Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-02May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 2, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 9:11 a.m.), Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, Larry W. Davis; Clerk, Ella W. Carey; and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There were no other matters presented. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.2, and to accept the remaining item on the Consent Agenda for information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier. __________ Item 5.1. Proclamation recognizing the Virginia State Association of Parliamentarians. The following proclamation was approved by the vote set out above. VIRGINIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF PARLIAMENTARIANS WHEREAS,the Virginia State Association of Parliamentarians will hold its Annual Convention on May 4 through May 6, 2001, in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS,the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors uses parliamentary procedure for the orderly conduct of business; and WHEREAS,Thomas Jefferson, a native of Albemarle County and the author of Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice which is used as the parliamentary authority for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate and as a reference for many modern Parliamentary Authorities; and WHEREAS,the basic tenant of parliamentary procedures is to support free speech and to assure that the voice of the minority shall always be heard, yet the vote of the majority shall prevail; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, encourage all citizens in government and civic groups to study and learn parliamentary procedure; and FURTHER RESOLVE, that the Board of Supervisors extend its appreciation to the Virginia State Association of Parliamentarians and its host Unit, the Silver Gavel, for holding its Annual Convention in our historically rich, economically and agriculturally fertile County of Albemarle. __________ Item 5.2. Proclamation recognizing Historic Preservation Week. The following proclamation was approved by the vote set out above. May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK WHEREAS,the richness of Virginias history is unparalleled across this vast nation; = and WHEREAS,the richness of Albemarle County's history is recorded in numerous extant buildings and structures of exceptional significance; and WHEREAS,historic buildings and places connect us with that history, providing unique character to Virginias communities that enhances quality of life, = economic development, education, and tourism; and WHEREAS,historic preservation, because it helps instill a sense of community, is relevant for Albemarle County residents of all ages, all walks of life, and all ethnic backgrounds; and WHEREAS,it is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the contributions made by dedicated individuals who preserve the tangible aspects of the heritage that shape us as people of Albemarle and as Virginians; and WHEREAS,Restore, Renew, Rediscover Your Historic Neighborhood Schools" is A the theme for National Preservation Week 2001, co-sponsored by Albemarle County, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the National Trust for Historic Preservation; NOW, THEREFORE,I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim MAY 13 through May 19, 2001, as HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK and call upon the people of Albemarle County to join their fellow citizens across the state in recognizing and participating in this special observance. __________ Item 5.3. Notice dated April 17, 2001, from the State Corporation Commission of Virginia, Case No. PUE000551, in the matter concerning the application of Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power for approval of a plan to transfer functional and operational control of certain transmission facilities to a regional transmission entity (on file in Clerk's office), was received as information. _______________ Agenda Item No. 6b. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, was present for VDOT. He provided Board members with a copy of VDOT's Construction Project Status, paving schedules and maintenance plans as of May, 2001. He will attempt to add traffic engineering to the report, along with other issues, in the coming months. Ms. Thomas suggested the information be forwarded to the Clerk so that it can be included in the Board's packet for the Board meetings. __________ Ms. Thomas referred to paving on Route 250 West. A citizen had asked about hardening the shoulders in that area. Mr. Bryan said he will look into the issue. __________ Ms. Humphris said, at the Free Union headquarters, April was litter pickup on Routes 601 and 606. She does not see it listed for May. The leftover litter from the Foxfield Races is really bad. She said people in the area were angry, and felt the University should be requested to send out a crew to pick up the trash. She asked Mr. Tucker how soon the Board will get a report on the Foxfield event. Mr. Tucker said later this month or in early June. Ms. Humphris said she believes the sooner, the better. Her neighbors who had property damage, as well as other issues, have asked for a report. Ms. Thomas said the police thought they would get that event under control by having traffic move as quickly as possibly out of the area after the end of the races. It sounds as if that did not work. Ms. Humphris said what she witnessed all happened before the races began. At one point in time, the students did not know about using 21-Curves (Route 601) as the way from town to Foxfield. (Note: Mr. Dorrier arrived at 9:11 a.m.) They have now discovered that route, so on her way home from the parade, she was able to sit in traffic and see damage as it occurred. She said there needs to be traffic control at the intersection of Old Garth Road and Barracks Road during the races. __________ Mr. Bowerman said he noticed that in the landscaping on Route 29 North, the trees which had died have been replaced. He asked if this was done by VDOT. Mr. Bryan said yes. Mr. Bowerman said he A@ May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) thinks it is good that the small trees which did not survive have been replaced. __________ Ms. Humphris said in the latest newsletter from VACO there is an article about VDOT's updating of the State-wide Intermodal Long Range Transportation Policy. The article states that the first workshop is scheduled for Charlottesville in May. She asked if this is an item scheduled for the next MPO meeting. Mr. Juan Wade said this was discussed at the last MPO Technical Committee meeting. He thinks the date of the meeting is May 17. He will find out the exact time and location of the meeting and pass that information on to the Board members. __________ Mr. Dorrier asked when the public hearing on Primary Road improvements is scheduled. Mr. Bryan responded that the hearing is tentatively scheduled for mid-July; the exact date has not been set. Mr. Dorrier said he wants to make sure that improvements to Route 20 are included in the list. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is currently updating the list of priorities for discussion at the June 6 Board meeting. _______________ Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Route 29 Corridor Development Study - Combined Phases II/III. Mr. Cilimberg said this study represents Phases II and III of a study of the entire Route 29 corridor in Virginia from Gainesville to the North Carolina border. Over the last two years various concepts have been developed by Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. as a consultant to VDOT. He and Ms. Thomas, as Technical Committee and Steering Committee representatives, respectively, have followed the study's progress and provided recommendations to the consultant and VDOT. The Board has already received a presentation regarding this study. Also, a public hearing was held at Red Hill Elementary School on January 18, 2001. Subsequently, on January 31, 2001, the County provided comments to VDOT regarding the study's preliminary recommendations. Mr. Cilimberg said the County's comments regarding this study have concerned the nature of improvements proposed in Albemarle County. In Albemarle the study proposes a parkway with at-grade intersections and direct access to Route 29 occurring at a limited number of intersecting primary or secondary roads. New direct access would be severely limited and generally provided via service roads or connections to other secondary roads. The Board previously stated that it did not believe that controlled access through elimination of all individual access points and an extensive system of service roads and signalized intersections