social Worker. Additional funding is also rec-
ommended for several community human service agencies: Increased planning hours for the Commission on
Children and Families; a Play Parmers program at Children, Youth and Family Services to help parents read with
their children; additional meal costs and ramps for the elderly disabled through JABA, increased child-care funds
for teen parents; additional staffing support for MACAA's Hope House for transitional living; and three (3) addi-
tional child care scholarships for the United Way Child Care Scholarship program;
· Parks and Recreation- Funding is provided in the Parks and Recreation Department to increase the hours at the
summer playgrounds and to add two (2) new summer programs at Greer and Crozet Elementary schools. New oper-
ational funding is provided for Simpson Park and a pilot field maintenance program is funded for a year to deter-
mine if increased maintenance and fertilizing will improve the quahty of our fields for youth sports. A small Gypsy
Moth program has also been funded to address the pending return of the gypsy moths. Funding is also provided to
the Library for a part-time assistant and to the Lewis and Clarke Festival Committee to promote the planned festival
in October, 2001;
· Community Development- Funding is provided to hire a Planning Aide, a Senior Planner, a GIS Specialist and ex-
pand the Recording Secretary to full-time in the Planning Department. To address the increasing workload in the
Zoning Department, two (2) Zoning Inspectors have been recommended for funding. Funds are also recommended
for the Soil and Water Conservation District for a new Riparian Buffer Program.
Budget Message A-3
General Government Funded Priorities
County Executive's Funded Priorities
Administration
Community Education Publications-Community Relations
8 new voting machines - Voter Registration/Elections
Judicial
Digital Court Recording System - General Disffict Court
Funding for Master Deputies - Sheriff
Public Safety
Local Funding for Crime Prevention Coordinator - Police Community Services
2 FTE Police Officers (One to be hired in January 2002) - Police Services
Additional overtime wages - Police Services
1 FTE Office Assistant - Fire/Rescue
Expanded Training Program - Fire/Rescue
SCBA Testing Equipment - Fire/Rescue
4 Thermal Imaging Cameras - Fire/Rescue
Tanker Taskforce Equipment Project - Jefferson Country (JCFRA)
Medical Equipment Exchange - Jefferson Country (JCFRA)
Building Code Record Books - Inspections
Engineering & Public Works 1 FTE Civil Enginer II (to be hired January 2002) - Engineering
1 FTE CIP Project Manager -Engineering
Human Development
t iFTE Assistant Director - Programs (to be hired January 2002) - Social Servmes
[ FTE Office Assistant - Social Serrates
Adoption Materials - Social Services
1 FTE Day Care Social Worker -Social Services
Expansion(Meal progams, home safety)- JABA
Woods Edge Elderly Housing -JABA
Teensight Child Care Assistance -FOCUS
Play Partners - Children, Youth Family Services
3 additional child care scholarships- United Way
Parks/Recreation/Culture
Esmont Park Operating Funds - Parks and Rec
Athletic Field Maintenance Pilot Program -Parks and Rec
2 New Summer Playground Sites - Parks and Rec
Extended Operating Hours for Summer Playground Program - Parks and Rec
New Scoreboards for Middle School Gyms -Park~ and Rec
Gypsy Moth Program
Part-time Assistant - James Madison Regional Library
Lewis and Clark Festival
Community Development
.5 FTE Planning Aide - Planning
1 FTE Senior Planner (to be hired January 2002) -Planning
.6 Expansion of Recording Secretary to 1.0 FTE - Planning
1 FTE GIS Specialist -E911/Planning
2 FTE Zoning Inspectors (One to be hired January 2002)- Zoning
Pdparian Buffers Program- TJ Soil and Water
Hope House -MACAA
Total County Executive Funded Priorities
* Total Cost Partially Offset by Anticipated Additional Revenues
15,000
44,000
8,735
7,006
39,969
125,775 *
32,823
31,298
15,000
14,000
72,000
40,000
10,000
4,000
36,304
66,028
38,718
36~97
2,100
46,307
16,898
40,000
2,495
22,146
9,360
46,010
74,634
27,390
7,350
8,715
16,840
4,196
2,500
24,509
37,025
28,901
48,224
109,503 *
7,680
2,278
1,222,214
Budget Message A-7
Total County Budget
Self-Sustaining
5%
Federal Revenue
3%
FY 2001/02 Recommended
Total County Revenues
$171,800,430
Local R'operty
Taxes
38%
State Revenue
32%
Carry-Over/Fund
Balance
1%
Local
Revenues
21%
General Gov't
Operations
27%
FY 2001/02 Recommended
Total County Expenditures
$171,800,430
General Gov't.
IViscellaneous
<1%
Debt/Capital
Reserve
0%
Capital Program
3%
Revenue Sharing
4%
Self-Sustaining
5%
Debt Service
5%
School Division
Operations
55%
SummaW Data D- 1
Total County Revenues
FY 2001/02 Recommended
Total County Revenues
$171 ;800,430
Local Property
Taxes
38%
Self-Sustaining
5%
Federal Revenue
3%
State Revenue
32%
Carry-Over/Fund
Balance
1%
Revenues
21%
TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES
LOCAL REVENUE
PROPERTY TAXES
OTHER LOCAL REVENUE
OTHER LOCAL o SCHOOL FUND
SUBTOTAL
STATE REVENUE
GENERAL
SCHOOL FUN D
SUBTOTAL
FEDERAL REVENUE
GENERAL
SCHOOL FUND
SUBTOTAL
SELF-SUSTAiNING FUNDS
TRANSFERS/FUND BALANCE
GOVT: CARRY-OVER/FUND BAL
GOVT: TRANSFERS
SCHOOLS: CARRY-OVER/FUND BAL
SCHOOLS: TRANSFERS
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL REVENUE
FY 99/00
ACTUAL
63,335,269
33,630,082
,627.695
97,593,046
12,944,695
28~879.097
41,823,792
2,927,385
! .218.777
4,146,162
8,082,771
0
2,664,816
1,328,916
150.000
4,143,732
155,789,503
FY 00/01
ADOPTED
64,106,668
34,038,905
651.695
98,797,268
17,760,372
30,608.077
48,368,44g
3,285,794
1.438.468
4,724,262
7,896,449
1,130,465
168,355
590,000
74,000
1,962,820
161,749,248
FY 00/01
REVISED
65,866,071
34,764,661
651,695
101,282,427
17,818,974
30.223.899
48,042,873
FY 01102 FY 01/02 $ % %
REQUEST RECOMM ~ INC TL
65,754,609 65,754,609 1,647,941 2.57% 38.27%
35,496,200 34,977,850 938,945 2.76% 20.36%
592.470 592.470 (59.225~ -9.09% 0.34%
101,843,279 101,324.929 2,527,661 2.56% 58.98%
23,835,485
30.808.293
54,643,778
23,961,722 6,201,350 34.92% 13.95%
30.808.293 ~00.216 0.65% 17.93%
54,770,015 6,401,566 13.24% 31.88%
3,071,302 3,599,085 3,619,744 333,950 10.16% 2.11%
1,438,468 1.465.000 1,465,000 26.532 1.84% 0.85%
4,509,770 5,064,085 5,084,744 360,482 7.63% 2.96%
8,578,048 8,546,557 8,546,557 650,108 8.23% 4.97%
0 0 (1,130,465) -100.00% 0.00%
167,000 1,110,185 941,830 559.43% 0.65%
590,000 590,000 0 0.00% 0.34%
374,000 374.000 300,000 405.41% 0.22%
1,131,000 2,074,185 111,365 5.67% 1.21%
171,228,699 171,800,430 10,051,182 6.2t% 100.00%
0
8,237,547
590,000
74,000
8,901,547
t71,314,665
Surnmary Data
Total County Expenditures
FY 2001/02 Recommended
Total County Expenditu res
General Gov't
Operations
27%
$171,800,430
General Gov't.
IViscellaneous
<1%
Debt/Capital
Reserve
0%
Capital Program
3%
:evenue Sharing
4%
Self-Sustaining
5%
Debt Service
5%
School Division
Operations
55%
TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITU RES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS
ADMINISTRATION
JUDICIAL
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC WORKS
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBTOTAL
SCHOOL DIVISION
SCHOOL FUND OPERATIONS
SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS
DEBT SERVICE FUND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SUBTOTAL
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
CAPITAL PROGRAM - GEN. GOVq'.
CITY/COUNTY REVENUE SHARING
DEBT SERVICE - GENERAL GOVT
DEBT SERVICE/CAPITAL RESERVE
CONTINGENCY RESERVE
RESERVE
REFUNDS
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
FY 99/00 FY 00101
ACTUAL ADOPTED
6,184,182 6,512,040
2,533,381 2,729,307
12,339,153 13,890,140
2,538,082 2,719,261
8,718,889 9,603,949
4,015,058 4,307,399
2,994,139 3,378,373
39,322,884 43,140,469
82,863,782 90,035,795
8,082,771 7,896,449
8,450,000 8,850,000
100,000 0
99,496,553 106,782,244
2,421,330 3,124,500
5,853,794 6,093,101
310,688 750,000
0 1,290,000
0 534,634
1,179,162 0
27.661 34,300
9,792,635 11,826,535
148,6t2,072 ] 16t,749,248
FY 00101 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 $ % %
REVISED REQUEST RECOMM ~ INC TL
6,994,474 7,004,959
2,799,369 2,650,446
14,358,421 16,717,102
3,029,754 3,099,277
9,707,851 10,603,958
4,345,146 5,220,675
4,210,200 4,551,165
45,445,215 49,847,582
90,035,795 96,899,154
8,578,048 8,546,557
8,850,000 8,532,000
107,463,843 113,977,711
8,147,041 5,590,188
6,093,101 6,482,712
750,000 910.202
1,290,000 0
229,493 913,020
0 0
34.300 92.100
16,543,935 13,988,222
169,081,9921 178,677,355
6,959,073
2,571,513
15,118,920
2,954,332
10,452,915
4,305,306
3,876,304
46.238.362
94,495,289
8,546,557
8,532~00
111,573,846
5,590,188
6,482,712
910,202
0
913,020
0
92.100
13,988,222
171,800,430
447,033
(157,794)
1,228,780
235,071
848,966
(2,093)
497,931
3,097,893
4,459,494
650,108
(318,000)
4,791,602
2,465,688
389,611
160,202
(I,290,000)
378,386
0
57,800
2,161,687
10,051,t 82
6.86%
-5.78%
8.85%
8.64%
8.84%
-0.05%
14.74%
7.18%
4,95%
8.23%
-3.59%
0.00%
4.49%
78.91%
6.39%
21.36%
100.00%
70.77%
0.00%
168.51%
18.28%
6,,21%
4.05%
1.50%
8.80%
1.72%
6.08%
2.51%
2.26%
26.91%
55.00%
4.97%
4.97%
0.00%
64.94%
3.25%
3.77%
0.53%
0.00%
0.53%
0.00%
0,05%
8.14%
t00.00%
Summary Data
General Fund Revenues
FY 2001/02 Recommended
General Fund Revenues
$129,424,110
Other Local Revenue
Other Local Taxes 4%
23%
State Revenue
19%
General Property
Taxes
50%
Federal Revenue
3%
Transfers/Fund Bal.
1%
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
FY99/00
ACTUAL
FY 00/01
ADOPTED
FY 00/01
REVISED
FY 01102 FY 01/02 $ % %
REQUEST RECOMM NC ' ~ TL
LOCAL REVENUE
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 63,335,269 64.106.668 65,866,071 65,754,609 65,754,609 1,647,941 2.57% 50.81~
OTHER LOCAL TAXES 28,724,631 29,287,785 29,508,000 30,600,900 29,763,660 475,875 1.62% 23.00%
PERMITS & FEES 1,109,293 1,240,405 1,111,518 1,156,600 1,156,600 (83,805) -6.76% 0.89%
FINES & FORFEITURES 215.489 271,300 181,100 186,000 192,000 (79,300) -29.23% 0.15%
USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 1,153,170 933,770 1,345,272 1,347,600 1,347,600 413,830 44.32% 1.04%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,085,400 1,033,530 1,173,622 950.700 1,034,490 960 0.09% 0.80%
MISCELLANEOUS 98,402 117,300 217,400 84,500 106,900 (10,400) -8.87% 0.08%
PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 66,766 69,000 70,335 73.700 73,700 4,700 6.81% 0.06%
RECOVERED COSTS 1,176,931 1.085.815 1.157.414 1.094.200 !,302.900 217.085 19.99% 1.01%
SUBTOTAL 96,965,351 98,145,573 100,630,732 101,250,809 100,732,459 2,586,886 2.64% 77.83%
STATE REVENUE
PAYMENTS iN LIEU OF TAXES
NON-CATEGORICAL AID
SHARED EXPENSES
CATEGORICAL AID
SUBTOTAL
79,991
7,210,914
1,850,390
3,803.399
2,944,695
11.089
2.916.296
2,927,385
0
2.664.816
2,664,816
115,502,247
FEDERAL REVENUE
PAYMENTS INLIEU OFTAXES
CATEGORICALAID
SUBTOTAL
80,900
11,295,930
1,976,738
4,406.804
17,760,372
10,900
3.274.894
3,285,794
1,130,465
168.355
1,298,820
' 120,490,559
TRANSFERS/FUND BALANCE
CARRY OVER/FUND BALANCE
TRANSFERS
SUBTOTAL
84,000
11,597,900
1,933,0Z3
4.204.051
17,818,974
11,763
3.059.539
3,071,302
8.237.547
8,237,547
129,758,555
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND
88,200 88,200 7,300 9.02% 0.07%
17,394,000 17,394,000 6,098,070 53.98% 13.44%
1,998,900 1,998,900 22,162 1.12% 1.54%
4,354.385 4.480.622 73,818 1.68% 3.46%
23,835,485 23,961,722 6,201,350 34.92% 18.51%
11,800 11,800 900 8.26% 0.01%
3,587,285 3.607.944 333.050 10.17% 2.79%
3,599,085 3,619,744 333,950 10.16% 2.80%
167,000
167,000
128,852,379
(1,130,465) -100.00% 0.00%
1.110.185 941,830 559.43% 0.86%
1,110,185 (188,635) -14.52% 0.86%
129,424,1t0 8,933,55t
7.41% 100.00%
Summary Data
General Fund Expenditures
Debt Service
7%
4%
Community Dev.
3%
Parks & Rec.
3%
Human Dev.
8%
Public Works
2%
FY 2001102 Recommended
General Fund Expenditures
$129,424,110
Public Safety
12%
Judicial
2%
Administration
5%
Transfer to School
Division
48%
IViscellaneous
1%
Revenue Sharing
5%
FY 99~00
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ACTUAL
FUNCTIONAL AREAS
ADMINISTRATION 6,184,182
JUDICIAL 2,533,381
PUBLIC SAFETY 12,339¢ 53
PUBLIC WORKS 2,538,082
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 8,708,639
EDUCATION 10.250
PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE 4,015,058
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2,994,139
SUBTOTAL 39,322,884
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
TRANSFER TO CAPITAL FUNDS 2,521,330
CITY/COUNTY REVENUE SHARING 5,853,794
CONTINGENCY RESERVE 0
DEBT SERVICE - GENERAL GOVT. 310,688
DEBT SERVICE - SCHOOLS 8,450,000
DEBT SERVICE/CAPITAL RESERVE 0
RESERVE 1,179,162
REFUNDS 27,661
TRANSFER TO SCHOOL DIVISION 51,435,564
SCHOOL TRANSFER - ONE TIME 250.000
SUBTOTAL 70,028,199
SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES 109,35t,082
FY 00101
ADOPTED
6,512,040
2,729,307
13,890,140
2,719,261
9,593,699
10,250
4,307.399
3,378.373
43,140,469
3.124.500
6,093,101
534,634
750,000
8,850,000
1,290,000
0
34.300
56,673,555
77.350,090
120,490,559
FY 00/01
REVISED
6,994,474
2,799,369
14,358,421
3,029,754
9,697,601
10,250
4,345,146
4,210,200
45,445,215
8.147,041
6,093,101
229,493
750,000
8,850,000
1,290.000
0
34,300
56,673,555
82.067,490
t27,5t2,705
FY 01/02 FY 01102 $ % %
REQUEST RECOMM INC 1NC TL
7,004,959 6,959,073 447,033 6.86%
2,650,446 2,571,513 (157,794) -5.78%
16,717,102 15,118,920 1,228,780 8.85%
3,099,277 2,954,332 235,071 8.64%
10,579,073 10,442,355 848,656 8.85%
24,885 10,560 310 3.02%
5,220,675 4,305,306 (2,093) -0.05%
4,551,165 3,876,304 497,931 14.74%
49,847,582 46.238,362 3,097,893 7.18%
5.38%
1.99%
11.68%
2.28%
8.07%
0.01%
3.33%
3.00%
35.73%
5,590,188 5,590,188 2,465,688 78.91% 4.32%
6,482,712 6,482,712 389,611 6.39% 5.01%
913,020 913,020 378,386 70.77% 0.71%
910,202 910,202 160,202 21.36% 0.70%
8,532,000 8,532,000 (318,000) -3.59% 6.59%
0 0 (1,290,000) 100.00% 0.00%
0 0 0 200.00% 0.00%
92,100 92,100 57,800 168.51% 0.07%
60,665,526 60,665,526 3,991,971 7.04% 46.87%
0 O__ 0 0.00% 0.00%
83,185,748 83,185,748 5,835,658 7.54% 64.27%
133,533,330 t29,424,110 8,933,55t 7.41% t00.00%
Summary Data
School Division Revenues
FY 2001102 Recommended School Division Revenues
$103,041,846
59% /
Local
1%
Carryover/Fund
Balance
1%
Self-Sustaining
8%
Federal
1%
State
30%
SCHOOL REVENUES
LOCAL REVENUE
STATE REVENUE
FEDERAL CATEGORICAL
SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS
TRAN SFERS/CARRY-OVEPJFU N D BAL
GEN. FUND TRANSFER (RECURRING)
GEN. FUND TRANSFER (ONE-TIME)
OTHER TRANSFERS
=UND-BALANCE
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL REVENUE
FY 99/00
ACTUAL
627,695
28,879,097
1,218,777
8,082,771
51,435,56~
250.000
150,000
1.328.916
53,164,480
9t ,972,820
FY 00/01 FY 00/01
ADOPTED REVISED
651,695 651,695
30,608,077 30,223,899
1,438,468 1,438,468
7,896,449 8,578,048
56,673,555 56,673,555
0 0
74.000 74,000
590.000 ~90.000
57,337,555 57,337,555
97,932,244 98,229,665
FY 01/02 FY 01/02 $ % %
REQUEST RECOMM ~ INC_ TL_
592,470 592,470 (59,225) -9.09% 0.57%
30,808,293 30,808,293 200,216 0.65% 29.90%
1,465,000 1,465,000 26,532 1.84% 1.42%
8,546,557 8,546,557 650,108 8.23% 8.29%
60,665,526 80,665,526 3,991,971 7.04% 58.87%
0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
374.000 374,000 300,000 405.41% 0.36%
590.000 590.000 0 0.00% 0.57%
61,629,526 61,629,526 4,291,971 7.49% 59.81%
103,041,846 103,041,846 5,t09,602 5.22% 100.00%
Summary Data
School Division Expenditures
FY 2000/01 Adopted School Division Expenditures
$98,242,842
Other Instructional
10% School Allocations
4%
Adrrinistration
4%
Transportation
6%
Building Services
8%
K-12 Instructior
6O%
IViscellaneous
<1%
Self-Sustaining
Operations
8%
SCHOOL EXPENDITURES
INSTRUCTION
STAFFING
OPERATION COSTS
CAPITAL COSTS
BOARD RESERVE
SUBTOTAL
ADMIN, ATTENDANCE & HEALTH
STAFFING
OPERATIONAL COSTS
CAPITAL COSTS
SUBTOTAL
TRANSPORTATION
STAFFING
OPERATIONAL COSTS
CAPITAL COSTS
SUBTOTAL
BUILDING SERVICES
STAFFING
QPERATIONAL COSTS
CAPITAL COSTS
SUBTQTAL
TRANSFERS
ADJUSTMENT TO TIE
TOTAL SCHOOL FUND OPERATIONS
SELF-SUSTAINING FUND OPERATIONS
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
FY 99/00
ACTUAL
56,296,518
6,937,188
599.081
0
63,832,78~
3,715,551
690,618
72,829
4,478,998
4,365,563
806,516
176,347
5,348,420
4,251,589
3,609,401
86,986
7,947,976
1,255,601
82,863,78
8.082.771
90,946,553
FY 00/01
ADOPTED
60.639,669
7,888,836
296.943
139,187
68,964,635
4,271,651
725,008
35,100
5,031,759
4,771,858
870,655
141,480
5,783,993
4,637,428
3,921.929
184,670
8,744,027
1,511,381
90,035,795
7,896,449
97,932,244
FY 00/01
REVISED
60,639,669
7,888,836
296.943
139,187
68,964,635
4,271,651
725,008
35,10C
5,031,75~
4,771,858
870,655
141,480
5,783,993
4,637,428
3,921,929
184,670
8,744,027
1,511,381
90,035,79
8,578,048
98,613,843
FY 01/02
REQUEST
64,807,011
8,278,514
341,970
50,000
73,477,495
4,750,975
748,535
67,450
5,566,960
5,273,264
1,071,995
141,480
6,486,739
4,961,455
4,169,594
185,550
9,316,599
2,051,361
96,899,154
8,546,557
105,445,711
FY 01/02
RECOMM
64,807,011
8,278,514
341,970
50,000
73,477,495
4,750,975
748,535
67,450
5,566,960
5,273,264
1,071,995
141,480
6~86,739
4,961,455
4,169,594
185,550
9,316,599
2,051,361
-2.403.865
94,495,289
8,546,557
t03,04t,846
4,167,342
389,678
45,027
(89,1
4,512,850
479.324
23,527
32.350
535,201
501.406
201.340
702,746
324,027
247~65
88O
572,572
539,980
(2,403,865)
4,459,494
650,108
5,t09,602
%
INC_
6.87%
4.94%
15.16%
-64.08%
6.54%
11.22%
3.25%
92.17%
10.64%
10.51%
23.13%
0.00%
12.15%
6.99%
6.31%
0.48%
6.55%
35.73%
0.00%
4.95%
6.23%
5.22%
%
TL_
62.89%
8.03%
0.33%
0.05%
71.31%
4.81%
0.73%
0.07%
5.40%
5.12%
1.04%
0.14%
6.30%
4.81%
4.05%
0.18%
9.04%
1.99%
-2.33%
91.71%
8.29%
100.00%
Summary Data D-7
General Fund Expenditures
FY 2001/02 Recommended
General Fund Expenditures
$129,424,110
Debt Service
7%
CIP
4%
Corm'unity Dev.