should be assumed as necessary for Albemarle. Instead, the Board stated that coordination of land use planning and transportation system planning through specifically incorporating the access management recommendations of the Phase I Corridor Study into the planning for the Route 29 South corridor in Albemarle and throughout the study area was warranted. No such references have been included in the final recommendations for the study. Mr. Cilimberg said staff believes the comments previously provided to VDOT and the consultant are still valid and recommends that the Board endorse those comments in the form of a resolution to be sent to VDOT and the consultant by June 1, 2001. Comments would include: -The area along the Route 29 South Corridor is NOT in the County's Development area. Data developed by the consultant and verified by the County does NOT project significant development in this area of the County through the study period. Therefore, the County does NOT believe controlled access through elimination of all individual access points and an extensive system of service roads and signalized intersections should be assumed as necessary for Albemarle County. The County DOES support the coordination of land use planning and transportation system planning through specifically incorporating the access management recommendations of the Phase I Corridor Study into the planning for the Route 29 South corridor in Albemarle and throughout the study area. Albemarle County believes that access management planning is a logical and viable recommendation for the Route 29 corridor south of Charlottesville. Through proper planning that balances land use and transportation priorities in the particular sections of the corridor in the County, appropriate access management measures can be identified and pursued. -Use the "Parkway" design cross-section in Albemarle County, WITHOUT service roads and limited access which should NOT be used in Albemarle County. Under NO scenario should the "Freeway" design concept be used in Albemarle County. Furthermore, it is not anticipated that signalization of intersections will be necessary in Albemarle County, but in NO case is reservation for interchanges at any Albemarle County intersections necessary. -Remove the term "to extent practical" from any Comprehensive Plan references in the guidelines for developing alternatives. -Double-track rail line in corridor to provide increased capacity for freight and passenger service. May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) -Support one additional AMTRAK train per day along entire corridor as well as new Trans-Dominion Express service between Charlottesville and Lynchburg. Make sure that references to the Trans-Dominion Express reflect its current status. -Include a park and ride facility at the intersection of Routes 29 and 6 in the list of recommended facilities. This would replace the current informal parking that is occurring at this location. -Emphasize that transit and pedestrian improvements need to be coordinated and connected to make these alternatives successful in the corridor. -Include transit with ride-share for Internet match systems. Mr. Cilimberg said Ms. Thomas had suggested adding language on access management similar to the language used in the Route 29 North corridor. That language is: An access management plan should A be developed for the corridor in conjunction with the local jurisdiction who would then be responsible for its implementation. The AMP should address modifications to land use, as well as physical improvements throughout U.S. Route 29 and the development of other roadways. The AMP should recognize that local options and needs vary in the study corridor. He said this statement still seems to be relevant even though @ there has not been emphasis on the access management planning in the study area south of Albemarle. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Cilimberg had reminded her that all of the counties and jurisdictions from Charlottesville north agreed to an access management plan. Then, from Charlottesville south the whole study has taken a different approach and not talked about access management planning. This would actually be something positive to say. They thought the localities which do not want service roads all along Route 29, might feel that access management is something the localities should do. Communities to the north of Albemarle have taken advantage of this idea, and Greene County has already derived an access management plan. Rather than just saying no to major aspects of the Route 29 South corridor study, it A@ was Mr. Cilimbergs suggestion at the last MPO Policy Board meeting that the consultants add something = like this to the plan. Mr. Cilimberg said in that meeting it was also mentioned that the kind of improvements being called for in the corridor to the south are very expensive, and will probably not take place for decades. The current problems will continue in existence until time for those big projects. This would give something to deal with the current problems. Ms. Thomas said some residents in Covesville evidently met with the consultant and worked on ways to get some attention paid to their access problems. Ms. Humphris said the last public viewing of the plan omitted any traffic data to justify what was being recommended for Albemarle County. She thinks VDOT should always provide traffic data to justify their plan. When she asked Mr. Joe Springer why it was not presented, she did not get a meaningful answer. Ms. Thomas said when the consultant showed the different segments of the corridor on the charts, they say Existing interchanges would be upgraded to meet appropriate standards and/or to accommodate A projects travel demands. She said there is only one interchange in Albemarle, but there are many @ intersections. The improvements have all been rated as to how dangerous a situation is, but there is one that might need improvement as an intersection before the year 2030. She wondered if the word interchanges was used on purpose. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes it is a generic term. Ms. Thomas said A@ she noted that the word interchanges is followed by a 2" each time, referring to a footnote. She said there A@A needs to be a note from the County saying some intersections will need to be upgraded during the A@ planning period. That suggestion can be put into the motion. Ms. Thomas said there were some good proposals made for what are called non location specific A@ or corridor wide transportation recommendations. Because the County is famous for being negative in its A@ comments, she thought there could be a statement giving general support for these non location specific, corridor wide transportation recommendations, or just a couple of them. For example, subsidies for constructing rail sidings, comprehensive signing for traveler services, and some intelligent transportation system technologies to help isolate the rural intersections and make them safer, would be worth expressing extra support for. Because she harped on the railroad aspects of having alternatives to getting freight on trucks, the consultant added some comments about railroad issues that she personally thinks will help reduce truck traffic on some big highways. Mr. Perkins there is a statement which says Provide subsidies to AMTRAK. He asked who would A@ provide the subsidy. Ms. Thomas said the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) is in the business of assisting rail as well as public transportation, but the Federal government and the General Assembly give them the money. Mr. Tucker asked if Mr. Perkins was suggesting that this be indicated in case someone assumes the localities would provide the subsidy. Mr. Perkins said when the reports mentions double-tracking the rail line, whose responsibility would that be? If the railroads do not A@ want to do that, they dont have to do it, but maybe they would be willing if there were a massive subsidy. = Ms. Thomas said VDRPT studies this sort of thing because they mentioned studying a rail line along I-81 and the impact it would have on truck traffic on that road. If they study this, they feel they have some ability to affect the outcome. It certainly is a different playing field because the rail lines are privately owned. May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) Ms. Thomas said Mr. Cilimberg will take comments from todays meeting and put them in = resolution form, which can come back on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Cilimberg said that would include the three sentences from the Route 29 North Corridor Study regarding the Access Management Plan, to note the upgrade of certain intersections in Albemarle County that might be necessary for safety purposes, recognize the corridor-wide transportation recommendations, and the addition of the points marked with bullets in the staffs report, and possibly emphasize certain points from page 15 of that report. = Ms. Humphris asked if that is the way Ms. Thomas thought this matter should be handled, and should there be extra support given to the recommendations on page 15. Ms. Thomas said the Board could do both. The Board might say it appreciated the non-location specific transportation recommendations and then single out a few of them. The bottom two bullets and the first bullet are the three she would recommend. Ride-sharing can also be emphasized. She does not disagree with anything in the report. Mr. Dorrier asked if this includes the parallel roads proposed by VDOT. Ms. Humphris said no. A@ These are separate issues having more to do with pedestrians, multi-modal, and rail. Mr. Bowerman asked to whom the resolution is addressed. Mr. Cilimberg said the consultant has asked that the resolution be forwarded to them for inclusion in their final packet. Ms. Thomas suggested it be forwarded to the Countys representative on the CTB and the Resident Highway Engineer. = Mr. Dorrier said the Resident Engineer and other representatives of VDOT came before the Board last Spring and outlined their plans for the whole corridor and requested the Boards comments. He asked = if anything has changed since then. Ms. Thomas said they changed the answer to the question Do these A plans fit with the County Comprehensive Plan from a yes to a no. They were not responsive so she @A@A@ took them to task. Mr. Cilimberg asked if the emphasis to be placed on Page 15 is to generally state support for all of the recommendations. Ms. Humphris said she thinks general support is sufficient. No one point is more appealing than any other. Ms. Thomas said it should be strong general support. _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. School Board Presentation. Mr. Charles Ward, Chairman of the School Board, said the School Board would like to thank the Supervisors for their support on the very difficult FY 2001-2002 budget year. They understand that the $1.5 million of one-time funds will be used for such items as purchase of buses and textbooks. He said that about 13 years ago, there were over 100 buses purchased, so they have to replace some 20 buses each year. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is a way to spread these replacements over a longer period of time in order to have a more uniform number each year. Mr. Ward said Mr. Willie Smith uses a chart to determine how to do this, but when it is time to have them replaced, it is hard to get past that point. Dr. Castner said the recommended replacement time is about ten years. The County is up to 12 years. Mr. Bowerman asked if it is at all connected to mileage of the vehicle. Dr. Castner said the cost effectiveness of a bus is at a break even point at ten years. Their Maintenance Department has been supported in such a way that the buses have been operating at least two more years. In 1989-90 there was a crisis situation in that the County had not kept up with replacing buses, so it was a safety issue. The bubble has been modified somewhat because the life of the buses A@ has been extended beyond the tenth year. He said that because of the computerized system used, the fleet of buses has been reduced by five or six. One controversial issue is that they double-run buses, and some people think this causes the middle schools to be closed too late in the afternoon, and the elementary schools too early. Mr. Bowerman said one way to lessen the number of buses needing to be replaced in one year is to actually run the buses on longer routes so they would have to be replaced sooner. Buses might then become due in eight years instead of ten. Mr. Ward said there is a possibility that analysis has already been done. He will ask Mr. Smith about that question again. Dr. Castner said he had thought about that idea. Mr. Martin said he was a member of the School Board when the bubble was approved. All of the A@ things they put into place to make sure there was not a bubble ten years later, and everything the Maintenance Department has done to extend the life of the buses, has recreated the new bubble. Mr. Ward said they do progressive maintenance, and it allows the life of the buses to be extended. Mr. Martin said he thinks Albemarle County has a very efficient transportation system. He said a lot of school systems do not even pay attention to things which Albemarle now has down to a science. Mr. Ward said the Baker-Butler school bids came in $1.2 million over the estimate. The project has been rebid and the bid opening is in two weeks. Hopefully, the bid will be at a cost so that construction can begin. Land clearing has already begun. Mr. Ward said the School Divisions calendar for School Year 2001-02 has been finalized. School = will begin on August 27, and there will be no school on Memorial Day in 2002. If all goes well, school will finish on June 7. He said the committee is looking at the idea of having a consistent time for Spring Break beginning in 2003. It has been a floating holiday, so it has to be gauged against other activities. Mr. Ward said there is another AIMR rental contract for Monticello High School. The contract is projected to bring in $300,000 which will help with the budget. Redistricting for the Baker-Butler Elementary May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) School has begun. They hope to have a final decision by May 24. It is going well in terms of getting information. Mr. Ward said Ms. Tiffany Seay has been employed as the new Deputy Clerk for the School Board. She replaces Mrs. Johnston, who is now the School Boards Clerk. = As to personnel assignments, Mr. Keith Hammon will go from Woodbrook to Baker-Butler as its principal. This will not start until the second semester because there was not sufficient funding to start in the first semester. Ms. Debbie Collins from Red Hill and Mr. Mack Tate from Yancey are switching assignments. Mr. Jim Jones will become principal at Scottsville Elementary. Mr. Ward said this phase of the budgeting process has ended. However, the School Board would like to work with the Supervisors to review budget cycle time lines. There was a real time crunch this year, and if there is anyway to allow more time to get feedback from the community, they would like to do so. Mr. Dorrier said there was nothing in the report about the trips student took abroad during their Spring Break. His daughter went to France and England and it was a very successful tour. From what he has heard, all of the trips were both safe and educational and a great benefit to the students. He thinks this type of activity should be promoted. Ms. Thomas said when the Board discussed the Baker-Butler site plan, there was a vague promise given that the stream would be given more protection, if it was possible. She asked whether that was possible. Mr. Ward said he would have Mr. Reaser make a report to the Board. He does not know what was decided. Ms. Thomas said she noticed from Mr. Bakers comments that there was a recruitment document = used in the various teacher recruitment fairs. She would like to see a copy of that document. Mr. Ward said that Dr. Jones and Mr. Baker recruited in up-state New York, and apparently came back with quite a few signed contracts. Ms. Thomas said she is also interested in what the School Board is doing about retention issues, other than the monetary things which have been talked about. Dr. Castner said they will formalize an exit survey this year. Three years ago at this time of the year, they had hired five teachers. This year they have already hired about 75 teachers. They began this process last December, and that aggressiveness has helped. The other school systems are doing the same thing. It is not just a salary issue anymore, but also getting out to the various locations on different time cycles. Mr. Dorrier asked if there will be a lot of turnover in employment this year. Dr. Castner said there is a larger percentage than in previous years. Mr. Bowerman asked if the number includes retirements. Dr. Castner said the number does include retirements. He said a lot of people say they are considering retiring, but do not finalize. They anticipate two to three percent more people leaving the system than a few years ago. Mr. Ward said the School System has been doing an informal exit survey, but hopes to formalize it this next year. Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Ward for his report. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8. James River Tributary Strategy Implementation Plan Development, Piedmont Region of the James River Basin, Status of by Doug Moseley, AMEC. Mr. Moseley said he works for a company called AMEC Earth & Environmental. They were retained by a Regional Steering Committee for the Piedmont Region of the James River Basin to assist with the development of an implementation plan for the James River tributary strategy process. First, he will talk about the roundtable process which has been in place for about one year. He said that in previous efforts, the entire basin was studied all at one time. It is a very large area, so this time the basin has been divided into three parts, Upper, Piedmont and Lower. The Piedmont region is the largest of the three and is comprised of 22 counties and six cities in the heart of Virginia. It includes eleven Soil & Water Conservation Districts (SWCD). The Steering Committee is made up of representatives from each of the eleven SWCD Districts. He mentioned that Ms. Allyson Sappington from the Thomas Jefferson SWCD is present this morning, as well as staff members from the Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation which handles the States non-point source water quality programming. = Mr. Moseley said each of the Roundtables is seeking input on the process of developing the implementation plan. That includes presentations to local elected boards and soil and water districts, and workshops with local officials. Direct citizen input will also be solicited. The Roundtable itself will be held June 23 at Hampton-Sydney College in Farmville. It will be the second in a series of citizen roundtables where they can discuss nutrient management studies, sediment control, and ways to make surface water cleaner in Virginia and in the James River Basin, in particular. All of this will lead to development of an implementation plan by the stakeholders in the region. It is hoped that this will generate a grassroots swell of support, rather than a top-down regulatory approach. He said the tributary process is a voluntary process. It has a 10-year planning period through the year 2010. It is attempting to address the nutrient and sediment reduction goals from a voluntary standpoint. Mr. Moseley said Albemarle County lies almost entirely in the James River Basin. It has 455,243 acres in that basin, which is about 13 percent of the Piedmont Regions James River drainage. He said the = James River follows along the southern border of Albemarle briefly, with the major drainage basins coming May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) from the Rivanna and the Hardware Rivers. The Rockfish River comes in from Nelson and all flow into the James River downstream. There are also several major tributaries to the James in Albemarle. Mr. Moseley said goals have been established for this process. In August of 2000 the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation released the nutrient and sediment reduction goals that had been formulated by EPA modeling, and by input from a technical review committee which met for the prior two years to establish what the reduction goals should be. Based on that, a baseline year of 1985 was established as a year at which nutrient and sediment levels were high enough that they could be used as a benchmark for the reduction to follow. By the year 2010, this process seeks a 32 percent reduction in Nitrogen loading from 1985 levels, and a 39 percent reduction in Phosphorus loading from 1985 levels for areas that drain to the tidal fresh portion of the James River. He said these are modeled numbers which may be subject to change. Also, by 2010 the goal is a nine percent reduction in sediment loading from 1985 levels for the entire James River Basin, including down to Hampton Roads. Mr. Moseley said basin-wide, that equates to a reduction of approximately 13.2 million pounds of Nitrogen, to 2.4 million pounds of Phosphorus, and to 181,900 tons of sediment per year to the year 2010. These are aggressive goals. He said the sediment goal is based on full voluntary implementation of sediment controlling BMPs in the entire basin. Over the planning period between now and 2010, the goals are subject to change for several reasons. One, the modeling which was released by EPA over-predicts sediment loading for the James River Basin because 1985 was a very high sediment year. There was a major hurricane remnant which went through the Upper Basin and discharged a tremendous amount of flow. He said the recent signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, may also alter these goals. It is an agreement signed by each of the governors of the Bay-draining states. It looks to create in-point values for nutrient and sediment loading to all the bay basin tributaries and address water quality on more of a living resource basis and not simply on nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment, which are the three targets in the James River Strategy. Between now and 2010, there will be Total Maximum Daily Load, TMDL Plans, developed through Virginia State agencies to address more pollutants than the three mentioned in surface water receiving channels. They are being developed on a case-by-case basis throughout the State. There are over 400 to be done and they will have an impact on surface water quality. Mr. Moseley said Albemarle County is proactive when it comes to water quality. There will be integration of water quality programming since Albemarle already has a watershed-based management protocol in place. There are other water quality rules which are forthcoming and which will be regulatory. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II is EPAs second phase of their = stormwater quality regulations which came about because of the Clean Water Act. Final rules were established for that in December, 1999. Albemarle County is on the list of named communities in Virginia to address NPDES Phase II by March 10, 2003, when the States general permit will be issued from DEQ. = Land use and comprehensive planning play a role as to non-structural BMPs concerned in water quality. = That is something Albemarle has already addressed. He said the TMDL process will have a say in this process also. It is a regulatory process propagated by EPA, it is not a voluntary process. What the tributary strategy process basically does is to allow participating communities an opportunity to try out the water quality program and get a head start on what is coming regulatory-wise. Mr. Bowerman asked the definition of stream capping. Mr. Moseley said it is a total maximum A@ load plan and basically develops the maximum amount of pollutants any receiving channel can take in its drainage area. For rapidly developing areas it will necessitate more on-site controls for stormwater. It will also force communities to look at water quality from a standpoint of parts per million, whereby the present water quality protocols do not all call for this. Mr. Bowerman said Albemarle now uses stormwater management runoff controls. He asked if that will change. Mr. Moseley said in Albemarle County there are TMDLs which need to be developed for both the North Fork and the South Fork of the Rivanna River, for the part of Moores Creek which is in the County, and the Rivanna River downstream from the City of Charlottesville. Depending on the load amounts which are recognized in the planning process, the State may have to shift the standards to be compliant with the EPA. If that is the case, it is possible the State standards will shift. The planning process for the TMDLs in the Rivanna River are a long way off in the future because the plan is not due until 2010. The Moores Creek plan is due in 2002. That schedule is subject to change based on funding. Ms. Thomas said since Albemarle had already put some stormwater erosion controls in place by 1985, will Albemarle have a higher goal to meet than other communities? Mr. Moseley said the goals are basin-wide. The process does not try to single out any one communitys contribution to pollutant levels. = The fact that Albemarle has been more proactive means Albemarle is carrying the torch for others to follow in this process. He does not believe there will be any higher threshold the County will need to seek based on the goals which have been established in the tributary strategy process. Mr. Moseley said public education tools in water quality are essential. They have found that many counties have a lot of tools available, either through a SWCD office, local staff, or local expertise, but in this effort they are trying to familiarize the citizens with available resources. One thing they will do at the Roundtable in June is put on display all of the materials available free of cost from various entities. He said implementation of on-site Best Management Practices (BMP) is the path which will be followed on the trip strategy side to meet the goals which have been established. These can be structural or non-structural, and include agricultural BMPs like farm pollution prevention plans. It could be plans for detention facilities where needed or fertilizer application for yards. He said there is a need for implementation mechanisms. Funding for the tributary strategy process is fairly limited, but there are other funding mechanisms available to serve the ends of the tributary strategy process. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program is a lease program for landowners to buffer streams on their property. They can get rent payments on the land May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) they take out of production in order to plant stream buffers. There is an Ag-Cost Share process that works through the Department of Conservation and Recreation. There is Section 319 (Water Quality) funding, although it will be directed toward development of TMDL plans, so funding is scarce. Mr. Moseley said there is a need for volunteers. There are many people who would be willing to participate in this effort if they knew about it. One of their biggest job is to solicit as much participation in the process as possible. All of this is being done to try and get the James River fishable and swimmable again. Right now, according to the EPA and the State, it is not fishable or swimmable in its entirety. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Dorrier said he heard that the James River is the longest river lying in just one state. He asked if that is correct. Mr. Moseley said east of the Mississippi that is true, but he is not sure about the rest of the nation. It does run almost 450 miles from upstream all the way through Virginia. Mr. Bowerman asked if the meeting held about a year ago at the Department of Forestry was a part of this study. Mr. Moseley said he is not sure. One of the things they have found is that the Department of Forestry does need to be a part of this effort. They will be at the Roundtable in June. Several constituents of the tributary have said logging practices are of concern, particularly in the matter of sediment control. There are BMPs that address logging concerns, but no one seems to know the role of the Department of Forestry, or their authority as far as permitting is concerned. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the meetings last year were part of the process that established the goals. The meetings just happened to be held at the Department of Forestry building, and were not held in relation to that department. She did attend several of those meetings. Mr. Bowerman said there were a lot of representatives from different state agencies and local officials in attendance. Mr. Perkins said the Forestry Department does not have a permitting process, but they do have BMPs which allow them to stop a logging job when they find a violation of those BMPs. He read comments from some of the Roundtable discussions, and people expressed concern about forestry because of its visibility. He said that probably less than five percent of sedimentation comes from logging. He and Ms. Thomas attended a meeting yesterday, and one of the speakers talked about an important part of this being forest cover. He talked about the amount of nitrogen which a forest ties up. It was 14 pounds which was released from agricultural land, urban lands, etc., whereas it was only two pounds coming from forested land. Mr. Moseley said the point about forestry is well taken. It is visible. Also, when logging operations get out to a paved road, and there is mud all over the road and mud running down the side of the street, people begin to ask questions. Their impression so far is that while the Forestry Department does have some authority, they may not have the resources to check all sites all of the time. They do it only on a complaint basis. Mr. Perkins said the Forestry Department does respond to complaints, but for every logging job they are supposed to do a final inspection. The landowner and the logger are supposed to receive a copy of that final inspection report on any job which involves more than five acres. Mr. Dorrier asked if this presentation will be given to the Council of the Town of Scottsville. Mr. Moseley said not at this time. Their goal is to reach each of the 22 counties and six cities in the region and to brief them on this effort. They are in the process of meeting with the first few jurisdictions, and Albemarle County is the third of these presentations. Mr. Dorrier said the Town of Scottsville plays a major part in the Bateau Festival. They are very interested in the James River. Ms. Thomas suggested that the Town be put on the invitation list. Mr. Moseley said several members of Scottsville community organizations attended their Roundtable last September. He knows there are several entities which are active and concerned with the quality of the River. Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Moseley for the report. _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. Response to Audit Committee Recommendations. Mr. Tucker said that on December 6, 2000, the Audit Committee presented a report to the Board titled "Recommendations regarding the Annual Budget and Audit Processes." The Audit Committee, consisting of Mr. Walter Perkins, Mr. Lindsay Dorrier and Mr. Ken Boyd, prepared this report which contained ten recommendations in anticipation of increased budget complexity and the need they saw for the Board of Supervisors and the School Board to have a clearer understanding of the budget process and financial information. The Committee requested that the Board of Supervisors approve their recommendations, but the Board of Supervisors requested a staff report on the recommendations prior to taking any action on the report. Since that time, staff has carefully reviewed the Committee's ten recommendations and conducted extensive research concerning the auditing functions in local government. Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said she will mention staffs response to the = recommendations presented. Then, Ms. Lori Spencer and Ms. Kate Bullard, will make a presentation concerning the major recommendation for an internal auditor. May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) Audit Committee's Recommendation No 1. The Board of Supervisors and School Board should . receive year-end reconciliation reports by October 31 of each year Ms. White said staff has historically presented a preliminary end-of-the-year report to the Board of Supervisors at the end of September or early October. In 2000, the first preliminary review of year-end projected expenditures and revenues went to the Board of Supervisors on September 20. This is not the official external auditor's report, but it does provide a preliminary overview of revenues and expenditures for the prior year, as well as an approximate estimate of the year-end carry-over or Fund Balance. The official external audit is usually not completed until the end of November and it would be difficult to push that schedule forward. The Countys books close on August 15, or 45 days after the close of the fiscal year, = with final reconciliation for the auditor completed by mid-September. Once the auditors begin their review, it takes from 45 to 60 days to complete their findings, which is early to mid-November at the earliest. Ms. White said staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors and School Board continue to receive preliminary end-of-the-year reports by early October and the official external audit in November at the earliest. Audit Committee's Recommendation No. 2. The Board of Supervisors and School Board should receive quarterly financial reports at the Board of Supervisors first Wednesday meeting in November, = February, May and August. They should also be available to the School Board. These reports should . include bar graphs to enable the boards to make comparisons and analyze trends Ms. White said the Board of Supervisors has already approved a new quarterly financial report to be presented to them in the month following the quarterly closing of accounts, i.e., October books close mid-November with the financial report being presented at the December day meeting. Charts and graphs will be included, as requested. The new quarterly financial report is available to the School Board, although the School Board receives a separate School Fund financial report prepared by their financial office in a different format. Ms. White said staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors continue to receive quarterly financial reports in the new format and the School Board continue to receive a separate financial report prepared by their financial office and in a format suitable to the School Board. Audit Committee's Recommendation No. 3. The County should develop an