3%
Parks & Rec.
3%
Human Dev.
8%
Public Works
2%
Public Safety Judicial
12% 2%
Transfer to School
Division
48%
~soellaneous
1%
Revenue Sharing
Administration 5%
5%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
FUNCTIONAL AREAS
ADMINISTRATION 6,184,182
JUDICIAL 2,533,381
PUBLIC SAFETY 12,339,153
PUBLIC WORKS 2,538,082
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 8,708,639
EDUCATION 10,250
PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE 4,015,058
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2,994,139
SUBTOTAL 39,322,884
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
TRANSFER TO CAPITAL FUNDS 2,521,330
CITY/COUNTY REVENUE SHARING 5,853,794
CONTINGENCY RESERVE 0
DEBT SERVICE - GENERAL GOVq'. 310,688
DEBT SERVICE - SCHOOLS 8,450,000
DEBT SERVICE/CAPITAL RESERVE 0
RE SERVE 1,179,162
REFUNDS 27,661
TRANSFER TO SCHOOL DIVISION 51.435,564
SCHOOL TRANSFER - ONE TIME _250,000
SUBTOTAL 70,028,199
SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES 109,351,082
FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01
ACTUAL ADOPTED REVISED
6,512,040 6,994,474
2,729,307 2,799,369
13,890,140 14,358,421
2,719,261 3,029,754
9,593,699 9,697,601
10,250 10,250
4,307,399 4,345,146
3,378,373 4,210,200
43,140,469 45,445,215
3,124,500 8,147,041
6.093,101 6,093,101
5341634 229.493
750,000 750,000
8,850,000 8,850,000
1,290,000 1,290,000
0 0
34,300 34,300
56,673,555 56,673,555
0 0
77,350,090 82,067,490
120,490,559 127,512,705
FY 01/02 FY 01102 $ % %
REQUEST RECOMM INC INC T__I=
7,004.959 6,959,073 447,033 6.86%
2,650,446 2,571,513 (157,794) -5.78%
16,717,102 15,118,920 1,228,780 8.85%
3,099,277 2,954,332 235,071 8.64%
10,579,073 10,442,355 848,656 8.85%
24,885 10,560 310 3.02%
5,220,675 4.305,306 (2,093) -0.05%
4,551,165 3.876,304 497,931 14.74%
49,847,582 46,238,362 3,097,893 7.18%
5.38%
1.99%
11.68%
2.28%
8.07%
0.01%
3.33%
3.00%
35.73%
5,590,188 5,590,188 2,465,688 78.91% 4.32%
6,482,712 6,482,712 389,611 6.39% 5.01%
913.020 9t3,020 378,386 70,77% 0.71%
910.202 910,202 160.202 21.36% 0.70%
8,532,Q00 8,532,000 (318,000) -3.59% 6.59%
0 0 (1,290,000) 100.00% 0.00%
0 0 0 200.00% 0.00%
92,100 92,100 57,800 168.51% 0.07%
60,665,526 60,665,526 3,991,971 7.04% 46.87%
o o o 0.00% 0.00%
83,185,748 83,185,748 5,835,658 7.54% 64.27%
133,033,330 129,424,1t0 8,933,551 7.41% 100.00%
General Government Expenditures
¢IP Overview
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY 2001/2002- FY 2005/2006 serves as the planning guide for County
expenditures for major capital facilities and equipment over the next five years and represents a balance between fi-
nite resources and an ever increasing number of competing County priorities and needs.
FY01/02 represents the first year of a redesigned two-year capital planning process that incorporates a long-range
capital needs assessment and a multi-year planning process. For FY01/02, the first year of the two-year cycle, depart-
ments were asked to submit five-year capital requests for FY02-FY06, as well as an assessment of future capital
needs for the out-years, FY07-FY11. During the second year, FY02/03, a more streamlined review willlook only at
. new 5th year projects or any emergency requests that would require an amendment to the approved CIP.
Expenditures & Revenues
The FY02-FY06 Capital Improvement Program recommends $113.1 million dollars in projects, a 32% or $27 mil-
lion dollars increase over the current FY01-FY05 $86 million dollar CIP. This expanded CIP is a direct result of the
Board of Supervisors increased commitment of tax revenues and one-time fimds to a long-term capital investment
strategy, as recommended by the County's financial advisors in October, 2000. This recommended strategy in-
creases the local tax revenue commitment to the capital program in four ways: increase the current general fund trans-
fer to the capital program each year by the rate of revenue growth, i.e. an assumed 7% increase; increase the annual~
general fund transfer to debt service also by the 7% revenue growth rate; set aside an additional 0.5% of operating
budget growth to the capital fund; continue to dedicate $0.02 cents of the tax rate to the capital/debt reserve.
The proposed CIP is based on this formula, except for the $0.02 tax rate set aside, which has been reduced to a $0.01
cent tax rate reserve. Ten-year compounding of the local revenue transfer significantly contributes to the County's
ability to fund CIP projects with current revenues, as well as fund increasing debt service payments for both school
and general government bonded projects.
The FY02-FY06 $113.1 million dollar Recommended CIP consists of $47.3 million in General Government pro-
jects, $2.4 million in Stormwater projects and $63.3 million in School Division projects proposed by the School
Board.
Recommended CIP revenues consist primarily of borrowed funds for school and general government projects. FY
02-06 borrowed funds total $80.5 million (71% of CIP revenues,) and consist of $57.8 million in Virginia Public
School Authority (VPSA) bonds and $22.7 million in debt obligations for general government capital projects.
The two charts below show the recommended expenditures and revenues for the total Capital Improvement Program.
FY 02 - 06 Recommended ClP Revenues FY 02 - 06 Recommended CIP Expenditures
$113,060,396 $1t3,060,396
Other Borrowed General
5% Funds - General Go~rnment
20% 42%
Boffowed
Funds- Schools
51%
Local
24%
S~rmwa~r
2%
School Di~4sion
56%
Capital Improvement Program
CIP Overview
General Government CTP
General government's capital investment plan totals $47.3 million with approximately $22:7 million (48%) in pro-
posed projects to be funded with borrowed revenues. The two charts below show recommended expenditures and
revenues for the General Government Capital Program.
FY 02 - 06 Recommended General Government CIP
Revenues
$47,297,396
Igisc,
Local Tax 4%
Revenues
48%
Borrowed Funds
48%
FY 02 - 06 Recommended General Government ClP
Library
~13n'rt
32%
Expenditures
$47,297,396
ACE
2%
Public Safety
37%
~ U~lities
~Hw~s. &
~Transp.
y16%
~ Human Dev.
Parks &
10%
Project Highlights
Highlights and major changes in General Government's recommended FY02-FY06 CIP are as follows:
Administration & Courts
· Continued funding for maintenance/repair projects at the County Office Building, Court Square and the Juvenile &
Domestic Relations Court Building.
· Continued funding for County technology infrastructure and hardware upgrades.
· Continued funding for the County's share of the City/County courthouse renovation and expansion project, using
general obligation bonds to be issued at the approval of County voters in a referendum.
· Adds $250,000 for a Court Square Enhancement project with the City to improve the County's Courthouse
grounds.
Public Safety
· Adds $6.5 million to the Fire/Rescue Building and Equipment Fund to build the new southern area fire/rescue sta-
tion in FY02, a second fire station in the development area and a third station in the 250/Ivy area of the County.
· Continued funding for a $4.6 million dollar public safety facility in FY04 using borrowed funds.
· Continued funding of $550,085 for a Fire/Rescue Training Center and $400,000 for a Police Firing Range. These
projects have been combined into one project with the assumption that these two projects can be co-located at the
same site. Actual construction of the Fire/Rescue Training Center is in FY07 with several phases though FY11 for
total estimated costs of $1.2 million.
· Continued funding for other public safety initiatives, including a Police LAN upgrade, an upgraded public safety
mobile command center, a transport vehicle for arrests and pohce video cameras for patrol cars.
Capital Improvement Program
CIP Overview
Highways & Transportation
· Adds $1.75 million to the Neighborhood Plan Implementation Program in recognition of the growing emphasis on
neighborhood enhancements, such as sidewalks, pocket parks, landscaping, etc. These needs will be identified
through the neighborhood planning process. Additionally, $2.65 million in neighborhood project needs has been
projected for FY07-FYI 1.
· Adds $1.75 million to the Sidewalk Construction Program to provide annual, on-going funding for the construction
of sidewalks and other pedestrian related improvements, which are not identified in neighborhood plans or planned
in conjunction with a specific road project. Also; identifies an additional $2.65 million in additional needs in
FY07-FY11.
· Continued funding for the Revenue Sharing Road Program at an annual funding level of $500,000.
· Adds $600,000 for a new Transportation Planning and Improvement Program to provide a more consistent and
flexible funding source for the planing and development ofmaj or transportation projects. In addition, the plan iden-
tifies a need for $1.95 million for transportation needs in the out-years FY07-FY11.
Lib ra ry
· Adds $720,000 in FY06 to begin design work for a new Northside Library, which is estimated to cost approxi-
mately $4.4 million using borrowed funds. A planning study is currently underway to review countywide library
needs and make recommendations for future site and construction costs. Out-year projections for a second library
in the 29North corridor, a new library in Neighborhood 4/5 (southern urban area) and a new Crozet library are in-
cluded in the FY07-FY11 Needs Assessment.
· Adds $116,000 to replace the existing bookmobile in FY06.
Human Development
Continues the annual contribution for Region Ten's three new capital facilities and for the Charlottes-
vitle-Albemarle Legal Aid Society's (CALAS) down payment on a new capital facility. Region Ten funding con-
tinues through FY05, while FY02 is the second and last year of funding for CALAS.
Parks & Recreation
· Adds $179,000 in funding for athletic field development and park facility improvements. An additional $1.2 mil-
lion has been identified for years FY07 - FYI 1.
· Continued funding for a new urban gymnasium (now called Recreation Facilities Project) in FY04. The urban gym
project has been combined with an identified need in FY07 for a major 35,000 - 50,000 square foot recreational fa-
cility to include a swimming pool, gymnasium, weight room, and multipurpose rooms. A $50,000 study is planned
in FY02 to assess community demand, as well as the financial commitment needed to build and operate this type of
recreational facility. Borrowed funds are proposed for fimding this project.
· Continued fimding for the County's annual commitment of $33,000 to the Paramount Theater until FY10.
· Continued funding for two tourism-related projects, $125,000 for the Rivanna Greenway and $105,000 for en-
hancements to the County' s river access. Although these projects are now shown in the General CIP, rather than in
a separate Tourism Fund, they are still funded with tourism revenues.
Acquisition of Conservation Easements
· Continued funding for the County's new Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program in FY02.
Capital Improvement Program P-3
CIP Overview
Utility Improvement Projects
· Continued funding for Keene Landfill closure costs.
Stormwater Fund
Adds $1.6 million to the County's stormwater control efforts for a total FY02-FY06 commitment of $2.4 million.
Additional stormwater needs of $3.25 million have been identified in the out-years FY07-FY11.
School Fund
The FY02-FY06 School Division Capital Improvement Program proposed by the School Board and recommended
by the CIP Technical Committee is $63.3 million, a 28% increase, or $13.8 million over the current FY01-FY05
School Division CIP. The two charts below show the recommended expenditures and revenues for the School Divi-
sion FY02-FY 06 Capital Improvement Program:
FY 02 - 06 Recommended School CIP Revenues
$63,338,000
Other
3%
State Remnues
3%
General Fund
Transfer
3%
VPSA Bonds
91%
FY 02 - 06 Recommended School CIP Expenditu res
$63,338,000
N ~ Technology
ew /~ "x 4%
Construction// ~
42% r~ Maintenance17%
Reno~YExpans
37%
Highlights and major changes in the School Division's Recommended Capital Improvement Program are as follows:
· Moves Brownsville Addition forward from FY06 to FY03.
· Moves Henley addition forward from FY06 to FY05.
· Moves Albemarle High School renovation forward from out year funding to FY05.
· Moves Murray High School renovations forward from out-year funding m FY04/05.
· Moves the Walton addition forward from the FY06 to FY04.
· Continues funding for Baker Butler Northern Elementary for total cost of $12.8 million, $9.7 million of
which will be borrowed in FY02.
· Continues funding for construction of Southern Elementary in FY03 for a September FY04 opening.
· Adds $2.5 million dollars to maintenance/replacement proj ects~ To meet this additional need, local tax reve-
nues of $1.8 million are transferred to the School Division to cover minor maintenance/replacement pro-
jects, instead of VPSA bonds.
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2001/02 - 2005/06 RECOMMENDED Capital
($ in thousands)
Improvement Program
FY01/02 - 05/06 CIP
Revenues
$113,060,000
School Borrowed
5t%
General Fund
24%
Other Local
2%
Tourism Funds
1%
2%
Oen Gov Borrowed
20%
FY01102 - 05/06 ClP
Expenditures
$113,060,000
Administration &
Courts
13%
Schools
57%
Stormwater
2%
Public Safety
15%
Hwys. & Transp.
7%
Human Dev.
Library 0%
1%
Parks & Rec.
Utility ACE 4%
0% 1%
CIP Revenues
Local Revenues - General Fund
CIP Fund Balance
Tourism Fund Revenues- ACE/Other
Interest Earned
Courthouse Maintenance Funds
City Reimbursements
State Construction Funding
Borrowed Funds - General Gov
VPSA Bonds - Schools
FY02-06
26,857
1,179
995
1,250
248
17
2,000
22,721
57,793
ClP Expenditures
Administration & Courts
Public Safety
Highways & Transportation
Human Development
Library
Parks, Recreation & Culture
Acquisition of Conservation Easements
Utility Improvement
Stormwater
Schools
15,129
17,413
7,567
228
878
4,783
1,000
3OO
2,425
63,338
Total CIP Revenues 113,060 Total tIP Expenditures 113,060
Comparative Expenditures
Fiscal Year 1999/00 General Judicial Public Public Health Rec & Comm.
Admin Admin. Safety Works Welfare Education* Culture Develop.
Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Total
Selected Counties Capita Capita Capita ~,apita Capita Capita Capita Capita Expenditures
Fairfax 83.03 21.76 291.61 126.3 287.4 1,241.56 96.06 82.91 2,101,709,526
Prince William 66.12 31.5 309.06 96.31 167.64 1,259.63 103.76 33.63 553,718,000
Chesterfield 68.09 36.69 300.49 44.82 125.77 1,123.92 50.64 39.33 451,373,735
Henrico 123.79 30.03 356 119.35 142.8 973.29 67.99 45.37 463,166,071
Arlington 217.04 62.07 468.09 153.28 423.65 1,096.37 226.87 70.37 491,639,226
Loudoun 85.59 25.79 191.24 50.66 1,238.62 93.35 66.47 298,711,696
Roanoke 60.69 29.47 229,91 120.81 101.93 1,063.00 54.6 18.85 140,553,074
Montgomery 43.45 15.98 64.7 42.66 114.96 732.38 22.62 25.33 83,266,574
Stafford 55.15 26.96 163.96 38.58 105.77 1,225.11 54.26 21.48 156,779,402
Albemarle 49.26 33.5 153.48 40.29 184.01 1,041.75 43.84 126.55 136,490,134
Hanover 53.65 18.08 237.49 40.4 117.86 1,014.58 39.5 38.75 131,846,264
Spotsylvania 61.71 26.58 163.26 46.32 110.27 1,176.24 43.78 17.2~ 143,264,448
Reckingham 40.5 25.75 118.47 40.07 117.39 1,046.45 27.99 18.52 92,422,391
Augusta 43.25 21.58 116.6 36.14 117.38 1,022.40 26.38 14.55 87,252,705
Henry 42.53 27.15 125.42 32.04 137.19 1,010.05 29.09 43.89 81,052,341
Pittsylvania 25.69 29.95 101.9 33.76 153.77 849.87 11.75 33.25 73,155,969
York 79.75 31 18 266.86 123.79 142.23 1,107.29 43.37 44.23 105,725,445
Bedford 39.74 16.34 110.75 98.58 116.81 72.42 28.52 27.57 70,262,822
Fauquier 89.94 42.1 174.39 134.02 179.68 1,144.85 42.62 37.73 98.726,070
Frederick ' 64.24 26.87 174.19 82.52 93.13 1,160.40 49.3 42.75 96,523,853
Charlottesville 142.61 41.37 396.23 196.24 578.94 1,146.98 161.54 59.35 102,666,770
Average 73.13 29.56 214.96 80.81 167.55 1,035.58 62.75 43.24
I For Virginia Counties 72.64 29.73 218.23 83.33 192.87 1082.02 61.08 48.20 8,188,389,995
* Education expenditures exclude debt service.