Equipment, . Replacement, and Maintenance Category or Budget Ms. White said separating the County's capital equipment, replacement and maintenance items into a separate fund has been discussed by the CIP Technical Team. Currently, all on-going maintenance/repair/replacement items are shown as a one line item allocation within each functional area of the Capital Improvement Program, i.e., County Office Building and Court Square maintenance and repair projects are in a single maintenance line-item within the CIP Administrative function, all Parks and Recreation maintenance/repair items are in one line-item in the Parks/Recreation functional area, libraries, etc. Therefore, total repair/maintenance/replacement costs can be planned, tracked and reported in both the General Government and the School Division five-year CIP period even though they are not in separate funds. Separating all of the equipment/repair/maintenance projects into a separate fund could be done easily, although the Committee questions whether the separation would truly bring more accountability or just more accounting work. If the purpose of separating out equipment, replacement and maintenance, is to increase funding by allocating a specific amount to this fund each year in the same manner as has been done for the Capital Fund, then there would be more reason to set up these separate funds for both the School Division and General Government. However, simply setting up a separate accounting fund will not provide any additional funding for equipment, replacement and maintenance at this point unless committed funds are diverted from the CIP. Ms. White said because there are both pros and cons to establishing such a fund, staff would like to pursue the specifics of an equipment replacement and maintenance fund with the financial advisors and bring back a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors in July, 2001. Audit Committee's Recommendation No. 4. The County should develop a formal process for . dealing with annual surpluses Ms. White said staff agrees with the recommendation that guidelines be developed for allocating end-of-the year surplus revenues and expenditure savings. Other localities have developed such carry-over guidelines which allow departments to recapture a certain percentage of their savings, as the School Division does, direct a specific percentage of the carry-over to the capital program, reserve a portion for innovations, or fund needed one-time capital or replacement equipment, as is currently done in Albemarle. However, these guidelines must provide the Board of Supervisors with the flexibility to address any critical issues or unforeseen emergency needs in any given year. Ms. White said although the majority of the "projected end-of-the-year surplus" was allocated during FY02 budget work sessions, staff plans to bring proposed carry-over guidelines to == the Board of Supervisors in July after discussion with the financial advisors. Audit Committee's Recommendation No. 5. The County should have a policy which guides the Board of Supervisors and the School Board in decisions regarding future land acquisition. The County . should develop specific criteria which govern every land purchase May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) Ms. White said staff's research indicates that audit committees typically do not play a role in advising their boards of supervisors on the development of financial policies of this nature. Land purchase decisions are policy decisions made by boards of supervisors, usually in conjunction with approved capital improvement programs, and include land costs for schools and other public facilities. Outside of the approved CIP, boards must retain the flexibility to take advantage of a land purchase when, in their judgment, that land purchase is in the county's best future interests. Ms. White said should the Board of Supervisors desire the development of a land acquisition policy, staff will assist, as directed. Mr. Martin said he would like to discuss this recommendation. He does not want such a policy. Ms. Humphris said that every situation is totally different and she does not think rigid criteria could be applied. Ms. White said the majority of land purchases will be programmed in the CIP. Most will be for school purposes. Mr. Tucker said that sometimes there is the opportunity to buy land and there is a need to move quickly. Ms. Humphris said the Board has never had a problem knowing whether that land would meet County needs or not. Mr. Dorrier said one of the issues was how much land the County should stockpile and hold. Mr. Perkins said the reason for the recommendation had to do with two purchases of land. He feels there is a need for a policy so the Board can strike when the iron is hot. He thinks the School Board had a concern A@ about the Board buying this land. The School Board was not sure it was a good location for a school. He thinks it is up to the Board of Supervisors to decide where a school is built because of its responsibility in making land use decisions. Mr. Tucker said the School Board also criticized the Board of Supervisors because it had not land-banked any land for schools. He does not think it was the entire School Board which voiced dissent over one piece of property the Board bought. That does not mean there should be no guidelines. Mr. Perkins said this should probably fit in with any proffers that come with rezonings. Mr. Bowerman said he would want to be flexible enough to be pragmatic. There might be an opportunity at some point to purchase a property for reasons which are economic. He does not want to be restricted from good public policy because of something which cannot be foreseen. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks it would help if every time land is purchased, the reason is stated. Mr. Martin said if it takes a vote, he would suggest that this suggestion be dropped. Ms. Thomas said a vote can be taken at the end of this presentation, but she gets a consensus that this recommendation not be included in the motion. Audit Committee's Recommendation No. 6. The County should develop a formal, written . investment strategy, approved by the Board of Supervisors for tax fund reserves Ms. White said the County has three written investment policies included in the 1994 approved Financial Management Policies. The County invests all of its available funds, including any dedicated reserve amounts, in the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP), which is managed by the State Treasurer's Office. It, in turn, contracts with several private investment firms to invest the pooled funds from localities across the state. With such a large investment pool, the funds are invested in a blend of low to moderate risk investments, which are governed by State Code investment guidelines. The County is charged eight basis points as an annual administrative fee, deducted from daily earnings. To date, the rate of return has been competitive, if not better than other indexes. In comparing LGIP with 475 other institutional money market funds, the LGIP fourth quarter earnings averaged 6.61 percent compared to the average for other institutional money market funds at 6.14 percent. Funds are rolled over on a daily basis and there are no penalties for withdrawal, thereby insuring that the County has investment liquidity, as well as a competitive return. The LGIP follows State Code guidelines related to investments. Ms. White said staff recommends that the County continue to adhere to the investment policies established in 1994. Ms. Thomas said she looked into this several years ago when Orange County, California, was in the news, and she was quite satisfied by what she learned. Mr. Perkins said this recommendation was made because the Audit Committee was not familiar with the Countys investment policies. He thinks the Board members need to be reminded about what = these policies are. Audit Committee's Recommendation No. 7. The County should provide all financial reports to the County Auditor and the Auditor should be available to the Audit Committee on a regular basis to help . provide on-going independent analysis of the financial data in the budget Ms. White said all financial reports are available to the County Auditor. The County Auditor can be contracted to provide additional financial/budgetary analysis to the Audit Committee or to staff on a regular basis, although the additional time will cost money. If the Countys Auditor is == contracted to provide on-going analysis, the specific task or charge should be clearly defined prior to contracting for that service. Audit Committees Recommendation No. 8. The Board of Supervisors should hire an internal = May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) auditor or contract with an auditing