Source: Commonwealth of Virginia. Auditor of Public Accounts. Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues & Expenditures:
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1999. Richmond, Virginia.
R-6 County Profile
Comparative Tax Rates
COMPARATIVE REAL PROPERTY TAX RATES - FY 00/01
Selected Counties
1999 2000
Population Tax Rate*
Prince William 267,800 1.34
Fairfax 942,200 1.23
Roanoke 83,700 1.13
Chesterfield 252,200 1.08
Stafford 92,700 1.18
Loudoun 155,900 1.08
Arlington 180,900 1.023
Fauquier 53,500 1.00
Spotsylvania 87,100 1.02
Henrico 249,200 0.94
York 57,500 0.86
Hanover 84,500 0.83
Montgomery 78,400 0.76
IAIbemarle 81,600 0.76
Rockingham 64,400 0.71
Henry 56,000 0.60
Pittsylvania 59,000 0.60
Frederick 57,000 0.64
Augusta 62,400 0.58
Bedford 57,500 0.67
IAverages 151,175 0.93
Charlottesville 38,100 1.11
* Per $100 of assessed value.
Source: Tax Rates: University of Virginia, Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service; 1999
Tax Rates: Virginia's Cities, Counties and Selected Towns. Population: University of
Virginia, Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. (1999 Provisional)
County Profile R-7
General Fund Staffing Summaries
Gemeral Government FTE/1,000 Population FY90/91 - 01102
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
4.87 4.93 5.06 4.95 4.94
5.18 5.33
5.45
5.58
6.21
5.86 5.87 5.96
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 Ad01 Rev01 Req02 Rec02
Fiscal Year
General Government FTE (Less Police & Fire)II,000 Population: FY90/91 -
01/02
4.50
"4.00
~ 3.50
"5 3.00
~. 2.50
~ 2.00
o. 1.50
"~ 1.00
I--
"0.50
0.00
3.63 3.61 3.56 3.52 3.52 3.60 3.63 3.66 3.75
3.83
4.20
3.94 3.94 4.02
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 Ad01 Rev01 R~q02 Rec02
Fiscal Year
Since FY 90/91, General Government has added only 1.09 Full-Time Equivalent employees (FTEs) per 1,000 resi-
dents. This increase has been split fairly evenly between additional public safety employees and other general gov-
ernment employees.
County Profile R-9
General Fund Staffing Summaries
GENERAL FUND FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FT~ PERSONNEL BY DEPARTMENT
(Full and Part-Time Permanent Employees)
Actual ~ Adopted Revised Request Recomm
FY90'91 FY91-92 FY92-93 FY93-94 FY94-95 FY95-96 FY96-97 FY97-98 FY98-99 FY 99-00 ~ FY 00-01 FY00-01 FY01-02 FY01-02 Inc
Board of Supervisors 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3,00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0,0
County Execu0ve 5.50 6,50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 0.0
Community Resources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0
Personnel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Legal Se~,ices 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.75 3.00 4.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.0
Finance 47.00 47.00 47.00 47.00 47.00 50.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 0.0
Infon-nation Services 16.00 16.00 17.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 0~0
Board of Elections 2,00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.60 3.60 3,60 3.60 4.60 ' 5.00 4.60 0.0
Circuit Court 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0
Juvenile Court Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1,00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
Clerk of Circuit Court 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 10,00 1000 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 0,0
Commonwealth Attorney 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.50 7.50 8.00 8.00 8.00 I 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.0
Police 82.00 89.00 96.00 96.00 98.00 102,00 108.50 113.50 116.50 120.50 125.00 125.00 130.00 128.00 3.0
Shedff 11.63 11.63 13.13 13,63 16.52 17.26 18.00 18,00 19.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 0.0
Fire Administration 0.00 0.00 5.00 5,00 5.00 5.50 9.50 16.00 17.00 20.00 30.00 30.00 34.50 31.00 1.0
inspections 18.00 18.00 15.00 15,00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15,00 15.00 0.0
Engineering 11.00 12,00 13.50 13.00 15.50 16.50 16.50 17.50 19.00 22.00 24.00 24.00 28.00 26.00 2.0
Staff Ser~ces t4.75 14.75 14.75 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.75 15.75 15.75 15.75 0.0
Social Services 54.25 54.75 54.50 54.85 54.85 55.00 59.00 58.00 63.00 67.00 71.50 71.00 74.00 74.00 3.0
Parks & Becrealion 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 ~4.00 24.00 15.00 1.0
Planning 16.00 16.00 16.00 15.90 15.90 17.40 18.40 19.40 19.40 22.40 24.40 24.40 29.00 27.50 3.1
Housing 5.50 5.50 5.65 7.65 7.65 8.50 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 0.0
Zoning 8.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 10.00 10.00 11.00 11.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 16.00 14.00 2.0
SoilANater Conservation 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0. O0 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0
Watemhed Mge. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.0
VPI Extension 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0_00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.(30 0.00 8.00 0.0
Animal Control 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.0
TOTAL 332.23 342.73 355.63 358.63 367.27 383,51 405.75 422.35 437.25 457.25 480.75 481,25 516.75 496.35 15.10
FTE/t ,000 POPULATION 4.87 4.93 5.06 4.95 4.94 5.05 5.18 5.33 5,45 5.58 5.86 5.87 6.21 5.96 0.10
ANNUAL INC. FTE 29.79 10.50 12.90 3.00 8.64 16.24 22.24 16.60 14.90 20,00 23.50 24.00 59.50 39.10
% INCREASE 9.85% 3.16% 3.76% 0.84% 2.41% 4.42% 5.80% 4.09% 3,53% 4.57% 5.14% 5,25% 13.01% 8.55%
TOTAL - NO PUB. SAFETY 247.23 250.73 251.63 254.63 261.27 273.01 284.75 289.85 300.75 313.75 322.75 323.25 349.25 334.35 11.10
FTE/1,000 POPULATION 3.63 3.61 3.58 3.52 3.52 3.60 3.63 3.66 3.75 3.83 3.94 3.94 4.20 4.02 0.08
FY02
Recomm
Police Services Cdme Prevention Coordinator 1.00
Police Services Police Officer 2.00
Fire/Rescue - Admin Office Associate II 1.00
Engineering CIP Manager 1.00
Engineering Civil Engineer II 1.00
DSS - Mgnt Assistant Director 1.00
DSS - Services Office Associate IV 1.00
DSS - Emp Social Worker 1.00
Parks and Recreation Maintenance Worker 1.00
Planning Planning Aide 0.50
Planning Recording Sec.-Planning 0.60
Planning Senior Planner 1.00
Planning-E-911 GIS Specialist 1.00
Zoning Zoning Inspectors 2.00
Total Additions Over FY01 Revised 15.10
CounW Profile
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGEN DA TITLE:
Route 250 East Corridor Study
SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Wo rksession to review Route 250 East corridor Study
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley,Cilimberg,Benish,Wade
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2001
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
IN FORMATION:
Yes /~ ~-'"'*
BACKGROUND:
The Route 250 East Corridor Study was co nducted by the Virginia Department of Transportation, with the cooperation
of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission,
Albemarle, Fluvanna, and Louisa Counties and the City of Charlottesville. The Route 250 East Corridor Study is a
planning study of the Route 250 corridor beginning at the East Corporate Limits of Charlottesville (Free Bridge) and
ending at the Routes 795 intersection approximately 0.3 mile east of Route 15 at Zion Crossroads. The purpose of the
study is to examine existing and future travel conditions within the corridor and identify transportation deficiencies. Each
locality appointed two citizens representatives to an Advisory Committee. The purpose of the Advisory Committee was
to assist VDOT staff by providing information and feedback regarding existing and future transportation issues in the
corridor. The committee met at regular intervals to discuss findings of the study and assist in developing potential
transportation solutions.
DISCUSSION:
VDOT's preliminary short term and long term recommendations can be found in Attachments A& B.
VDOT will be prepared to discuss these recommendations. The Advisory Committee has approved these preliminary
recommendationS. No construction funds have been allocated for the corridor study recommendations. The plan will
enable localities to preserve right-of-way, manage access points, and otherwise make provisions for the ultimate
transportation infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
For information and discussion The Board will need to schedule a public hearing prior to any action on this study.
01.041
l nmendations - Highway
~egend
Roads
Interstate
Hard Surface
A~l Weather Surface
Ught Surface
Unsurfaced
Rarnps/Fro~age Roads
Bddge
Overpass
US Highways
Primary Routes
Boundary Unes
;_~.~ State Line
~! County Uno
/.~ · Magestedal Dist. Line
/~ City Limits
o. · Park, Forest, Reservation Lane
Recommendations
~ $ignal~.ed Intersection
Lane
Rural 4 Lane
La ne
Urban 6 Lane
Urban6 Lane with Continuous Right Turn
Urban 6 Lane with
Continuous Right Turn Lanes
I OUHtS
!
/
#
\
\
\
Segrr~ent:
B~een Rte 22 and Rte 729
~ 24 Hour Volume:
~ Segment:
~ Be~een Rte 7~ a~ Fl~anna Co, Une
~ 24 Hour Volume:
Segment:
Between Fluvanna Co, Line and Rte 15
2022 24 Hour Votume:
78OO
Segment:
Between Rte 15 and Rte 795
24 Hour Volume:
[11 H~H 0 ! UH !
[;ounts
\
\
,%
d
Segment:
Be[ween Rte 11t7 and I
1998 24 Hour Voturne:
3263~
t998 24 Hour Volume:
14900
~ment:
Be[ween F~te 1055 and Rte 808
1998 24 Hour Volume:
Segment:
Be[ween Rte 616 and Ftuvanna Co. Line
24 Hour Vo ume
Segment:
Between Rte 698 and Rte 708
1998 24 Hour Volume:
329O
I 24,800; 1998 Estimate
I 30 ~0 20~ 0 Projec~O~
Legend
I Significant Area
Developments
River's Edge
+ 1,915 trips to 250
Pegasus Motors
+ 675 tdps daily
N
South Pantops
+ 18, 500 trips dally
Additions to Westminster Canterbury and
Martha Jefferson HosPital Offices
+560 trips daily
Peter Jefferson Place
+28,718 triPS dallY
Shadwell
Farmers Market
Luck Stone Re~aii Center
Glenmore SubdiVision
390 dwelling units
Thomas Jefferson Amphitheatre
2000 seats
~ Cosner Property
~ Industrial/COmmemial/Residential Expansion
Fluvanna Correctional Center
Potential Future Expansion
BF[ Industrial Area
Potential Future Expansion
Lake Monticello
+ 1700 dwelling units
16,269 trips daily
0 I 2 ~les
ATTACHMENT A
Route 250 East Corridor Study
Long-Range Recommendations
Cost Summary ($1000)
Locatior Im )rovement Roadway Ri~lht of Way Total (Year 2000
E ,;L Charlottesville to 1-64 3rovide Six Lanes with Continuous, Ri~lht Turn Lanes $14,700 $8,800 23,500
1~4 Interchange Reconfi~ure Interchange 30,000 NA 30,000 . ..
1-34 to Route 22 Provid~ Six Lanes ' 14,300 7,2(~0 21:500
R ~ute 22 to Route 616 Provide Four Lanes 8:900 2,200 11,100
R~ute 616 to Route 15 Provide Four Lanes 17,200 4~300 21,500
R )ute 1146 Provide Traffic Signal when warrants met 150 NA 150
R )ute 1046 Provide Traffic Signal when warrants met 150 NA 150'
E ;L Charlottesville to'Route 22 Provide Multi-use trail 950 NA ' ' 950
R )ute 20 Provide Pedestrian Overpass 1,500 NA 1,500
.IVestminster Canterbury Provide Pe~destr'ian Overpass 1,500 NA 1:500
· IRI)ute 2.2. Intersection Provide Park & Ride Lot 2,500 NA 2,500
' ~ro be provided in conjunction with land development
Total Cost of All Long Range Recommendations
4,350
1112/2000
ATTACHMENT B
Route 250 East Corridor Study
Short-Range Recommendations
Cost Summary ($1000)
Ir,ocation Roadway Ri;ht of Way Total (Year 2000
Irpprove inter;ectlon and p~(~vlde signal at Rte e~e ,i' - $500
P. tovlde signal at Rolkin Ct/Montessori Scho~)l NA NA 150'
PIovlde left turn lane at Edgehill Drive NA NA . 86
In,prove Intersection and provide signal at Rte 22/Luc'k Stone 120 . 50 . 170'*
Pl'ovide signal at Rte 1117 (State Farm Blvd) NA NA 150'.
P~,'ovide park-and-ride lot at 1-64 NA NA 250
PIovlde park-and-ride lot at Rte 616 NA NA ,250
R;emove bridge over abandoned C&O Railway 606 13 619'*
Improve intersection at Rte 15 2,625' 785 .3410'*
Total Cost of all Short Range Recommendations $5,585
* ~o be provided i~ conjunction with land development
**. Per 1999 Six Year Improvement Program
Note: Costs for Intersection improvements at Rte 616 per grant application - no breakdown available prior to meeting
1/12/2000
BOARD, -TO -BOAP
March 7, 2001 -10:30 a.m.
A Monthly Communications Report of activities from the Albemarle County School Board to
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
Highlights: School Board Briefs {Attachment 1) - February 7 and 22, 2001
RECENT
UPDATE MURRAY HIGH SCHOOL CHARTER SCHOOL
APPLICATION: At its February 7th meeting, the Board approved the Murray
High School Charter Application for a three-year term with an annual report to
the Board.
BURLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL SCHEMATIC DESIGN: On October 12,
2000, we approved the revised scope of work for the Burley Middle School
project and authorized the architects to proceed with schematic design and
preliminary site plan development. At its February 28 meeting, the Board
approved the schematic design for Burley Middle School.
YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR SURVEY: On April 26, 1999 the Board approved
the administration of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey in Health and Physical
Education classes, grades 6 I 0. The results of the assessments -will be used to
establish baseline data for the selection and implementation of programs that
demonstrate effectiveness in preventing or reducing drug use, to develop
measurable goals and objectives for the program(s), and to assess the program(s)
implemented. At its February 28 meeting, the Board received for information,
data related to this survey. At a future Board meeting, staff will bring forth
recommendations to administer the survey to I 1 th and 12th graders and to include
a new section on human sexuality.
TEACHER RECRUITMENT AND HIRING: In a very competitive hiring
environment, the School Division has undertaken a very proactive teacher
recruitment program to offer "early contracts" to strong teacher candidates. As
of this past Monday, 57 early contracts had been offered. Of these, 29 have been
accepted. 14 of the early contract offers were to minority candidates. Of these, 7
have accepted. As we have been involved in this process, the tremendous
importance of having a competitive pay and benefits program has been very
clear. As you might have seen in the media last week, over I20 school systems
from around the country and as far away as California were at UVa last week to
recruit teachers. At that event, we found that many systems are now offering
additional benefit8 such as student loan payback programs and full payment for
advanced degree classes. Competitive compensation for teachers and all of our
employees is an area in which we will continue to need to place major emphasis.
FUTURE ITEMS OF INTEREST
UPDATE ON REDISTRICTING FOR BAKER-BUTLER ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL: The Baker-Butler Redistricting Committee, which includes 12
citizens, has been working since December. The Committee will present a
preliminary proposal for public input on Tuesday, March 13 at 7:00 p.m. at
Sutherland Middle School. The Committee will present its final
recommendations to the School Board in April. The Board intends to adopt a
final redistricting plan by the end of May.
JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Based on a
School Board request from last fall, we have scheduled our first Joint meeting on
Tuesday, March 20, 2001. The intention of the meeting is for the Board to
understand what the Planning Commission does and for the Planning
Commission to provide an update on the Development Area Initiative Committee
(DISC) study. Also, both staffs were asked to work together to make
recommendations that could improve communications and/or processes between
the staffs.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BOARD BRIEFS
Also available at bttp://kl2.Mbemade, org
"WE EXPECT SUCCESS"
SCHOOL BOARD MEETING:. February 7, 2001
BOARD ACTION AND ACTIVITIES
The Board expelled a two high school student for the remainder
of the school year for chronic willful disobedience.
The Board received the December 31, 2000 Year-to-Date
Financial Report as presented.
The Board of Supervisors provided the School Board with a
resolution proclaiming February 2001 as School Board
Appreciation Month.
2001 -2002 FUNDING REQUEST
On January 31, the Superintendent provided updated
information from the County Executive that indicated that the
projection of additional local revenue had been decreased by
approximately $296,000. However, k is possible that some non-
recurring local revenue may become available during the Board
of Supervisors budget process to offset this reduction.
At its February 1Work Session, the Board agreed in principle
that the Superintendent's 2001-02 Funding Request would be
conveyed, as presented, to the County Executive as the School
Board's Funding Request.
The only substantial change to the Superintendent's Funding
Request was to eliminate the two tiers of reductions proposed
by the Superintendent to address the approximately $2 million
beyond currently projected revenue needed to fully fund the
Request.
The Board discussed whether or not to have growth costs
separated out in the budget document and whether or not to
include unfunded initiatives in the document. There was Board
consensus to separate out in the Chairman's transmittal letter
the costs associated with growth and to not include the
unfunded initiatives.
At its February 7 meeting, the Board formally adopted a
Funding Request totaling $106,309,551, including $96;899,154
in the School Fund and $9,410,397 in Self-Sustaining funds.
The Funding Request will be presented to the County Executive
on February 14, 2001.
Once the Board of Supervisors budget process is completed and
the General Assembly adopts a budget, the School Board will
adopt a £mal FY 2001-02 Budget that is balanced to projected
revenues.
MURRAY HIGH SCHOOL
CHARTER SCHOOL APPLICATION
In January i999, the School Board approved policy LC
(amended October 1999) which established the guidelines and
procedures for creating Charter Schools in Albemarle County.
In March 1999, the Board appointed a Chatter Schools Review
Committee. In October 2000, the committee convened to
review the Charter School Application received from Murray
I-~h School. The Review Committee met on October 9 and 23
to review and discuss the application. On October 25 Dr. Vicki
Crews-IVfiller was informed of Committee recommendations for
revisions. The Committee reviewed the revised application and
referred k to Mark Trank for legal review.
On November 23, 2000, the Board received the Murray High
School Charter School application for information and made
recommendations for additional changes. On January25, 2001,
the Board heard public c,o, mm_ent and requested information
about Murray High School s capacity. The Board was presented
with the following information based on historical a~d facility
data:
· ' The original design of Murray High School was a 12:1
student-teacher ratio.
· With the addition of Enterprise Center, Murray High
School has 7 regular classrooms, 1 computer lab, 1 ,gym and
1 classroom split into 2 teaching spaces.
· The capacity for the school is 108 students. Currendy, the
school is staffed for 88 students.
In compliance with the General Assembly, Policy LC identifies
the purposes of the legislation tO: (i) encourage the development
of innovative programs; (ii) provide opportunities for innovative
instruction and student assessment; (iii) provide parents and
students more choices; (iv) provide innovative scheduling,
structure, and management; (v) encourage performance-based
educational programs; (vi) establish high standards for teachers
and administrators; and (vii) develop models for replication in
other public schools.
In compliance with LGR, the Review-Committee
recommended the Murray High School Gharter School
application based on their application ratings, reviews and
interview with Dr. Grews-Miller.
As the Board considered the application, Policy LC-R, section
D, # 1 the following criteria were used:
a. What are the recommendations of the Review
Committee?
b. Have the scheduled deadlines been met?
c. Would establishment or operation of the
proposed charter school be inconsistent with
the Virginia Charter Schools Act or any
federal or Virginia State laws concerning civil
rights?
d. Would the establishment or operation of the
proposed charter school be in the best
mterests of the pupils and residents of
Albemarle County?
Also in compliance with the policy, notice was given via media
release for public comment on the application.
At its meeting, the Board accepted the Murray High School
Charter Application as a three-year contract with an annual
report to the Board.
MIDDLE SCHOOL ELECTIVE COURSES
Consistent with the Standards cfa ma~.um established by the
State Board of Education, the Board shall approve course
curricula and programs of instruction for all schools. The K-8
curricula in language arts, mathematics, social studies, science,
health and physical education, art, music, and practical arts were
approved previously. New middle school elective course
offerings are submitted to the Department of Instruction for
review, recommendations, and approval prior to being added to
registration materials each year.
In the course offerings for each middle school, the exploratory,
Strirt~, was added for grades 6, 7, and 8. The addition of the
course assumes final Board Budget approval per Board direction
on January 29,2001.
At ks ,January 25, meeting the Board asked for clarification on
students needing to receive the recommendation of the
language arts teacher in order to take 8m grade foreign language.
In review, the 'Middle School Task Force recommended that
students wishing to take the high school foreign language course
in 8*h grade should have a recommendation from their language
arts teacher. The reason for this recommendation is that the
course is a high school course offered at an advanced level.
Students taking the course should be at least on grade level in
reading and writing to complete the curriculum. Principals use
discretion and have the final say on student phcement.
Elective Comes are offered based on student 'interest along
with teacher availability and expertise.
Board discussion occurred on fees charged to students and the
foreign language offerings at some schools. There was Board
consensus to include language in the individual school offerings
that said parents and students can ask for review of a course
recommendation. The Board approved the middle school
elective course of study. For a copy of the middle school
elective courses, please contact the Department of Instruction
at 296-5820.
COMMENDATIONS
Twice each year, thousands of students from around the world
compete in the Knowledge Master Open academic competition.
The teams are placed in divisions of elementary school, middle
school (grades 6-8), junior high school (grades 6-9), and high
school. Each team competes via a computer-based program,
answering 200 difficult questions for scores based on their speed
and accuracy.
The 2000 Knowledge Masters team from Suthedand Middle
finished 3d in the state and 16th of 957 teams nationally in the
middle school division. Jen St. Clair, the teacher advisor, and
the following students from Suthefland Middle School were
recognized:
Tom Allebrandi
Aaron Benson
Samuel Lederer
Chris Ours
Matt Taylor
Kim Walters
Megan Ballenger
Adam Lederer
Robert Mangione
Jake Reeder
Jeff Tucker
Lodes of Lore is a not-for-profit organization that provides
hairpieces to financially disadvantaged children under the age of
18 with medical hair loss. Donors provide the hair, volunteers
staff the office, and the manufacturer han&assembles each piece,
which requires approximately four months. The organization,
which began in 1997, has helped approximately 200 children
since its first year of operation. Children comprise over 80
percent of the donors, making this a charitywhere children have
the oppommkyto help other children. Michele Maupin, a fifth
grade student at Stone Robinson Elementary School, recently cut
her waist-length hair and donated it to Lodes ofLom Michele was
recognized for her generous act of kindness.
Laurie McCullough, principal of Stone Robinson Elementary
School, recendy had her book, Assessrmnt in the Block: The Link to
Ir~tmm~ punished byEye on Education. It is a new addition to
a series of books focusing on block scheduling and its
implementation. The book offers specific strategies for
connecting instruction to assessment and shows how a block
schedule enhances the process.
UPCOMING SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS
Thursday, February 22, 2001
Thursday, March 8, 2001
Regular Meeting
Regular Meeting
February is School Board Appreciation Month. Please take time to
express your thanks to our Board members: Charles Ward, Steve
Koleszar, Diantha McKeel, Madison Cummings, Gary Grant, Ken
Boyd, and Mary Rodriguez.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BOARD BRIEFS
Also available at htq~://kl2.albemade, o~
"WE EXPECT SUCCESS"
SCHOOL BOARD MEETING:. February 28, 2001
BOARD ACTION AND ACTIVITIES
The Board expelled two high school students for the
remainder of the school year. One student was expelled for
chronic willful disobedience, and the other student was
expelled for possession of stolen property and chronic
willful disobedience.
The Board approved a waiver for Pre-Labor Day Opening
of School. At the same time, they designated August 27,
2001 as the first day of school for the 2001-2002 school
year.
SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOP.
BURLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL
On October 12, 2000, the Board approved the revised scope of
work for the Burle7 Middle School project and authorized the
architects to proceed with schematic design and preliminary site
plan development. During the schematic design phase, several
meetings were held with the Building Services Department and
the Burley Design Team. Presentations were also made to the
entire faculty and a series of focused meetings were held with
department representatives to determine specific needs. The
uilding footprint has remained the same as presented in
October. The only significant site change is in the location of
the parent drop-off area. It was moved from beside the
auditorium on Henry Avenue to the area beside the New
Library and Old Annex.
In accordance with FC-1R, the Board needed to approve the
Schematic Design before the architect could proceed to the
Design Development Phase.
Health and Physical Education classes with additions
recommended by the Health Advisory Committee and Dr.
Dewey ComelI of the University of Virginia.
The surveyveas administered in December 1999. The results of
the 2000 YRBS administration are preliminary results and will
only be used to establish baseline data for the selection and
implementation of programs. Adckt' ionat administration Of this
survey will allow trend data to be collected and analyzed. The
YRBS was administered to students in Health and Physical
Education classes, grades. 6 through 10, again in December
2000.
Two recommendations for future administration of the YRBS
are to add human sexuality questions to the survey and to
include lle` and 12th graders in the survey. This would give a
more descriptive picture of what is, or is not, happening in
Albemarle County, and would help direct efforts in identifying
and developing programs to address the prevalence of youth
behaviors that most influence heakh.
Board members received the report for information. For a copy
of the survey or more information, contact Regina Kirk,
Coordinator for Health and Physical Education, at 296-5820.
CAREER AND TECHNICAL
EDUCATION CURRICULLffd
Policy IFE requires that staff, under Superintendent direction,
develop cttrriculum guides and courses of study and to provide
for continued review and revision of these documents. The
following items were either revised or developed over the past
year.
Board discussion occurred about areas such as electronic key
access, creating additional storage space, and the placement of
the bus loop. The School Board approved the Schematic
Design for Burley Middle School. For more information,
contact A1 Reaser, Director of Building Services, at 975-9340.
YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR SURVEY
On April 26, 1999, the Board approved the administration of
the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) in Grades 6 - I0
1. Career Pathways Program K - 5 was developed using the
career/vocational domain of the Guidance and Counseling
Curriculum Guide to support career awareness for all
ktudents.
2. Career Pathways-Middle School Units were developed
using the career/vocational domain of the Guidance and
Counseling Curriculum Guide. Units in the guide allow
students to explore career options and begin developing an
individual career development plan.
3. Student Portfolio Manual was developed using Virginia's
o
Workplace Readiness. Skills and input from the
Charlottesville Area School Business Alliance (CASBA).
Senior Internship Program curriculum was revised due to
the need for students to possess more soft skills training
prior to completing an internship.
Business Education competencies for courses at the high
school level were revised to reflect changes mandated by
federal regulations.. To support the educational process
locally, the :V'~inia Standards of Learning and national
standards were added and correlated to each
task/competency in the curriculum guide.
Complete copies of the curricula guides are located in the
School Board Office. The Board received the curriculum
changes for information. The curriculum is scheduled for
action at the March 8, 2001 Board meeting.
STONE ROBINSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SIP PRESENTATION
At ks meeting, the Board received a presentation of the Stone
Robinson School Improvement Plan. The presentation
highlighted the following goals:
1. Through implementation of a school-wide character
education program, students will learn targeted "vaiues"
and will demonstrate the transfer of this knowledge into
their own behaviors toward 'others in the school.
2. The proportion of students who meet Albemarle County
benchmarks and~:urriculum goals in mathematics will
increase each year over the next three years. Stone-
Robinson faculty will define particular areas for
concentration and clearly define expectations and
assessments.
3. The SIP team will design a coordinated, effective
intervention program to meet student academic needs in
reading, writing and math.
For more information on Stone Robinson's SIP, contact Laura
McCullough, principal, at 296-3754.
UPCOMING SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS
Thursday, April 26, 2001
School Board adopts FY01-0.2
Budget during Regular
Meeting
UPCOMING BUDGET RELATED MEETINGS
Wednesday, March 7, 2001
Wednesday, March 14, 2001
Wednesday, March 19, 2001
Wednesday, March 21, 2001
Monday, March 26, 2001
Wednesday, March 28, 2001
Wednesday, ApfiI 11, 2001.
Thursday, April i2, 2001
Wednesday, April 18, 2001
Recommended Operating
Budget, CIP Budget and
Final Agency Report Sent to
Board of Supervisors
Public Hearing on the
County Executive's
Proposed FY01-02
Operating and CIP
Budgets
Board of Supervisors Budget
Work Session
Board of Supervisors Budget
Work Session
Board of Supervisors Budget
Work Session
Board of Supervisors Budget
Work Session, Proposed
Budget Finalized
Public Heating on Board
of Supervisors Proposed
Budgets
School Board Budget Work
Session
Board of Supervisors Adopts
FY01/02 Operating Budget;
Sets Tax Levy; Adopts FY ½
{ZiP Budget and Approves
FY 01/02 - 05/06 CLP
Thursday, March 8, 2001
Tuesday, March 20, 2001
Thursday, March 22
Thursda3~ April 12, 2001
Monday, April 23, 2001
Regular Meeting
joint Meeting with the
Planning Commission
Regular School Board
Meeting
Regular School Board
Meeting
School Board Budget Work
Session
Monday, April23, 2001
Tt~ursday, April 26, 2001
School Board Budget Work
Session
School Board Adopts FY 01
/02 Budget
Citizens For Albemarle
Principles, Criteria and Guidelines For Ecologically
Valuable Areas: Identification and Selection
Special Publication By The
Citizens For Albemarle
January 2001
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the Citizens for Albemarle is to provide an effective and continuing organization
to work for the protection, enhancement, and intelligent use of the natural and historic resources
of the total environment in the Albemarle County area in order to intprove the quality of life for
the citizens of Albemarle County, Charlottesville, and the surrounding area while ensuring
justice and equity for all now and in the future.
Document prepared by the Biodlversity Committee, Citizens for Albemarle:
Erwin, R.M., J. Hermsmeier, D.M. Mellon, T. Olivler, G.C. Ray, and J.
McCormick-Ray
This document was largely adapted from:
Ray, G.C. and M.G. McCormick-Ray. 1981. Principles, criteria, and guidelines for the selection,
establishment, and management of Mediterranean marine and coastal protected areas. Prepared by the
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Gland, Switzerland.
This document is the first in s series of two that examine conservation of ecologically valuable
areas in Albemarle County, Virginia.. The second will examine the means of implementing
conservation of such areas.
A Special Publication of Citizens for Albemarle
Principles, Criteria, and Guidelines for Ecologically Valuable Areas:
Identification and Selection
January 2001
I. Introduction
The ptnpose of this document is to provide guidance for identifying and selecting Ecologically
Valuable Areas IEVAs) dedicated to conservation of natural resources and biological diversity in
Albemarle County and surrounding regton. These areas may include privately owned lands as
well as those lands owned by local, state, or federal poblic agencies. The emphasis in this effort
is to use lands ah'eady dedicated to conservation of natural resources as a beginning foundation in
building a larger and more sustainable "structure" for the County and region.
In an ideal world, a g~veu geographic region, be it a county, state, or nation, wonld have from 20-
30% of its area dedicated to conservir~g natural resonmes and biological diversity. Only Costa
Rica exceeds that amount on a global scale. Albemarle Connty has much less than 20% of its
ama dedicated to this purpose: Shenandoah National Park represents only 3% of the County land
area. Most of the land is privately owned with a variety of actual or potential uses. With rapid
population growth, the "build out" potential suggests that in a few decades, the County's profile
could resemble that of many congested subnrban areas in New Jersey and Maryland. This
docuntent is an attempt to provide one step to try to prevent that.
This document first provides a brief overview of the status of living resource conservation in the
region, and explains the importance of EVAs in this regard. Next it states the general principles
fi'om which fitnctions and types of EVAs are derived. It then presents criteria and guidelines for
identifying and selecting EVAs. Finally, it considers how a regional network of such areas might
be developed to enhance Ire'get scale ecological value. The document builds upon the traditional
concentration on state and national parks that involves defining boundaries around selected sites
in order to preserve their value in perpetuity. Sttch an approach, though necessary, is insufficient
to secure the conservation of species, their habitats and the ecological fimctions they perform.
The approach stresses the protection of those vital ecosystem processes that maintain ecological
and genetic diversity, and ensures thal resoumes are used and maintained sustainably. In so
doing, it advances the concept of protection for central Virginia whereby the region maintains the
high quality of natural beauty and value that has highlighted the area as one of the most desirable
in the nation.
Although the focus is on Albemarle County, the approach as described has broader applicability
than the central Virginia region, being of potential relevance to otber regions. It also provides a
fi'amework for operations at broader and finer geographic scales. However, in order to clarit?
definitions, concepts and procedures, examples from central Virginia are given in the text.
This document should be considered as the first of a two-part series. The second will focus on
the third and fourth elements of a systematic plan, implementation and management-
maintenance. The implementation stage requires the processing of the "ideal" into the "real
world" shaped by many stakeholders, resource constraints, and timetables. The management
phase is the longest of all, as it requires a plan for long-term maintenance of conditions and must
be done at the individual parcel level.
..A..lbemarle County and its EVAs
Albemarle County is situated in the piedmont of central Virginia, flanked on its western
boundary by the Blue Ridge Mountains. The topography of tbe counn'yside is chm'acterized by
undulating wooded hills and low elevation mountain ridges that are cut by numerous streams and
rivers flowing out of the Blue Ridge. The forests are predominantly mixed deciduous in nature,
characterized by yellow poplar, white oaks, southern red oaks, hickories, maples and beech.
Stands of Virginia pine are interspersed with the more numerous hardwoods on flat or gently
sloping ground. The forest understory, especially on sloped land, is primarily dominated by
mountain laurel. Higher mountaintops, especially along the Blue Ridge, may support relict
populations of higher-latitude forest species, such as bimh, which were prevalent low land flora
here during the most recent ice age but which, since then, have retreated to higher elevations.
The fauna of Albemarle County forests and fields is typical of Southern Appalachian fauna;
White-tailed deer and wild turkeys abound. Black bear are prevalent and bobcats are probably
more common than thought. Small- to medium-sized mammals such as rabbits, squirrels,
raccoons, opossums, skunks, and weasels are plentiful. Bobwhite Quail bare nearly disappeared
from the county in the last twenty years, probably due in large part to farnfing practices. Many
streams on the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge have been degraded by acid rain, with a
consequent reduction in trout populations and other sensitive aquatic fauna.
Much of the county's forested areas has been cleared for agricultural purposes. While some crops
are planted, a majority of the agricultural activity in the county centers areund livestock grazing,
including cattle, horses and sheep farms. Farming in the county was prebably most intensively
practiced in the early parts of the twentieth century; since then, considerable land that was
originally cleared has been petnnitted to return to a more natural state, and second- and third-
growth forested areas ate common, especially in the southern parts of the County, which is less
urbanized than the northern sections.
Since the 1960s, increasing human population pressures have become evident in the county,
spurred especially by the enlarged student population at the University of Vkginia and the
businesses that have expanded to support them. As tile University has gained recognition as an
outstanding institution, professional people have been drawn to its opportunities for employment.
Charlottesville has been widely advertised along the East Coast as a bucolic retiremem haven.
and these eflbrts have been underscored by the development of three major retirement
communities in the county during the last ten years. Thus, the natural environment of Albemarle
County, as with so many other places in the eastern United States, is currently being besieged by
population growth and its associated urban sprawl.
Government agencies and private efforts such as land trusts have begun to provide greater
protection of living resources. The natural envirenment chapter of the Albemarle County
comprehensive plan, adopted in March. 1999. provides for creation of a county Biological
Advisory Committee. This Committee will oversee an inventory of "biologically critical
resources", will develop proposals for biodiversity protection in land use planning and will
develop public education measures. Albemarle County has adopted a Purchase of Development
Rights (PDR) program and has established an Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE)
committee. The County Department of Parks and Recreations can accept conservation
easements, as can the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water
Conservation District. Shenandoah National Park provides protection for 14.000 acres (3% of
the county area) witbin Albemarle County. One County Supervisor bas called for permanent
protection of 100,000 acres of Albemarle open space (ora total of 473.600 acres).
However, existing easements and already-preserved parks and other lands do nm provide
sufficient areas to sustain natural resource values in the county. At present they protect only a
small fraction of the county's land surface. Some pamels are isolated and too small to sustain
ecological communities. Many parcels under easement have been selected using criteria
unrelated to biodiversity and thus there are no guarantees that natural resource conservation will
Occur.
In order to help Albemarle County and surrounding localities ensure that EVAs make their full
contribution to conservation, a three-step process is put forward: identification of areas of
ecological importance, use of selection criteria to prioritize the EVAs, and establishment of the
individual areas selected so as to attain ,the specific objectives for which the area was established.
This document focuses on the first two of these three processes.
II. Principles, Functions, and Types of EVAs
Principles are fundamentals of conduct. The principles that underlie creation of EVAs should
logically be those that generally underlie the concept of living resource conservation. These
include:
1. Maintenance of essential ecological communities, processes and life support systems, upon
which human survival and well-being depend.
2
3
2. The preservation of genetic diversity, which in turn supports the functions of the above
processes and life support systems. In addition, genetic diversity provides the source
materials for vital experimental programs necessary for new food crops, medical advances,
technical innovation, and for the security of many industries which use living resources
3. Ensuring the sustainable utilization af ecosystems and their species that support local
communities and indusmes,
There am three main types of EVAs that are being considered in this document: (1) those in
which the objectives are principally living resources conservation, with focus on pretecting
significant biological populations or communities, or ecological processes, (e.g. national parks.
nature preserves); (2) those with high Value for natural resources but allowing for Iow to
moderate human activities including education, research, monitoring and recreation (eg. state,
county or municipal parks), and (3) those allowing for multiple use, where human activities have
first priority (commercial forests,"farms with pasturelands, areas for ecomunsm e.g. Montpelier
Forest, even large homesteads) but where important ecological values can still be maintained.
Functions of EVAs
It is possible to identify a wide array of functions for which Ecologically Valuable Areas may be
established and managed:
I. To protect biological and ecological values. This is the primary aim (a secondary aim may be
historical and cultural preservation) and includes the maintenance of.'
a. genetic diversity through the protection of habitats for species, subspecies and
varieties, be they resident or migratory, commercial or non-commercial, threatened or
common, animal or plant;
b. breeding grounds, especially for threatened and commercial species;
c. areas of high biological productivity;
d. ecological processes.
To restore biological and ecological resources that have been depleted or otherwise perturbed
by human activities.
To promote the sustainable use of resources, concentrating especially upon those that are
overexploited; to encourage the stewardship of natural systems, upon which hunmn well-
being depends.
To provide for research and monitoring, education and training so as to encourage and extend
human understanding of the natural environment and its ecological support systems.
To provide for environmentally compatible forms of recreation and totmsm, especially as
these relate to public enjoyment, understanding and compassion for the region's natural and
cultural heritage.
6. To provide for aesthetic and spiritual enrichment.
The fimctions listed above, inasmuch as they require the adoption of an environmental ethic,
emphasize the long-term human benefits that will accrue from establishing and maintaining the
subject lands. Nonetheless, short-term benefits that are compatible witlq sound conservation
practices should be encouraged; that is, the lands protected under the Open Space provisions of
the county Comprehensive Plan should be available for public enjoyment and recreational use.
These may include hiking, birdwatching, limited fishing and hunting, so long as permanent harm
to the habitat or endangered species is avoided.
IlL Guidelines and Criteria for Identifying and Selecting EVAs
A guideline indicates how policy should be carried out; a criterion is a standard upon which a
judgenrent may be based. This section provides guidelines for the identification of areas in need
of special designation for natural resouree conservation and the criteria for the selection of
individual sites
Identification of EVAs should be scientifically valid, objective and systematic, while selection
must also take into account social-ecouomic, practical, and other factors. A recommended
procedure is to:
1. Identify areas that seem to fit the EVA criteria
2. Detem~ ine the stares of such areas (ah.eady designated as parkland, etc.)
3. Apply criteria to determine priorities of re.ess for designated conservation action.
Two separate processed should be distinguished. First, "identification" involved a scientific
procedure that will result in a credible list of candidate EVAs for special consideration. Second. a
"selection" process is involved in which socio-economic, pragmatic and other factors result in a
list, drawn from the first, for implementation. The following table distinguishes these processes.
Identification Selection
Ecological importance
Biogeogmphic importance
Naturalness
Uniqueness
Representativeness
Scientific interests
Social/traditional/historic interests
Economic value
Practicality
Identification of EVAs
4
This section attempts to provide a logical framework for identifying areas that are important to
the conservation of the county's natural ecosystems. The method calls for fairly detailed
information that may not always be available or easy to collect. In this case, planners will often
have to adopt simplified approaches to data collection sometimes using surrogates. However, the
main features of the method suggested here should be strictly followed to ensure that all nmjor
considerations relevant to identifying EVAs be taken into account. For Albemarle and many
other Virgima counties, a recent land cover - vegetation mapping effort based on classifying
aerial photographs has resulted in a comprehensive Geographic Information System. This is an
important first step in adding additional "data layers" to describe other landscape features such
as soil types, roads, boundaries of rivers and streams, and major political boundaries (municipal,
park, etc.). Upon this matrix then one can build distribution/abundance or presence/absence data
layers for particular biological features of interest such as wetlands and wildlife concentration
areas.
_Identification of sites that are biologically important;
Surveys or intensive inventories, or gleaning information from sources of already-available
sources, need to be completed during the initial phase of any comprehensive resource planning
effort. First, decisions must be made by the organization charged with the task (e.g. in Albemarle
Co., the Biological Diversity Committee in consultation with others) concerning the objectives of
the survey effort. For example, is the survey to include all taxa of plants and animals? Only
woody plants and vertebrate animals? What surrogates might be substituted (plant structural
diversity for overall plant diversity)?
Some guidelines to follow during the initial data layering include:
1. Identifying large(> 100 acre) and relatively undisturbed amas that also incorpomtediversity
of plant and animal species, diversity of contiguous habitats (i.e., bogs, deciduous forest,
stands of conifers such as hemlock, stream soumes and watersheds, virgin stands of timber).
2. Identification of habitat- corridors that allow movements of wildlife between large tracts of
relatively undisturbed habitat tracts.
Identification of unique, threatened or declining special habitats or species. Examples
include: old growth forests, forested wetlands, bog communities, heron colony sites, black
bear den site, salamander breeding pond, etc.
Compilation of a list, and mapping, of habitat types (e.g., wetlands, forest types, serpentine
barrens) known to be unusual in the Central Virginia region, or statewide, where saving such
habitats in Albemarle County could have special significance.
Ensuring that all natural potential habitats, and soil types, in the county are represented in the
habitat list.
6. Ensuring that areas of converted lands with high potential (and Iow cost) for restoration to
origiaal ecological process and functions be listed.
Identification of important ecological processes:
Generally, two approaches can be used to identify and evaluate potential EVAs: (1) biological
attributes (e.g., species composition, habitat type, as indicated above) and, (2) processes~
Naturally, all biological communities ideally require ecological support systems that provide
uncontaminated rood, air, and water and, for wildlife, provide areas for shelter and reproduction.
Assessing the degree to which processes such as nutrient cycling, detoxification of pollutants,
wetland filtering of sediments, and decomposition are operating is desirable, but is difficult and
expensive. Instead, we have to rely on surrogates such as habitats, with some assessment of their
relative "naturalness" or degree o/'disturbance.
Criteria for Selection
These criteria should be applied objectively to the total list of existing and candidate areas
identified through the above process in order to establish priorities for the next step:
establishment. It is better that the criteria not be applied one at a time, but together through a
rating system. However, because these criteria are non-exclusive (and some are mutually
exclusive) it is unlikely that all will apply to any one area; indeed, in some cases, one single
criterion may override all others. Groups of criteria are to be considered separately as "filters."
Scientific/Ecological Criteria: These include the two subsets of basic ecological criteria and
those for reseamh, education, and training.
A. Basic Ecological:
1. Dependency: the degree to which a species depends on the area, or the degree to which an
ecosystem depends upon the ecological processes occurring in the area.
2..Naturalness: the degree to which an area is undisturbed by human activities.
3. ~ the degree to which an area is representative cfa habitat type, biological
commumty, or physiographic feature. It may also reflect the degree to which ecological
functions are being fulfilled.
4. Unitmeness: the degree to which an area is "one-of-a-kind", habitats of endangered species
which occur in only one area are an example.
5. Diversity_.' the degree of ecosystem, community and species richness. Though areas having the
6
7
greatest variety should normally receive priority, this criterion may not apply to simplified
ecosystems, such as some very early- or late-successional communities, or areas subject to
disruptive forces, such as mountaintop forests subject to repeated ice storms.
Autonomy: the degree to which an area functions as an effective, self-sustaining ecological
entity. The more ecologically self-contained the area is, the more likely it is that its values
can be effectively protected.
Productivity: the degree to which production processes within the area contribute to human
welfare or to species survival. Exceptions are eutrophic areas where high productivity may
have a deleterious effect.
Research, Training, and Education:
Accessibility: the degree to which an area ia accessible to thos6 wishing to use it for
research, education or training.
Benchmark: the degree to which an area may serve as a "control" in the scientific sense, i.e.,
as a non-manipulative area against which to measure changes occurring elsewhere. Such
benchmark areas are essential to the conduct of any ecological monitoring program
Demonstration: the degree to which an area can serve to exemplify innovative development,
management or research methods. Some unique opportunities may emerge for developers,
the County and environmental groups to form a partnership to demonstrate the most
ecologically acceptable ways to develop a housing development, research park, or golf
course,
Scientific Interest: the degree to which an area represents ecological characteristics
susceptible to research and study.
Social and Economic Criteria: these consider immediate benefits to human welfare, measured
in economic, cultural and social terms. It is understood that ecosystem elements and processes
benefit human welfare, in that the services which they provide would be catastrophically
expensive to replace. We separate the economic and social criteria and the traditional-aesthetic-
cultural criteria below.
A. Economic and Social:
1. Economic Benefit: the degree to which protection will directly benefit the local economy.
Although initially the establishment-of a protected area could have a short-lived disrnptive
economic effect, positive effects usually accrue in the long-term.
2. Social Acceptibility: the degree to which support of local people is assured. Should an area
already be protected by cun'ent landowners, this should be encouraged.
3. Public Health: the degree to which the protection of an area may serve to diminish pollution or
disease agents that contribute to public health problems. For ~xample, protective status for
contaminated areas such as those with considerable accumulated trash may result in pnblic clean-
up efforts and reduced new accumulation of trash.
4..Recreation: the degree to which an area provides the local commtmity with the opportunity to
use. enjoy and learn about their local natural environment. '
5..T. ourism: the degree to which an area lends itself to forms of tourism that am compatible with
the aims of conservation.
B. Traditioual/Aesthetic/Cultural:
1. Aesthetic: the degree to which a natural area also contains features of outstanding natural
beauty; the character of such areas depend upon the maintenance of the integrity of the natural
enmronment. Such areas are havens for artists, musicians, and those seeking spiritual
experience.
2..Caltu 'a the degree to which a natural area also contains important cnltural, or historic
features; their protection may help maintain the integrity of the adjacent ecosystem.
Practical Criteria: These cousider whether protection can be accomplished or whether action is
necessal-y.
Urgency: the degree to which immediate action must be taken, lest values within an area be
transformed or lost. (lack of urgency should not necessarily be taken as low priority,
however, as it is often best and least costly to protect well in advance of threat).
2. Opportunism: the degree to which existing conditions or actions already underway may
justify further action, for example, an extension of an established protected area.
3. Ease of Protection: the degree to which an area can be properly safeguarded without legal,
political or administrative difficulties.
4. Defensibility: the degree to which an area can be protected by regnlation or conu'actual
agreement.
5. Accessibility: the degree to which an area is accessible to those entrusted with its
management.
6. Restorability: the degree to which an area may be returned to a less-altered condition.
8
9
IV. Summary
This document has provided a "road map" that Albemarle County, neighboring regions of
Virginia, and other-regional planners might consider in large-scale, long term comprehensive
planning for sustaining natural resoumes. It is meant to include not only government planning
bodies, but also citizen's groups, and other nonprofit organizations as well. Unlike many earlier
efforts, it does not focus on setting aside all such areas into preserves, but outlines a series of
land types ranging from farmsteads to pristine mountain streams that could embrace varying
amounts of human activities. It attempts to establish some guidelines for carefully establishing:
(1) the overall objectives of the EVA program in the context of County comprehensive planning,
(2) scientific criteria for identlfying significant EVAs in the County based on widely recognized
features such as diversity potential, naturalness, ecological processes, etc., and (3) using
selection criteria for the above listed areas that include socio-economic and pragmatic factors.
The list is then used for the next phases of the planning process, establishing the EVAs and then
managing them. Lists are seldom "final," since conditions are constantly changing, and some
high-priority EVAs may have to be dropped and others substituted. Thus the process is a
dynamic one.
The advantages to using this approach are that the County (and beyond) will have a much better
probability of having its native biological communities and habitats maintained. The effort will
not only help protect existing habitats and communities, but will guide the restoration of areas
that can be converted from, f6r example; marginal farmland into old-field habitat, one of the
rarest in the eastern U.S, Further, the attention to larger tracts and connecting corridors will have
many benefits to wildlife that depend upon movement among habitats to persist. The primary
goal should be one of ecosystem integrity, instead of the patchwork quilts of socio-political
convenience that often result. Taking a broader watershed management-scale approach should
better insure ecological sustainability in the County and region. Finally, by following this
approach, not only will the county maintain a high environmental quality, but the condition of the
air and water will provide direct health benefits m all the county residents as well.
V. Recommended Readings
This document is the second produced by Citizens for Albemarle focusing on protection of the
County's biodiversity. The first, published in 1996, provided a background for the importance of
biological diversity and developed a guide to citizens in protecting biological resources at the
individual landowner level. The citation is:
Olivier, T,, C. Blair, J. Hermsmeier, D.M. Mellon, C.G. Ray, and J. McCormick-Ray. 1996.
Protecting our biological heritage. Special Publication: Citizens for Albemarle, Charlottesville
VA.
This document was largely adapted from:
Ray, G.C. and M.G. McCormick-Ray. 1981. Principles, criteria, and guidelines for the selection,
establishment, and management of Mediterranean marine and coastal protected areas. Prepared
by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Gland,
Switzerland.
Other general readings on the significance of biodiversity aT local, national, and international
levels are numerous, as are more practical readings on designing protected areas. A sample is
listed below:
Dasmann, R.F. 1968. A different kinds of country. McMillan Co., New York, NY.
Hanks, J. 1997. Protected areas during and after conflict: the objectives and activities of the
Peace Parks Foundation. Parks 7:11-24.
Higgs, A. 1981. Island biogeography and nature reserve design. J. Biogeography 8:117-124.
Ness. R.F., M.A. O'Connell, and D. Murphy. 1997.The science of conservation planning:
Habitat conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Island Press. Washington, D.C.
Wilson, E.O. and F.M. Peter (editors). 1988. Biodiversity. National Acaderay Press, Washington,
D.C
10
Il
Agenda Item No. 11. Court Facilities Presentation.
This entire report has been indexed as a separate document under
"Criminal Justice Reports".
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Review of Southside Fire/Rescue Station Design and Budget
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of proposed design and revised budget for
Southside Fire/Rescue Station
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Pumphrey, Spicer
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2001
ACTION: ×
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
/
BACKGROUND:
For the past several years the County has been planning for the construction of a new Fire/Rescue station to serve the
southern urban and surrounding areas. Through the Mill Creek study developed in the fall of 1998, a general concept and a
preliminary budget were developed for the station. Over the course of the past year, a committee of volunteers and staff
members has worked to refine and finalize the original concept and develop a final design for the combination
(volunteer/career) station. Through this process, the committee considered current and future needs and visited other localities
to review their facilities.
DISCUSSION:
In December, the Board was updated on the revised cost estimate for the project. As a result of higher than expected costs,
staff committed to reviewing station design with the goal of reducing the facility cost by $200,000. In addition to general cost
reduction for the'facility, the Board also requested that staff evaluate the cost savings which might be realized througl~ the
construction of a metal building rather than the original concept proposed.
Over the past two months, County Fire/Rescue staff has worked with the architectural and engineering firm (A&E) and the
committee of Southside Volunteers to evaluate alternatives to reduce the overall cost of the proposed facility, while continuing
to pursue the goal of creating a prototype design for future County stations. As a part of this process, numerous station
designs by other jurisdictions, including career, volunteer and combination departments were reviewed an d evaluated. Both
cost saving ideas and design pitfalls were noted and rewewed. After much discussion and review, the parties agreed on a
station design which they feel best meets the needs of our system and which incorporates the lessons learned by visiting other
localities. Based on this review, the committee recommends a design (attachment 2) which includes:
· a community/training room which can be partitioned to provide two separate meeting spaces
· separate public restrooms associated with the meeting area to avoid conflict with emergency response personnel
· living quarters for males and females for both Fire and EMS response
· restroom and shower facilities for males and females
· offices for career and volunteer staff
· two double deep drive through apparatus bays (capable of housing six pieces of apparatus)
· an exercise room and protective clothing washing facility that will be utilized County wide
In addition to finalizing a design which provides a functional facility for emergency response and addresses other community
needs, a cost reduction of $372,300 was also achieved (attachment 1 ). This reduction is the result of changing the design from
a three-bay to a two-bay station and achieving reductions in site development and road costs. The staff/volunteer group
believes that this solution represents a fiscally responsibility approach, while not eliminating the components vital to the
success of the facility. The committee particularly believes that the two-bay design is one that will be practical, effective, and
wil meet the long-term needs of the system.
AGENDA TITLE:
Review of Southside Fire Station Design and Budget
March 7, 2001
Page 2
Finally, the concept of metal building construction was also evaluated. According to the A&E, there ~s no appreciable cost
savings provided by a pre-engineered metal structure unless the program for the interior spaces is changed and simplified
greatly. In addition, the A&E has noted that "Butler" buildings require greater spans to begin to be a cost-effective. They point
out that such systems greatly restrict the flexibility of arranging interior spaces and affect the structural load on the building.
Without changing the interior design of the facility, there is the potential to reduce the cost of the facility by a maximum of
approximately $4 per square foot. That would amount to a potential savings of approximately $50,000 under the best case
scenario. However, to achieve this saw'ngs the aesthetic impact of a metal building in this area will also need to be considered.
Charles Anson, one of the leaders of the Southside volunteer group and a representative from Train & Spencer, the
architectural firm for the project will be available at Wednesday's meeting to answer any questions the Board may have.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based On extensive review of design alternatives with our volunteers, staff recommends approval of the proposed design and
revised budget for the project.
01.043
SOUTHSIDE FIRE/RESCUE STATION PROJECT BUDGET
F/R Building & Equipment Cost Center - CIP Balance
Budgeted Appropriations
Additional Appropriation FY 02
Transfer- 800 MHz balance
Lease Pumhase Financing
TOTAL
Original * Dec '00 March '01 Dec '00 vs March '01 Orig. -rs- Current
Budget Budoet Budget Budget Budget
200.000 490,000 490,000 290,000
300,000 660.000 660,000 360,000
867,100 494,700 (372,400) 494,700
1,00Q 300 1,000,000 1,000,O00
1,444,825
..................................................................... ~ .................................. - (1 444 825)
1,944,825 3,0i7,100 2,644,700 (372,400) 699,875
Construction
Building
Site Development
Road
TOTAL
Architectural Consultants
Amhitect (building)
Surveyor
Road
Site Work
TOTAL
Inspections/Testing
Special Inspections & Testing
County Project Inspector
TOTAL
Land
789,500 1,712,000 1,596,000 (116,000) 806.500
387,484 560,000 380,000 (180,000) (7,484)
115.748
.............. . 250 DO0 125 000 (12~000) 9 252
1,292,732 2,522,000 2,101,000 (421,000) 808,268
118,425 180.000 180,000 61,575
4,000 4,000 4,000
17,362 20,000 20,000 2,638
58,123
193,910 204,000 204,000 10,090
30,000 30,000 30,000
30,000 30,000 30,000
Contingency
Arch~ect(building)
Road
Si~Work
TOTAL
197.375 86,700 (110,675)
28,937 30,000 1,063
96,871
........... 36 000 - (58 871)
323,183 126,000 154,700 28,700.00 (168,483)
SUBTOTAL
1,809,825 2,882,000 2,489,700 (392,300) 679,875
Furniture/Fixtures
Computer Equipment
Miscellaneous
SUBTOTAL
135.000 100,000 100,000 (35,000)
25,000 25,000 25,000
10.000 30,000 20,000.00 30,000
GRAND TOTAL
1,94.4,825 3,017,000 2,64.4.,700 (372,300)
2/28/01
2 Bay Floor Plan - 13245 Gross Square Feet
MARCH 7, 2OOI
CLOSED SESSION MOTION
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED SESSION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. ! -344(A) Of THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
· UNDER SUBSECTION ( I ) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; AND
UNDER SUBSECTION (3) TO CONSIDER THE ACQUISITION
OF PROPERTY FOR A PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Review of the Pro posed Neighborhood Model
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
SUBJECT/PROPOSALIREQUEST:
Discussion of the Neighborhood Model Comprehensive
Plan Amendment as Proposed by the Planning
Commission.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Catlin, Echols
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2000
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
At its May 3, 2000, meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved a memo from the Department of Planning and
Community Development recommending steps towards implementation of the Neighborhood Model. Those steps
included:
· Accept the work of the DISC Committee and acknowledge that it is under review. With this step the
Board adopted the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model and directed staff to begin providing
assessments of relevant rezoning and special use permit proposals in relation to the Neighborhood Model as
an informational item in staff reports. These "informational only" assessments are currently being conducted
as directed.
· Adopt the Neighborhood Model (Volume 1) as part of the Comprehensive Plan. This step involved
sending the Neighborhood Model to the Planning Commission with a request that the Planning Commission
conduct its review, public hearing and provide recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The attached
Comprehensive Plan Amendment is a result of that review and public hearing process.
· Appoint the DISC II Oversight Committee to monitor regulatory changes and neighborhood master
planning. This committee has been appointed by the Board. It has been active in providing information to
the Planning Commission in the Commission's review of the Neighborhood Model and in making sure interest
groups receive information on the Neighborhood Model.
· Adopt the regulatory changes (Volume 2, Part 1, Section 2) dealing with the form of development. This
item is dependent upon final adoption of the Neighborhood Model.
· Undertake the first Neighborhood Master Plan. This item is dependent upon final adoption of the
Neighborhood Model.
· Adopt the policy changes (Volume 2, Part 1, Section 1 and Part 2) with special attention to selected
items, as part of the Comprehensive Plan. This item is dependent upon final adoption of the Neighborhood
Model.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment resulting from the Planning Commission's review of the
Neighborhood Model is now being brought before the Board for its review and discussion. In addition to the
amendment itself, staff has provided points of discussion to highlight pertinent policy issues that will be a
necessary part of the Board's discussion.
DISCUSSION:
Beginning last Fall, the Planning Commission conducted a series of work sessions dudng which the Neighborhood
Model document as prepared by the DISC Committee and the consultant, Torti Gallas and Partners, was reviewed
chapter by chapter with the goal of shaping the report into a Comprehensive Plan amendment. During those
AGENDA TITLE:
Review of the Proposed Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan Amendment
March 7, 2001
Page 2
review sessions, Planning Commissioners were provided with information from the DISC Committee as well as
from county staff regarding possible impacts to county operations and procedures which could result from
application of the Neighborhood Model principles. That review process consisted of nine work sessions which
were advertised and open to the general public and culminated in a public hearing held on February 20, 2001.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment contains the major elements that were outlined in the original
report which was distributed to the Board last spring, including the twelve principles which form the basis of the
Neighborhood Model. It reflects some significant changes from the original document, which include:
· Removal of the recommended school sizes
· Making the separation of schools and recreational playing fields an option rather than mandating their
separation
· Removal of the comparative pictures and language between "sprawl" and "compact" development
· Removal of"editorial comments" concerning "good" and "bad" development; providing more "Comprehensive
Plan" type language
· Modifying the use of the "transect" to provide opportunities for other master planning tools
· Rewriting the section on Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
· Affirming that a mandatory change is necessary to create a more "urban" rather than "suburban" design for
neighborhoods but offering a variety of options in how to create that more "urban" design
· Affirming that there will be a time lag between the adoption of the Neighborhood Model and the completion of
ordinance changes to make all of the options possible. In the meantime, the Neighborhood Model should be
used to the best of the community's ability to guide a new form of development.
The final Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan amendment as it is being presented to the Board reflects
some fundamental changes in the way the county responds to and manages development in the designated
development areas, with some significant topics that should be considered. It should be emphasized that, for
implementing each of the 12 principles, there are a range of options for County action. The time frame involved
in implementation requires decisions that are based on the options chosen. As it reviews the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, the Board should consider the significant points that are outlined on the following pages.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Boara provide direction regarding an appropriate review process and schedule for the
proposed Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan Amendment. One possible approach would be to schedule
a work session (or sessions) to permit thorough discussion of the critical issues on the attached pages, with
appropriate staff in attendance to respond with additional information if required. Staff is prepared at this time to
participate in such work sessions according to whatever schedule is amenable to the Board.
01.046
Points of Discussion
The Neighborhood Model
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
March 7, 200'1
Pedestrian Orientation
· Desire for pedestrian orientation was identified in the 1996 Land Use Plan.
· Pedestrian orientation is already sought in new developments where a legislative
action is needed.
· Regulatory changes will be needed for"by-right" developments to change from
the "developer's option" to "mandatory provision" of sidewalks or paths in new
developments in the Development Areas.
· County investment may be needed in the future for adding sidewalks to existing
streets in existing neighborhoods that don't have pedestrian access now. The
County currently funds a limited number of sidewalk projects in the CIP.
· Long-term maintenance responsibility for sidewalks and paths will need
discussion in the future. At present maintenance responsibility lies with
homeowners' associations, VDOT, and, to a limited extent, the County,
depending on the role of the sidewalk or path in the larger community.
· Greater emphasis may be needed in school design to ensure that schools sites
are designed in a way that people residing near the schools can walk to them.
Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths
· Desire for neighborhood streets was identified in the 1996 Land Use Plan.
· Staff is already working with VDOT and ACSA on a project by project basis to
help achieve similar goals in the existing land use plan.
· An "urban" street design is viewed as essential to changing the Development
Areas from "suburbs" to "urban" areas and thus would become a mandatory
provision in most cases. Should such streets not be accepted into the state
system because they do not meet VDOT standards, this raises issues regarding
the responsibility and cost of constructing and maintaining such streets.
· Major work will need to continue with VDOT and ACSA to potentially make
changes to the subdivision street regulations and '~mprove the ease with which
street trees are included in projects.
· Issues relating to public safety vehicle size will have to be taken into
consideration with any proposals for changes in street widths.
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks
· Desire for interconnected streets and transportation networks was identified in
the 1996 Land Use Plan.
· Part of responsibility for interconnections comes from VDOT, part from the
County, and part from developers.
· "Political will" in the face of possible neighborhood opposition is necessary to
achieve interconnections.
· County investment will also be needed to build road connections, such as
projects already identified in the Land Use Plan.
· If negotiations with VDOT are not successful in allowing interconnections with
more narrow roads, consideration will be needed for policy changes relating to
private roads in the Development Areas.
Parks and Open Space
· Desire for open space for passive and active recreation was identified in the
1996 Land Use Plan.
· Greater emphasis will be placed on the location and use of the open space rather
than the quantity of open space.
· Part of the responsibility to provide parks and open space will continue to reside
with developers; part will continue to reside with the County.
· Regulatory changes will be needed to assure the provision, location, and design
of meaningful open space.
· Acquisition of land for recreation fields will be done differently. Purchases of
sites separate from schools could take place; donations of land within
developments for recreation fields could be accepted.
· More neighborhood parks are anticipated in the Development Areas.
· Options regarding the maintenance of the new parks are available ranging from
homeowners association to County staff.
· Any economies of scale for maintenance costs by the County may be lost with a
separation of large playing fields from schools.
Neighborhood Centers and Mixture of Uses
· Desire for neighborhood centers comes from the 1996 Land Use Plan
recommendations for building neighborhoods that have a mixture of uses.
· Public investments in neighborhood centers may be necessary with the locating
of public buildings, such as schools, libraries, and recreational facilities, within
neighborhoods rather than on major thoroughfares.
· Provision of a mixture of uses would be the responsibility of the private sector.
· Zoning ordinance changes are needed to improve the options for achieving
mixed use communities.
Buildings and Spaces Of Human Scale
Zoning ordinance changes are needed to improve the opportunities for achieving
buildings and spaces of a more human scale. Specific ways include reducing
setbacks, changing height regulations, placing parking to the side and rear of
buildings, and adding trees to the streetscape and parking areas.
2
Relegated Parking
· Desire to diminish the prominence of parking on a site was identified in the 1996
Land Use Plan.
· Implementation will be through zoning ordinance changes.
Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability with Dignity
Desire for a greater mixture of housing types and more affordable housing comes
from the Comprehensive Plan.
The County would need to be more proactive in assuring that affordable housing
is provided. Although it would not be anticipated that the County would be
providing (building) affordable housing, it may need to take initiatives for its
prevision, including enabling legislation from the state and possible County
regulations.
Redevelopment
· Most redevelopment activity will take place by the private sector.
· County investment in infrastructure may be needed to help spur redevelopment
'in some cases.
· Regulatory changes will be needed to make redevelopment easier to accomplish.
Site Planning that Respects Terrain
· Desire for constructing "with" the existing environmental features rather than
radically altering them to meet ordinance requirements was identified in the 1996
Land Use Plan.
· The zoning regulations for disturbance of critical slopes relate more to rural area
goals than to Development Area goals.
· Regulatory changes will be needed to address site grading issues rather than
concentrate on disturbance of critical slopes.
Clear Boundaries
· Master planning should establish the desired features of the boundary between
the Development Area and the Rural Area.
· In most instances, development in the Development Areas should extend to the
boundary with the Rural Area.
Master Plans
· Will involve property owners, residents, and developers.
· Will identify the majority of the investment needs of the County.
3
Will be necessary to assess the fiscal impact of the Neighborhood Model.
Creation of master plans will raise citizen expectations for the commitment of
resources to implement plan elements.
Staffing to Implement Ordinance Changes and Master Plans
· The extent to which additional staff may be needed is dependent on the level of
regulatory change and maintenance responsibilities the County may take on.
Philosophy --"The" way or "One" way to develop
· It is recognized that all of the 12 principles will not be achievable on each site for
new development.
· The principles relating to a pedestrian orientation, neighborhood friendly streets
and paths, interconnected streets and transportation networks, and site planning
that respects terrain would be expected to be incorporated into all new
developments. Adherence to these principles is needed to accommodate the
density proposed by the Land Use Plan and make liveable areas.
· The remaining principles relating to a mixture of uses, a variety of housing types,
neighborhood centers, buildings and spaces of human scale, and redevelopment
would be provided where it makes sense in the larger context of the general
area.
· A higher urban standard would be expected in all new developments, changing
the requirements for curb, gutter, sidewalks, street trees, parks and open space,
and better site grading. In exchange for a higher development standard, the
County would offer more options in the ways development can take place.
4
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Developmem
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804~ 972 - 4012
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development
DATE: March 1, 2001
RE: CPA-2001-001
Neighborhood Model
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 20, 2001, unanimously
recommended to the Board of Supervisors approval of the Neighborhood Model as proposed.
The Commission also approved a Resolution asking that the Board of Supervisors move as
quickly as possible to institute regulatory and policy changes, and the master planning process.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
vvvc/jcf
Agenda Item No. 15. DISC Report- Overview and Work Process.
This entire report has been indexed as a separate document under "Land
Use Reports".
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
2001 Redistricting
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Approval of Schedule and Guidelines
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION: IN FORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: League of Women Voters' remarks
STAFF CONTACT(S): REVIEWED BY: //~ ~"'"'""~
Messrs. TuCker/Davis
/
BACKGROUND:
On February 7, 2001 the Board of Supervisors preliminarily approved a schedule and guidelines to be used in preparing 2001
redistricting plans for the Board's consideration and a 2001 Redistricting Ordinance for adoption. On February 26th a public
meeting was held to receive nput on those preliminary guidelines and on any other issues regarding the redistricting process
that were of public concern. Approximately fifteen persons attended the public meeting including representatives of the
Republican and Democratic parties, the League of Women Voters, and C.A.L.A.C.
DISCUSSION:
Bob Watson on behalf of C.A.L.A.C. and Sue Friedman on behalf of the League of Women Voters spoke at the public meeting.
Bob Watson requested that the Board consider both a six district and seven district plan in its deliberations. Sue Friedman
requested that the Board consider a seven district plan. Her prepared statement setting forth the basis for this request is
attached. Other persons present had questions regarding how the state and local district lines would be reconciled, if there
was a legally required election district size, and whether any decisions had been made regarding how many new precincts
would be created. Staff members addressed those questions.
Based on the above comments at the public meeting, staff has not proposed any changes to the preliminary guidelines
adopted by the Board on February 7th, The preliminary guidelines and schedule were as follows:
Redistricting Guidelines:
1. Maintain six magisterial districts;
2. Contain both urban and rural segments of the County in each district;
3. Minimize changes to existing magisterial district boundaries;
4. Establish population equality within a deviation of +/- 5%;
5. Maintain geographical compactness;
6. Maintain geographical contiguity;
7. Preserve communities of interest, including neighborhoods, within the same district;
8. Avoid the pairing of incumbent Board of Supervisors or School Board members in the same district;
Provide for voter convenience and effective administration of elections to the greatest extent possible (including
locating appropriate polling places and creating properly sized precincts within each district);
10. Avoid splitting of census blocks to assure accuracy of the data;
11. Provide clearly defined and observable district and precinct lines which include roads, rivers, and other permanent
features recognized on official maps;
12. Assure that the change in districts does not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account
of race, color, or membership in a language minority group; and
13. Avoid splitting precincts with Virginia Senate and House of Delegate district lines and United States House of
Representatives district lines (if these lines are not established prior to Board action, the lines may have to be
adjusted prior to 2002 elections).
AGENDA TITLE:
2001 Redistricting
March 7, 2001
Page 2
Precinct and Polling Place Guidelines: 1. Target size to be not more than 2,500 voters;
2. Maintain easily identifiable boundary lines (including streams, ridges, railroads, primary roads, but avoiding
secondary roads, if possible).
3. Provide a central location within a precinct so that the maximum travel time for a voter does not exceed 20
minutes;
Locate within a public building, if practicable;
5. Maintain accessibility pursuant to Americans with Disabilities Act standards;
6. Maintain existing polling places, where possible; and
7. Provide accessibility to public transportation, where appropriate.
Remaining Schedule:
March 7, 2001 Report to Board of Supervisors on comments received from the public and on 2000 Census data; Board of
Supervisors receives public comments on redistricting process; Board of Supervisors finalizes redistricti ng
guidelines and provides direction to staff to proceed with redistricting plans.
April 4, 2001
Board of Supervisors' work session on proposed redistricting plan(s). (This work session could be delayed
if census data is not received in time for the work group to properly prepare plans for discussion.)
April 11, 2001 Second Board of Supervisors' work session on proposed redistricting plan(s), if necessary.
May 9, 2001
Board of Supervisors' public hearing on 2001 Redistricting Ordinance; Adoption of 2001 Redistricting
Ordinance.
May, 2001
Submittal of 2001 Redistricting Ordinance to U.S. Department of Justice for preclearance pursuant to Voting
Rights Act.
RECOMMENDATION:
After considering any additional public comment, staff recommends that the Board adopt the final guidelines and calendar
to be used in preparing the 2001 redistricting plans for the Board's consideration and a 2001 Redistricting Ordinance for
adoption. Staff suggests that it develop up to three plans for the Board's consideration at the April 4th work session. The
number of alternatives appropriate for consideration may need to be reviewed with the Board after analyzing the census data.
01.044
Madam Chair, Members of the Board of Supervisors, I am Sue Friedman,
President of the League of Women Voters.
In considering redistricting based on the 2000 Census, I am certain that
the Board wants to assure adequate and equitable representation of all
citizens of the County and to avoid deadlock on impcrsan5 issues. In
addition, it is important no assure easy access to the individual supervisor
zn each district.
During the last. redistricting, the League requested consideration that
the number o~Supervisors be increased to 7 in number for nhe following
reasons: projected population growth; to avoid the deadlock possible with
an~ even number of supervisors; to narrow if possible the geographic area
distances within the districts.
We again urge you .to consider expanding the Board 5o 7 members and note
the following'
The provisional population projections show that the county grew by at
least 19% since the 1999 Census.
Of the 95 counties in the Commonwealth only 18 have an even number of
Supervisors,
Of the counties with similar sized populations Hanover has 7
supervisors, Spottsylvania 7, Stafford 7, Roanoke 5, Montgomery 7
The nearby counnies of Augusta, Buckingham, Culpepper, Louisa all have
While we have non yet seen the census data, it appears that with the
popuTation concentration on the east side of the county, one or more
magisterial districss in the western par5 of the county will be very large
geographically.
We respectfully urge the Board to consider adding a seventh magisterial
distriut.
2001 REDISTRICTING PUBLIC MEETING
February 26~ 2001
Room 241
(Staff present: Ms. Jackie Harris, Registrar; Mr. Preston Barnes, Assistant to the
Electoral Board; Mr. Tex Weaver, Manager, Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information
Resources; Mr. Larry W. Davis, County Attorney; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County
Attorney.)
Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney, welcomed the public to a public meeting on the 2001
redistricting process. He asked that everyone present sign in, in order to provide a record for the
Justice Department that there has been an open process. He explained that the Board of
Supervisors established a staff committee that will generate redistricting plans for their
consideration over the next several weeks. The data from the 2000 Census will not likely be
available until sometime in mid- to late March. Due to the nature of the election cycle in 2001, the
Board will have to adopt a redistricting plan by the Board no later than mid-May. The Board
previously adopted a schedule for the process, and preliminarily adopted a set of guidelines to be
followed when redistricting magisterial lines and locating precincts and polling places.
Mr. Davis said this meeting was called to provide information and provide the public an
opportunity to provide input. Comments from the public will be provided to the Board of
Supervisors at its March 7, 2001 meeting. At that time, the Board will finalize the guidelines in
anticipation of receiving the census data and begin the preparation of plans. In addition, there will
be several other opportunities for public input. For example, if time permits, on March 7, there will
likely be a time set aside for public comment at the Board of Supervisors meeting. If the schedule
is followed as it stands now, on April 4 and 11, the Board will hold work sessions, and on May 9,
there will be a public hearing on the proposed redistricting plan, followed by a vote to adopt the
plan. The committee itself welcomes n put in writing at any time.
Most of the guidelines are the result of state, constitutional, or federal law requirements.
However, the first three requirements are based on local decisions. They include: the number of
magisterial districts, the nature of those districts (to include both urban and rural segments of the
County), and minimizing the change to existing magisterial district boundaries. Guidelines 8, 9,
and 10 are also local decisions. They include: avoiding the pairing of incumbent supervisors or
school board members, providing for voter convenience and effective administration, and
avoiding the splitting of census blocks. Guideline 13, avoiding the splitting of precincts of the
Virginia Senate and House of Delegates Districts is an administrative convenience to both the
voters and the County.
Mr. Bob Watson, representing the Charlottesville Area Legislative Action Coalition, said
his organization is in the process of devising a formal statement, which will be submitted to the
Board. He noted that the Board's guidelines instruct the committee to base its demographic data
on six magisterial districts. The organization asks that, in addition, demographic data be based
on seven magisterial districts.
Ms. Susan Friedman, President of the Charlottesville and Albemarle League of Women
Voters, said she is sure that the Board, when considering redistricting based on the 2000 census,
would want to ensure adequate and equitable representation of all County citizens and avoid
deadlock on mportant issues. In addition, it is important to ensure easy access to each individual
supervisor in each district. During the last redistricting, the League asked that the Board increase
its size to seven supervisors for the following reasons: projected population growth., to avoid the
deadlock possible with an even number of supervisors, and to narrow, if possible, the geographic
area distances within each district. The League again urged the Board to increase its size to
seven members. Traditional population projections show that the County has grown by at least
19 percent since the 1990 census. Of the 95 counties in the Commonwealth only 18 have an
even number of supervisors. Of the counties with similar size populations (Hanover,
Spottsylvania, Stafford, Roanoke, and Montgomery) several have an odd number of supervisors.
The nearby counties of Augusta, Buckingham, Culpeper, and Louisa, all have an odd number of
supervisors. While census data is not yet available, it appears that the population of the County
is concentrated on the east side, meaning that one of the districts will be very large
geographically. For these reasons, Ms. Friedman said the League urges the committee to add a
seventh magisterial district.
In response to a question from the audience, Mr. Davis invited those with questions to
address the committee.
Mr. Rob Bell, a local Republican, asked how the local and state redistricting lines are
drawn. Mr. Davis said when a local government has elections during the same year it considers
redistricting, Ioca district lines am generally drawn first. The legislative process, which redistricts
House and Senate seat lines, will probably not begin until late-April. Therefore, the
recommendation will likely be that the local lines will be drawn, anticipating the issues from the
state as much as possible. If adjustments need to be made to adjust the state lines, that will be
done as quickly as possible. Mr. Bell asked how adjustments are made, if local and state lines
cross. Mr. Davis said it is generally easier for local government to make the adjustment rather
than going back through the legislative process. Ms. Harris added that she recently attended a
similar meeting in Richmond, and it was clear to her that there will likely be a great overlap in the
process by both local and state officials. Therefore, it is to everyone's advantage to sham
information.
Mr. Bell then asked if there is a preference to shifting lines, versus splitting or creating
new precincts. Those who have to organize precincts on Election Day would prefer to have
fewer, rather than more, precincts, due to the difficulty in finding people to work at the precincts.
If there are several large precincts adjacent to smaller precincts, there are two options--split the
large precincts or shift some of those voters into the smaller precincts. Mr. Davis.said there is
criteria governing the number of registered voters that are permitted in precincts. Ms. Harris said
the County's Electoral Board met last month to discuss this issue, and made it a priority that,
wherever possible, the County should shift lines rather than create new precincts.
Ms. Friedman said redistricting is about population figures, not the number of registered
voters. Mr. Davis said redistricting of magisterial districts is based on population. Ms. Fdedman
then said that precincts are concerned with registered voters. Mr. Davis said that part of the
redistricting process is also redrawing precinct lines and designating new polling places. The
primary emphasis at this point is equalizing the population of magisterial districts based upon the
new population data.
Ms. Ruth Hauft said the census, upon which the magisterial districts are based includes
all the students at the University of Virginia, which lies in the Samuel Miller District.
Mr. Davis said students that are residents in the County's geographic area are included in the
County's population. He believed they are primarily split between two different districts, although
they could be split throughout the County. The campus locations are within the Jack Jouett and
Samuel Miller Districts. Ms. Hauft then stated it is up to the student to choose where they are
counted. Ms. Harris disagreed, saying that the Census Bureau adopted students as a specia
population, counting them where they attend school. Ms. Hauft said that a lot of the students
counted are non-residents of the County. Mr. Davis said they are residents of the County, but
they may choose to vote elsewhere. The woman said the anomaly of a large university means
that at least one district's population does not reflect its voting population. Ms. Harris reiterated
that the student population is currently spread between the Samuel Miller and Jack Jouett
Districts. The University-held precinct has a large student population.
Mr. Davis thanked the public for attending the meeting and invited them to view the maps
at the front of the room, which showed the existing magisterial district and precinct lines, polling
places, and the location of residences of incumbent members of the Board of Supervisors and the
School Board. Further, he invited any; interested parties to submit written comments.
Mr. Joseph Rhames, a member of the Democratic party, then asked to make an
additional comment. He said that on the federal level, there are mathematical formulas used to
determine Congressional representation. He asked why Constitutional formulas are not used at
the local and state levels. Mr. Davis said there are formulas based on the state Constitutional
requirement of equal representation in the state. The standard has been identified as being plus-
or minus-five percent of the same population existing in each election district. The County divides
the population by six (in Albemarle County's instance), and ensures it stays within the plus- or
minus-five percent of that target population. There is a possibility of greater deviation if it can be
justified based on special circumstances, but typically, the target is to stay within that range.
Mr. Rhames said that means that when the guidelines were written, and it was recommended that
the County continue with six magisterial districts, it was done without having the census data to
show population growth. Mr. Davis said exact census counts are not available, but the County
does have general calculations of what the population is expected to be. Mr. Rhames noted that
it is possible, then, that the County's population has grown to an extent that if it is based on six
magisterial districts, then the County is outside of the target range. Mr. Davis said calculations
are all based upon the new population. Mr. Rhames then said there is no Congressional
representation, in that case. Mr. Davis said Congressional-like representation works basically the
same. Once new census data is available, the County will be divided into an equal number of
population areas.
Mr. Rhames then asked if there are statistics to show that the County is comparable to
other counties on the number of people represented by each supervisor. Mr: Davis said. there is
a wide range of numbers. Chesterfield County, for example, one of the most populated counties,
has only five supervisors. There are some very small localities that have nine supervisors. He
said there is therefore no correlation based upon population.
Ms. Friedman said the 1990 census was 68,200 people, which means that each
supervisor represents 11,200 citizens. If the 2000 census is around 81,600, then each
supervisor's constituency will increase to 13,600 citizens. That results in less representation by
supervisors, if the County stays with only six magisterial districts. Mr. Davis'said there are some
supervisors who currently represent many more people than that, and there are some who are
representing fewer citizens, so some supervisors would be representing fewer citize ns under a
seven magisterial district scenario than under the current one, and vice versa. Compared to the
1990 numbers, Ms. Friedman's statement is true, but compared to today, that is not necessarily
true. Ms. Friedman added that the County still needs to stay within the target range.
Mr. Davis then, again, thanked everyone for coming, and ended the meeting.
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorfier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouetl
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
40I Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
March 8, 2001
Ms. Barbara S. Barrett
1220 Red Pine Ct.
crozet, VA 22932
Dear Ms. Barrett:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on March 7, 2001, the Board appointed you to the
Region Ten Community Services Board with said term to run from July 1, 2001 through June 30. 2004. I
have enclosed a roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
James Peterson
Printed on recycled paper
1220 Red Pine Court
Crozet, VA 22932
Feb. 14, 2001
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA22902-4596
I am enclosing my application for a position on the Region Ten
Community Services Board. As the parent of a Region Ten consumer I have
an interest in the services and programs provided for the disabled in our
community. I believe the services and programs will only be as good as the
citizens of the community are willing to advocate for. As indicated on the
enclosure I have provided, i have been advocating for persons with
disabilities for over 30 years and would like the oppommity to continue.
I appreciate consideration ofth/s application.
Sincerely,
Barbara S. Barrett
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 229024596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print.)
Board/Commission/Committee~'-R~i0~q~ Te~, ,C0[Y~,l~{~4~
Appticant'sName '-~Lr ba('gL -~5~C5~e%~-
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located
Employer ~X], 0 N, d_ rhone
Business Address
Occupation/Title
Ye~,s ResiSt in ~hem~e County '~ L
Education 02)egrees and Graduation Dates)
Date of Employment
Spouse's Name l-~lo~,d L.'~,eLf'i
Number of C~&en
Memberships in Fraternal Business, Church and/or Social Groups
public, Civic md Ch~rltable Office md/or Other Activities or Interests
Reason(s) for Wishing .to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee
The information provided on this application will be released to the public upon request.
Signature Date
Return to:
Clerk,'B0ard of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401Mclntite Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
FAXa (804) 296-$8O0
Barbara S. Barrett
1220 Red Pine court
Crozet, VA 22932
804-823-1643
Presently a homemaker. Mother of a daughter and step-daughter with mental retardation.
PAST EMPLOYMENT:
Secretary of the Library Waynesboro High School,
Waynesboro, VA, 1979/94
Admin. Asst. Lummor School (Pre-School for Handicapped) 1974/79
VOLUNTEER RECORD:
2000 MR Advisory Committee for Region Ten CSB
Search Committee for MR Director For Region Ten CSB
Virginia Board for People with Disabilities 1991/94, Chairman 1994
Valley Community Services Board1986/88, Chairman 1987/88
ARC/VA Board of Directors 1979/90, President1984/86
ARC/US Board of Directors 1986/90
ARC/Augusta Board of Directors 1974/92, President1980/82
Special Education Advisory Committee Waynesboro City Schools, 1979/87,
Chairman 1981/87
Waynesboro Department of Parks & Recreation Special Populations
Advisory Committee, Chairman 1983/88
Vector Industries (Sheltered Workshop) Board of Directors 1982/84,
President1983/84
Area Five Special Olympics Advisory Committee 1981/85,
Chairman 1981/83
ARK INC. (Group Home) Board of Directors 1981/85,
Chairman1983/85
Greenstone Residence Inc. (Group Home) Advisory Board 1986/88
Virginia Governor's Award for Volunteer Excellence 1987
Rivised2/01
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OHlce of Board of Supe~v~som
401 Mclnth~ Ro~d
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
P. ivanr~
Walter E Perkins
Whi~e Hall
Sall~ H. Thomas
Samuel I~11~
March 8, 2001
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. White: '
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on March 7, 2001, the Board appointed you to the
Region Ten Community Services Board, with said term to run from March 7, 2001 through JUne 30, 2002.
I have enclosed a roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc:
James Camblos
James Peterson
Printed on recycled paper
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lind~ay G. Dorder, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphds
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALgEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sallp H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
March 8, 2001
Mr. John Bunch
2708 Westmoreland Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Bunch:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on March 7, 2001 you were reappointed to the
Jefferson Area Bicycle and Walking Advisory Committee, with said term to run from July 1, 2001 through
June 30, 2004. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your willingness to continue to serve the Coun['y in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally Iq. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
Nancy O'Brien
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Lindsay G., Dorrier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouelt
COUNTY OF Al BEMARLE
Office of Board o~ Supervisors
401 Mclnfire Ro~d
Charlo~esville, Virginia ~90~-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX [804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
March 8, 2001
Ms. JoAnne Ebersold
2688 Powell Creek Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Ms. Ebersold:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on March 7, 2001, you were reappointed to the
Jefferson Area Bicycle and Walking Advisory Committee, with said term to run from July 1, 2001 through
June 30, 2004. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your willingness to coritinue to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
Nancy O'Brien
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerrnan
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorder, Jr.
Scottsville
Charlotte Y Humphris
Jack Jouelt
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Wrginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
Whi~ Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
March 8, 2001
Mr. C. Henry Hinnant
407 Key West Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Mr. Hinnant:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on March 7. 2001, you were reappointed to the
Workforce Investment Board, with said term to run from July 1, 2001 through June.3~, 2004. I have
en closed an updated roster for your convenience. .5
your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity.
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
Billie Campbell
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
Laurie Bentley, C.M.Cf'/~
FROM:
Senior Deputy Clerk
v
DATE: March 2, 2001
RE: Applications for Boards and Commissions
I have attached the applications received for vacancies on various Boards/Commissions
You will be conducting two interviews on March 7, 2001. Thank you.
Attachments
cc: Bob Tucker
Larry Davis
Note:
BOARD OR COMMISSION
NEW TERM
EXPIRE
DATE
APPLICANT/ INTERVIEW,
INCUMBENT IF
SCHEDULED
Barbara S. Barrett 1:00 pm
George May Charlton 1:10 pm
Roxanne White
Thomas J. Jakubowski
Albert W. Catlett,, Jr.
Kurt B. Goodwin
Gary Henry
Reg Hubley
Jeffrey M. Hetmanski
Mitchell E. Neuman
John R. Taylor
Susan L. ~/each
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 229024596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print.)
Board/Commission/Committee ~'~ ~; 0 Iq, ~e hi C 0 rl~ r~ {L fl ~ '+~
Full Home Address {_~J(]"-~d '~iFtC ~0[I,C-~' C {" /97-. e~Lj
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located h 7' + '1[
Employer N 0 ~. C_ Phone
Business Address
Home Phone ( OC]-0'
Occupation/Tide
Years Resident in Albemarle County
Previous Residence {~(LtJ lq ~ ~
Education ~e~es and Graduation
Spouse's Name J-'l 0 (A t~
Number of Children
Date of Employment
Memberships in Fraternal. Business, Church and/or Social Groups ~ [~ ~-- ~ ~.~0 ~ lff' 4
Reason(s) for Wishing t0 Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee ~ ~... ~o
fi.forma;.j°_~Zovide(~this application will be released to the public upon request.
Signature Date
Return to:
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 McIntite Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
FAX: (804) 296-5800
1220 Red Pine Court
Crozet, VA 22932.
Feb. 14, 2001
Albemarle County Board of SUPervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA22902-4596
I am enclosing my application for a position on the Region Ten
Community Services Board. As the parent of a Region Ten consumer I have
an interest in the services and programs prov/ded for the disabled in our
community. I believe the services and programs will only be as good as the
citizens of the commumty are willing to advocate for. As indicated on the
enclosure I have provided, I have been advocating for persons with
disabilities for over 30 years and would like the opportunity to continue.
I appreciate consideration of this application.
Sincerely,
Barbara S. Barrett
g 0 ARD OF SU~P3/ISO3,3
Barbara S. Barrett
1220 Red Pine court
Crozet, VA 22932
804-823-1643
Presently a homemaker. Mother of a daughter and step-daughter with mental retardation.
PAST EMPLOYMENT:
Secretary o£the Library Waynesboro High School,
Waynesboro, VA, 1979/94
Admin. Asst. Lurnmor School (Pre-School for Handicapped) 1974/79
VOLUNTF. FR RECORD:
2000 MR Advisory Committee for Region Ten CSB
Search Committee for MR Director For Region Ten CSB
Virginia Board for People with Disabilkies 199t/94, Chairman 1994
Valley Community Services Board1986/88, Chairman 1987/88
ARC/VA Board of Directors 1979/90, President 1984/86
ARC/US Board of Directors 1986/90
ARC/Augusta Board of Directors 1974/92, President 1980/82
Special Education Advisory Committee Waynesboro City Schools, 1979/87,
Chairman 1981/87
Waynesboro Department of Parks & Recreation Special Populations
Advisory Committee, Chairman 1983/88
Vector Industries (Sheltered Workshop) Board of Directors 1982/84,
President 1983/84
Area Five Special Olympics Advisory Committee 1981/85,
Chairman 1981/83
ARK INC. (Group Home) Board of Directors 1981/85,
Chairman1983/85
Greenstone Residence Inc. (Group Home) Advisory Board 1986/88
Virginia Governor's Award for Volunteer Excellence 1987
Rivised2/01
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlotteswlle, VA 229024596
(804) 296-5843
O ccup ation/Title //~.t"~5 ,%_7 ~/r~.~/r~_~ O~---
Years Resident in Albemarle County - ~~3
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or p~int.)
~te~ D~ ~ch~our home residence is located
Bm~ess Address /Z~ ~,' ~/~ &t'
Date of Employment ~ ~.~>-~(~ /
Spouse's Name
~o=afi6n, m~ded n~~~ released to ~e pu~ upon
Retm to: Clerk, ~ of Coun~
401 Mc~ Road
CharloNes~e, VA 22802-45~8
F~ (~04) 2~-5~
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 McIutire Road
Charlottesville, VA 229024596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COM/V~SSION/COM2VlITTEE
(Please type or print.)
B oard/Commission/CommJ=ee
Applicant's Name
Full Home Address
Magisterial District in whSch your home residence is located ~i~ i .o
Employer
Oc~padon/Title
Ye~s Resident N ~bem~te
Previous Residence
Education ~egrees
Phone qT--('"- /,.~/~'
Date of Employment
Spouse's N~e
Number of Children
Memberships in Fraternal, Bus/ness, Church and/or Social Groups
PubJ/c, Civic and Char/table Office and/or Other Activities or Interests
.
Reason(s) for Wishing to Ser~e on ~s Board/Commission/Committee ~/4o/~W& /~q,_r /OoW/77o,.J
Signa~ Date
Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
F,-MX: (804; 296-5800
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print.)
Board/Cornmission/Commi~ee .,Charlottesville-2~lbernar]e Airport Commi.qsion
Applicant's Name Albert W. CatlettJr. Home Phone (804) 978-2933
Full Home Address. 2103 Fors~hia Ira. Charlottesville, VA 22911-9058
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Rivanna
Employer . Department of the Navy/Marine Corps Intelligence Activity
Business Address 220 Seventh St. N.E. Charlottesville. VA 22902
Occupation/Title Intellige~ nce Research Specialist
Years Resident in Albemarle County 12
Previous Residence Ft. Rucker, AL
Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) B~A. Geography, 1981
Phone ~04) 980-7388
Date of Employment May 1992
Spouse's Name ... Janelle A. Catlett
Number of Children 2
Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or Sodal Groups Member, Church of Our Saviour; Major, Aviation Branch - United
States Army Reserve
Public, Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activ/ties or Interests Sr. Member 'De_--u . Sr. Commander - Cadet -to - .
M nticello Corn osite S uadron- Civil Air Patrol- Comer ' Instrument-rated Pilot
Reason(s) for Wishing to Ser~e on this Board/Commission/Committee D ire to su o sus ' and romote the fanned owth of
the C ottesville Alb e o from a b mess as well as a commum sermce ers ect~e. To contribut to the ositive owth
and r motion f av/ation and ay/ad n a '~ties within the 1 corem ' .
The information provided on this application will be released to the public upon request.
Signature
Return to:
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
FAX: (8O4) 296-58OO
Date ~r~~ ,~O~
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supen4sors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print.)
Board/Commission/Committee Joint Airport Commksion
Applicant's Name Kurt B. Goodwin
Full Home Address 3156 Derby Road Keswick Virginia 22947
Home Phone 804-293-3378
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Rivallna
Employer Crutchfield Corporation
Phone 804-817-1000
susin=s Add. ss 1 Crutchfield Park Charlottesville, Virginin 22911
Occupation/Tide Vice President, Operations
Date of Employment October 1982
Years Resident in Albemarle County 31
Spouse's Name Pameh M. Goodw/n
Pre~ious Residence 2260 Lanford Hilk Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 Number of children I
Education (Degees and Grad, mtinn Dates) Bachelor of Business Administration 1983 - James Madison
University
Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church ~nd/or Social Groups Charlottesville Regional Chnmher of Commerce *
Direct Marketing Association * Society of Consumer Affairs Professionals * Charlottesville Club *
Glenmore Count .ry Club
Public. Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests Former Member & Officer, Seminole Tm.il
Volunteer Fire Department * Former Board President, Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Depanmenl,
Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this BoarcL/Commksion/Commi~eo As a licensed private pilot and a local business
person, I recogni?e the importance of efficient airport operatiom and the impact th_ax those
operations can have on the health, welfare and development of our community. I believe that my
experiences as a pilot and as an operations executive will have a poskive impact on the
effectiveness of the Joint Airport Commission and .our community
The '~mf/~at of'on prff~~application will be released to the public upon request.
Signautre ~ ' Date
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COblMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or pant.)
Board/ Commission/ Comnfittee . ~j o;.~ac ~ ~ .x~' q[ O~.o .xva ; S 5 'l cw~
Full Home Address Iqg,~ Ar/aow ~t~eq~ ~
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located
Employer
Business Address
Occupation/Title
Years Resident in Albemarle County ! ~
Previous Residence q q q ~ .~
Education (Degrees. ~ ~nd Graduation D~tes)
Home Phone
Oate o~'.mploymen~ 2/a ~ ( 0 o
Spouse's Name
Memberships in Fraternol. Bugine~s, Church and/or Social Groups C~, ~- ~ ~'~ ~xv,~z~e.e~ y
~ 50~ 3c
Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commi..qsion/Committ¢C .-.~_J~o_s4 c~, Ct c;tk'/'O-,/x o,~ ~ C~wxu.~'~!-~
The information provided on this application will be released to the public upon request.
Signature Date
Return to:
Clerk, Board of County Supetvisom
Albemarle County
401Mclntire Road
ChadottesviHe, VA 22902-4596
FAX: (804) 296-5800
~o~t-it~ Fax No[e 767~,
Co4D~p~,
Jan 16
7 :m I¢
'01
15:15
?', O1
0~c¢ of Boml o£ Coungt Super~so~
401 Mch&, Rind
Ch~.o~e~n]lc, VA 229024596
CS04) 296-5843
l--
/
The i=~.=~ 2rossde6 ~n.~s app~ca~on ~ be rei~ed :o ~e pubic upon
401 '~,-Int&e Koad I I ( - ~ /
Sent By: Sankyo Parke Davis] 804 923 0339] Feb-5-O1 6:32PM] Page 1/2
County of Albemarle
Of~ of Bosid of Corot',/Supervisors
401 Mvlagt'e Road
Ch~lo~llc. VA 22902-4596
(8o4,)
APPLICATION TO $ERYE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
Years Resident in .~lbmmad~ Cotmty {~eq ~ t~"~. ......
Membe~hi?~ ii', Ft.a~tua.t B.,,~i,~ess_ Church and/of: Social
Public. C. i4ic and Charitable Office '/md/uz Oihcr Activiriea or I~te~e_st~
C~o~es~e, VA
FAX: (~)
Sent By:
Sankyo Parka Davls; 804 923 0339; Feb-5-01
6:32PM;
Page 2/2
Jeffrey M. Hetmanski,
229 Lake Club Court, Apt. 107
Charlottesville, VA 2:~902
804,984.1441
jhetmane, ki~sankyopharma, corn
EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science, Mechanical Engineering May 1993
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Engineer. in-Training (Err} De~ignation
Commonwealth of Virginia. Department of Commerce
Six Sigma Black Belt
~nkvo Parke-Dav;i~, PharmaceutlcaP-
Sales Representative
EXPERIENCE:
June 1993
May 1999
210o - Present
- Detail and build alliances with physicians and allied health
professionals in central virginia,
Top 10% sales performer dudng new product launch.
Perform territory payor impact analysis to assist providers in managing
third party payor fonnuiaries.
- Successfully manage promotional budget.
- Ensure compliance with FDA marketing and sales regulations,
!n~emoll-Rand Com_-~_.qv, Air Compressor Dlvi~iml
Area Manager- Ggeat Lakes Region 8/98 - 2~00
- Aided c~ients in the design, specification, procurement, installation.
improvement and monitoring of both new & existing compressed air
systems,
- Increased market penetration from 19% to 30%,
Managed business relationships with two distributors providing both
territory development support and product training, Volume - $!0 M.
- Awarded Allianca Partnership with General Electric Company
Team Leader, Reengineerlng 1/97- 8/98
.... Completed $1.5 M software project on time and under budget.
=' - Aligned business proceSSes into integrated information systems.
- Detailed specifications and provided~design for software package.
- Managed software acceptance and field roltout process,
- Promoted to Area Manager.
Air Systems Engineer 7/95 - 1/97
Te0hflicat sales of industrial compressed air systems.
- Awarded $1M Boeing .IndUstries contract,
~ . =..- . - Achieved Top 20 sales ranking. - " .--: ,'
· , - Increased market penetration from 27% to 46% in. 6neyear,* . .., '. :_ i- :..' .*., ' .
':'-.';:;!"/'::?:.i?:;i?!~':?" !~.-' ;- '-~. :':' -. Developed.and implemented succ~ssful_busiAesaplan; .....?.:, .... _. ~.-~:.:....~: .._/... ~..;.=......;;
,.:...- -.,- ,: MaintaJnedsalescuetOmerdatebasa. ,-.,, ..-._- . ...:~ ,-.....~ :.-.? :=_:.-
'" -'-' ~':' .... '." -: '~*"'- -, ...- Pmm0t~d to Team Leader, Reangin~ering: - - .. · . . '='-: ' . '..- '. '.- · * r
.' -:.- :...'*'. : . . ' ., . . ~- _ ': '~- -..--.,~ . · ,~ ..'.'..;.',-.
.. .App!ication 'Engineer ... ~/93 .-"7/95 -
_ -. Responsible for inquiry, .technic, al quotation, order entry and fulfillment.-~
- . - Managed aging.accounts receivable. " ' : "'-' * - -
' - · . ' - Promoted to Air b'ystem$ Engineer ' * ." *-' ..... '~' ': -:'- ' '
County of Albemarle
Office ofBoatd ofCmmty Supe~so~
401 McEntire Road
Chatlot~esmlle,'VA 229024596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BO./~RD/COMMISSION/COMMI~E
0~e~e ~ ot pant.)
Board/Commission/Comrmttee4' [~)O¢+ CooVkwIt-q~ ,'0 ~
Applicant's Name ]~/~-e..~q ~ W~&/'la~e~ ~
Cc)Cc Cvo
Magisterial District in which your home residenceislocated (_A.J/4¢~: /4cx_ ([
Business Address .~5(~6° S?e'&') Coat e~,
Occupation/Title d (-x), - (5 ? & ~c*_4 d Ot,-.~
Previous Residence ~_,[/O?xt"-lof
Education .~. egvtees and Graduation Dates.} /¢~ct ¥' 7g O ~'/e j go ,) e (_Jrt d 6/,
Home Phone
Ua, z. zq?z
Date of Employment
Spouse's Name
Number of Children
Memberships in Fraternal, Bnsiness, Cb,,rch md/or Social Groups
/
Public. Civic and Gh;ritable Office md/or Other Activities or Interests ~-¢Flr
(,~e ~~ PriCed on.~.a~cafion w~ be ~eased to ~e pubic upon request
' ,Rem..~°~-',.':'~ Cie~ BO~d-~fC0un. S~son -. . ; -~ . _ . .... .-, .:..,~... ,.
" ' M~m~le CounW ..-
" ~1 Mclnfi~.Road
-Ch~es~Be; VA 2~2-45~ ' -
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 229024596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
Board/Commission/Committee Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Commission
Applicant's Name
Full Home Address
John R. Taylor, III Home Phone
3227 Heathcote Lane, Keswick, VA 22947
804-979-1357
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Rivanna District
Employer
EA.com (formerly Kesmai Corporation) Phone
Business Address 230 Court Square, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Occupation/Tide Executive Management/Chief Production Officer
Years Resident in Albemarle County 23 years
Spouse's Name
Previous Residence 2530 Wyngate Rd., Charlottesville, VA 22901
804-963-8686
Date of Employment Sept. 1982
Carrie Washburn Taylor
Number of Children 3
Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee
As a founder and leader of a local high technology business I know first hand the importance of having an attractive,
efficient local airport. The key to locating and maintaining this type of business in the area is the ability .to conveniently
,[ravel to.thecenters-of high :technologies in the country and around the world..Many of our:staff members, mySelf
'inc uded' rtrave over 100,00o. miles a year, much of it through the Charlottesville,AlbemarleAirport.
:i' -It.g~tg:b~en..mY-bxpedenCe that many people are uncomfortable flying n turbo-proP:cbmmuti~r airplanes and instead'-
'.:,~s~iectj~t-~fJi~ht~ int~): :the washiiig;~on., DC or Richmond airPo'~ts. If I were apPoiiite'd' to'thel-commi~'SiOn,q~wbiuld:'endeav0:i"':
'~O 'iri~rea~e tl~e']et s'ervi~~-tn~b'th~ ~ha~-i°ttesv e-Albemarlb Regional A ~pOrt.' AdditiOnally; .1 am
ma nttiidi ,n.~ a Ch°ice.0fla}r ines--during this period' of indtistry'consolidatiOn. - r ' ':" :,": ' ¢-" "-"" ' '.'- :" ': :' --"'
"' '-The Ch'arlotte~ville:AIiSemarle Regional Airport is the'front:door'to our community and it makes a critical first '-: - '"
impression on visitors. My goal would be to make that impression a pleasant one. -
The information provided on this 5apislicafion will be released to the public upon request~ - ---: . .
c_~ ,,-~-~., t if..O [ , -.
Si Da'te
Memberships in Fraternal. Business, Church and/or Social Groups Charlottesville Venture Group, The Charlottesville Club,
Society of Petroleum Eng ineers, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Public, Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other'Activities or Interests Blue Ridge'Mountains Rotary Club; Boy Scouts of
America, Assistant Den Leader, Pack 141 Cub Scouts. Interests include, reading, golf, genealogy, digital photography
and .tinkering with computer hardware.
Education ~qDegrees and Graduation Dates) University of Virginia, Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, January 1980
University of Virginia, Bachelor of Science in Computer Science, Janbary 1980
University of Virginia, Master of Computer Science, May 1985
3'~N-lC3-2001 12:~ RI:~L. ESTATE I I I ;VC3N ~0~ c37~ 89~ P.01/02
County of Albem~de
401 Mchtire Road
Chadou~v'flle~ VA 2290245~6
D~:e of Employment
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Laurie Bentley, C.M.C.//~?
Senior Depu~ Clerk ~
March 2, 2001
Vacancies on Boards and Commiss~o ns
I have updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through June 30, 2001.
advise me if you want me to advertise any of the vacancies.
Thank you.
Cc: Bob Tucker
Larry Davis
Chamber of Commerce
Please
WISH TO BE
NEW TERM RE- MAGISTERIAL
EXPIRES
EXPIRES
APPOINTED?
APPOINTMENT?
BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM
One application sent 2/2/01. David T. Paulson 08-13-00 08-12-01 No
No applications received. Margaret Borwhat 09-30-00 09-29-03 No
~" Rio
One application sent under Michael G. Stewart t2-31-00 12-31-01 No
separate cover; one sent 12/1/00.
Applications sent under separate Michael R. Matthews, Jr. 12-01-03 <(finish out N/A
cover. (moved to Joint position) Matthews"
term)
One application sent 2/2/01. Daniel Montgomery 12-13-00 12-13-02 No
Applications sent under separate Michelle Sirch-Stasko 06-30-02 <(finish out Resigned
Sirch-Stasko's
cover, term)
Arthur B. Brown, Jr. 06-30-01 06-30-04 Not eligible
· ~! ~.... '!:~:... '.~"'",
Richard L. Jennings 06-30-01 06-30-04 Eligible
Clark C. Jackson 06-30-01 06-30-05 Not eligible
WISH TO BE
NEW TERM RE- MAGISTERIAL
BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED? APPOINTMENT?
John Bunch 06-30-01 06-30-04 Yes
JoAnne Ebersold 06-30-01 06-30-04 Yes
J. Walter Levering 06-03-01 06-03-04 No
C. Henry Hinnant 06-03-01 06-03-04 Yes
From:
Subject:
Date:
Members, Board of Superv/sors
Washington Carey, CMC,
Ella
Reading L/st for March 7, 2001
March 2, 200 t
October 18, 2000
November 8 (A), 2000
December 6, 2000
December 14, 2000
January 3, 200t
January 10 (A), 2001
pages I- 17 (end Item #7)
Mr. Dc~'rier
pages 20 (Item # I5) - end
,Ms. Thomas
pages 1-25 (Item #2 I)
Mr. Dottier
Mr. Dorfier
Ms. Thomas
Ms. Humphris
/ewc
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Scott~ille
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Joueff
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Super~sors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Riv~ma
Walter E Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
March 12, 2001
The Honorable James S. Gilmore, III
Governor of Virginia
State Capitol, 3~ Floor
Capitol Square
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Governor Gilmore:
At its meeting on March 7, 2001, the Board of Supervisors adopted the enclosed
resolution urging the Governor and State Leaders to preserve state aid to localities
when approving the state budget, and to approve revisions to the 2000-2002 state
budget as soon as possible.
Sincerely,.
~.:' .....--'/ / · / { ..... /: .--,~ /'
<'""7.~. L... ~.7.z.,
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CM,~-,/
/ewc
Enclosure
CC:
The Honorable Mitchell VanYahres
The Honorable Emily Couric
The Honorable Paul Harris
Mr. Dave Blount, Legislative Liaison
Printed on recycled paper
RESOLUTION
2000-2002 STATE BUDGET
WltEREAS, the 2001 General Assembly adjourned on February 24 without enacting a
state budget bill; and
WHEREAS, the budget impasse is centered around the Governor's commitment to
increasing the personal property tax reimbursement level to 70 percent and the Senate's
insistence that the state cannot afford such an increase without cutting essential services and
failing to meet its commitments to local governments; and
WHEREAS, the lack of a budget agreement means that the Appropriations Act approved
by the 2000 General Assembly becomes the budget by default; and
WHEREAS, the 2000 Appropriations Act was built on revenue projections larger than
those now estimated, meaning yet-to-be-determined cuts will have to be made and/or additional
funds would have to be identified by the state to prevem the budget from being out of balance by
$421 million; and
WHEREAS, Governor Gilmore has signed Executive Order 74 to bring appropriations
and estimated revenues into balance for the remainder oftbe biennium; and
WHEREAS, local governments, meanwhile, remain in limbo about state aid to localities
as they prepare their budgets for FY02 and as they try to anticipate state funding changes for the
remainder of the current fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the degree of state funding for items critical to local governmems, such as
second year teacher salary and state-supported local employee salary increases, HB 599 fimding,
Comprehensive Services Act funding, transportation and school construction funding, foster care
maintenance and adoption payments, and per diems for local and regional jails, remain uncertain
or in jeopardy at this time;
WHEREAS, because the legislature adjourned without agreeing on the budget and the
level of state reimbursement to localities for personal property tax relief, some local governments
are corr~onted with the question of what to do about sending personal property tax bills.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that State Leaders are urged to preserve and
enhance critical state aid to localities, specifically in the areas noted above, when approving a
budget; and
BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER, that State Leaders act as soon as possible to approve
revisions to the 2000-2002 state budget, so as to not further impede the local government
budgeting process.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of six to
zero as recorded below, at a meeting held on March 7 , 2001.
;~B~ard o-f County Sup/e/rvisors
/
Aye Nay
Mr. Dorfier Y
Mr. Bowerman Y
Mr. Perkins y
Ms. Humphris Y
Mr. Martin Y
Ms. Thomas Y
RESOLUTION
2000-2002 STATE BUDGET
WHEREAS, the 2001 General Assembly adjourned on February 24 without enacting a
state budget bill; and
WHEREAS, the budget impasse is centered around the Governor's commitment to
increasing the personal property tax reimbursement level to 70%, and the Senate's
insistence that the state cannot afford such an increase without cutting essential services
and failing to meet its commitments to local governments; and
WHEREAS, the lack of a budget agreement means that the Appropriations Act approved
by the 2000 General Assembly becomes the budget by default; and
WHEREAS, the 2000 Appropriations Act was built on revenue projections larger than
those now estimated, meaning yet-to-be-determined cuts will have to be made t~state-aget~
e~nd loca!:,ties and/or additional funds would have to be identified by the state to prevent the
beech--hat-budget wo-~d be from being out of balance by $421 million; and
WHEREAS, Governor Gilmore has signed Executive Order 74 to bring appropriations
and estimated revenues into balance for the remainder of the biennium; and
WHEREAS, local governments, meanwhile, remain in limbo about state aid to localities
as they prepare their budgets for FY02 and as they try to anticipate state funding changes for the
remainder of the current fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the degree of state funding for items critical to local governments, such as
second year teacher salary and state-supported local employee salary increases, HB 599 funding,
Comprehensive SerVices Act funding, transportation and school construction funding, foster care
maintenance and adoption payments, and per diem~s for local and regional jails, remain uncertain
or in jeopardy at this time;
WHEREAS, because the legislature adjourned without agreeing on the budget and the
level of state reimbursement to localkies for personal property tax relief, some local governments
are confi:onted with the question of what to do about sending personal property tax bills.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, th., +~,~.
State Leaders are urged to preserve and enhance critical state aid to localities, specifically in the
areas noted above, when approving a budget; and be it
RESOLVED FURTHER, that +"~' ~ ........ ~ ~ .... ~ ^ .... ~'~ State Leaders act
as soon as possible to approve revisions to the 2000-2002 state budget, so as to not further
impede the local government budgeting process.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of __ to
as recorded below, at a meeting held on March 7 , 2001.
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Perkins
Ms.' Humphris
Mr. Martin
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax/804~ 972 - 4012
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development
March 1, 2001
Capital Improvements Program
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 20, 2001, unanimously
recommended to the Board of Supervisors approval of the CIP in its current form as
recommended by the CIP Technical Committee.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
VWC/jcf