firm, which reports to the Board of Supervisors, through the Audit . Committee Ms. White said staff will give a report on this item in a few minutes. Audit Committees Recommendation No. 9. The Audit Committee should be increased in size from = three members to five members. The two new members should be citizen members, experienced in . finance, management and government Ms. White said that according to research, the primary responsibility of audit committees is to oversee the independent audit of the government's financial statements, from the selection of the independent auditor to the resolution of audit findings. Audit committees have also traditionally reviewed internal control structures, financial reporting requirements and compliance with all laws and regulations. As such, members of the audit committee should collectively possess "experience and expertise in accounting, auditing and financial reporting". According to the research, these committees should contain at least one representative each from the legislative and executive branches of the government. The County's Audit Committee was formed in 1984 by the Board of Supervisors Chairman to address and = oversee the problems pointed out in the FY83 Auditor's Management Letter. Since that time, the Audit = Committee has consisted of two members from the Board of Supervisors until a third member from the School Board was added in the current year at the School Board's request. Although the Audit Committee's charge was not clearly specified or documented at the time it was created, the County's 1994 Financial Policies state that "the County will maintain an Audit Committee comprised of the County Executive or his designee, the Director of Finance and two members of the Board of Supervisors. The committee's responsibility will be to review the financial statements and results of the independent audit and to communicate those results to the Board of Supervisors." Some governments include citizens on their audit committees to enable the committee to have persons with financial expertise that might not be available from board of supervisor members. Additionally, some Virginia localities include citizens on "financial oversight" or "budget review" committees, although these committees have a much broader scope of responsibility than the standard audit committee. Ms. White said staff recommends that a charter, which clearly outlines the mission, responsibilities and composition of the Audit Committee be developed and approved by the Board of Supervisors. If the scope of the Audit Committee is to be expanded to be more of a citizen budget or financial oversight committee, then the Committee's objectives should be clearly defined prior to deciding on the appropriate mix of board members, citizens and staff. Also, if a School Board member is to remain a permanent member of the County's Audit Committee, then the County's Financial Policies should be amended to reflect that addition. Ms. Thomas said an Audit Committee was formed in 1984 in response to particular concerns. Ms. White said those concerns were in the Auditors Management letter. Mr. Dorrier said that now there is an = association of audit committees, which includes a handbook. It has become much more formalized. Ms. White agreed. Mr. Dorrier said having a school board member on the Committee is helpful. Ms. Humphris said she thinks that any School Board member on the Committee is the citizen member because the Board of Supervisors is responsible for all fiscal policies. Mr. Bowerman asked if that is not a stretch. Ms. Humphris said she does not think so. She sees the whole purpose of having any A@ auditor or audit committee as simply seeing that the Boards policies are carried out, not to change policies. = Mr. Martin said he does not want to question anyones motive, but the Board of Supervisors makes = the policies, and he does not want to establish either a subcommittee or a committee which ends up making policy. Mr. Dorrier said in talking about the School Board, he did not realize there was a different procedure for dealing with the finances for the Schools versus the Board of Supervisors. The School Board actually deals with 80 percent of the Countys money, but they have a different way of handling that money = and come away with different results than those of the Board. He would not have found that out if there was not a School Board member sitting on the Audit Committee. That was one advantage of the process. Mr. Martin said he understands that, but it seems to him that this was kind of a set up. He thinks it A@ is an attempt to get authority where none exists now, or to get it without having to go by way of the voters or by way of the School Board or the Board of Supervisors. He does not think either Mr. Dorrier or Mr. Perkins come from that point of view, but he thinks that is where this is coming from. If there is going to be an audit committee like this, he agrees with staff that the Board of Supervisors clearly has to define its purpose. What was formed in 1985 was done so to deal with a certain set of issues. If the next external audit shows there are problems, then that is when the committee would see that the problems are fixed. This seems to be setting up a committee that will extend way beyond what the original committee was set up to do. Mr. Perkins said there are always findings in the Auditors report. He thinks it is the job of the Audit = Committee to take those findings and fix them. When they asked the School Board member for certain information, they were informed that it was not available, but Mr. Breeden said it was available. They were getting conflicting information. As far as adding two other members, they were thinking about a member from the Chamber of Commerce and Mr. Bob DeVoursney (with the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service). He does not think that is a good idea. He thinks the Audit Committee should be able to go to people in the community to ask for their input because it is public money. He thinks the public needs to be involved. May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) Mr. Bowerman said the Board involves people from different agencies when the budget is formulated. Mr. Perkins said that last year the Chamber had representatives at all the budget hearings. This year, they were not present. Sometimes if you ask, people will help. Mr. Bowerman said if a School Board representative or a member of the Board of Supervisors questions some aspect of the budget process, or wants information, they are free to obtain that information and explore that to any degree they want. He agrees with Mr. Martin that it should not be used as a potential overturning of something that has been decided by a majority vote. It does not have anything to do with whether the money is being spent appropriately, or needs are being met. It has to do with personal agendas. Mr. Perkins said the Audit Committee only has the power given to it by this Board, and can only bring recommendations to this Board which can be accepted or not. Mr. Martin said there has been an Audit Committee since 1985. That Committee met, and did a great job. There has not been a need for another meeting. Now, all of a sudden, there is need for a meeting which has nothing to do with the original charge to the Committee. Then, out of that meeting comes all of these recommendations about an audit committee which would have power the original committee did not have. He asked Mr. Dorrier if he was not suspicious. The Committee was put together in 1985, and never met since 1985. Mr. Perkins said it did meet when it was needed. Mr. Tucker said the Committee met each year when the audit was being developed and submitted. Ms. Humphris said when Mr. Rick Bowie was a member it met to do its designated job. She said that in December when the Board first received this report, the Board asked what the identified problem was. Mr. Perkins said the Committee and the staff both looked at that, and the Board is receiving better financial reports now in a more readable form. Progress has been made. Mr. Dorrier said the reasons there are more recommendations is that he and Mr. Ken Boyd were new members of both Boards, so they saw some needs and put them in the report. He thinks a lot of those recommendations were agreed to by all three members. They were not trying to give the Audit Committee more power. Ms. Humphris said if the Board ends up with better staff work through an expanded staff that can give all the information the Board requires to make its policy decisions, then this report has served a good purpose. It is possible there is more staffing needed in the budget department. Mr. Bowerman said the Board is getting new quarterly reports based on its concern about readability, and wanting something that was more understandable by the Board and the public. Staff did that independent of any Audit Committee recommendation. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board needs to go to the next recommendation at this time. She asked to put the question of an expanded Audit Committee on hold for a few minutes, and talk about the Audit Committees Recommendation No. 8, The Board of Supervisors should hire an internal auditor or =A contract with an auditing firm which reports to the Board of Supervisors through the Audit Committee. @ Ms. Lori Spencer, Executive Assistant, said this firm or auditor would look for inefficiencies in government. Staff researched literature from the Local Government Financial Officers Association and the = National Association of Auditors, examined local policies, and surveyed ten Virginia counties who were felt to be similar to Albemarle. Their research showed components of auditing called pre-audits which are audits conducted before payment of claims. There are post-audits, which deal with management and operation functions in addition. Objectivity and independence is a key to auditing. Ms. Spencer said there are four types of post-audits. There is the financial compliance audit, there is an economy and efficiency audit, there is program results auditing, and there is performance auditing (which has become a trend over the last 15 years in local governments). Performance auditing is part of a continuous improvement cycle where plans, operations and goals are set, and the auditing function helps to be sure performance and outcomes happen. This improves service delivery and helps to save costs in order to improve accountability in government. Ms. Spencer said Albemarle County, today, does pre-auditing. Bills are reviewed in individual departments. The Accounting/Payroll Department monitors expenditures and revenues, and maintains ledgers and documents which are used by the external auditors, Robinson Farmer Cox and Associates. The budget staff and executive assistants provide analyses and special projects. There is a mid-year budget review conducted by the Budget Office. Ms. Spencer said as to program results, there is the Quality Improvement Program (QUIP). Recently there was a Performance Improvement Coordinator position added. This person is to review and help to improve processes by assisting departments to better utilize problem-solving tools and performance measures, coordinate the Countys strategic planning efforts and assist with the quality improvement = (STRAND) employee training program. However, in looking at performance auditing/management, there is no particular unit coordinating this. Ms. Katie Bullard, Management Analyst, said staff conducted a survey of ten Virginia counties. Counties were chosen based on population, budget size, and/or growth patterns similar to those of Albemarle. The aim of the study was to understand methods used by each county to deal with internal auditing functions of performance evaluation, measuring cost efficiencies, and identifying irregularities and waste within departments. For many of the counties, these functions were performed outside of an internal auditing department and within a budget office. Only four of the counties currently have internal auditors. May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) None of these auditors report directly to the governing body. Two report directly to their director of finance and two report to the administrator. The four audit offices assist with the external audit of the independent auditor. In addition, they advise and consult with management for departmental improvements in operating efficiencies. They also audit special projects as needed. They followed up on prior audits to be sure any recommendations made had been implemented. Ms. Bullard said key to all of this is that there was some sort of performance management system in place. There was continuous monitoring of expenditures throughout departments. There was the setting of performance indicators and putting those either in the budget or the strategic plan. There was some way to have either an expanded budget office or finance office doing a lot of this throughout the year assisting the internal auditor. Ms. Thomas asked who sets the performance indicators. Ms. Bullard said for the most part, they came from the budget office. The difference was that in some counties the budget office is a part of the finance office, and in others the budget office is a part of the administrators office. She then showed a = chart indicating the relationship between the size of a budget and the internal auditor (on file). Counties with internal auditors had an average population of 199,748. However, Hanover County, with a population of 86,320 was the smallest county with an internal auditor. Ms. Bullard said since so few of the counties surveyed had internal auditors, staff looked at budget offices to see how they performed auditing functions. They found that 50 percent of the budget offices were housed in the finance department, 40 percent were housed in the administrators office, while the other 10 = percent had a completely separate office of management/budget and reported directly to a director of management services. Seven of the ten budget offices had a role in budget management/ strategic planning and highly visible performance measures. Some of these offices were not as successful as they could be. The most successful were the ones who integrated performance indicators into their budget, their strategic plan, and monitored those. Most were able to do this because they had a large staff. The median ratio of budget staff to residents was about one and one-half times that of Albemarle County. Many counties choose to have their budget offices perform audit-related functions. Ms. Spencer said that in summary, audits should be conducted as independently and objectively as possible. Staff found that there is a national trend toward performance auditing/management. Albemarle County does not, at this time, have the budget size, population, or a comprehensive performance management system in place, equal to the counties which have employed an internal auditor. Staff found that all the audit offices, when they did have an internal auditing function, reported to the administrator and not to the board of supervisors. Seven of the ten counties surveyed who had budget offices, did more than just put together the annual budget. They linked performance and planning within the budget so they tied their performance to resources. They performed audit-related functions, pieces of the audit which internal auditors might be doing in the larger counties. Ms. Spencer said staff has drafted a list of potential options. Things can continue as at present. A lot of audit-related functions are going on in Albemarle County. An internal auditor could be hired, but staff does not believe Albemarle is in a position, size-wise, to do that. A third option could be to expand the performance/management program. If the Supervisors chose to do that, it could be done through expanded functions of the Budget Office and the office called Office of Management and Budget. If it A@ were an OMB office, they could establish performance measures and try to link them to planning functions. They could also work to find alternatives to cost efficiency. They could communicate results to citizens. Staff would recommend that to be objective and as independent as possible, such an office should report directly to the County Executives Office or be housed in the County Executives Office. == Ms. Spencer said there are some opportunities for changes which exist at this time. First, the budget manager's position (which is currently vacant) could be expanded to include more management functions. There is also another vacancy at this time (performance coordinator). To tie performance more to resources, this person would be assigned to the OMB/budget office. Ms. Thomas asked, if the County had a performance coordinator today, what would that person be doing? Mr. Spencer said the person who just left this position did strategic planning. He actually went into departments and looked at process improvements, primarily doing what is called performance management. Ms. Thomas said the vacant position was not tied to the budget, but tied to performance. Ms. Spencer said that is correct. Mr. Tucker said staff is suggesting that the position be tied more to the budget area, which would tie the performance issues more to the budget. Ms. Spencer said a third option would be to out-source internal auditing functions. The survey showed that in some counties the OMB office had an account so there were funds available if they needed to hire someone on a case-by-case basis to research specific issues. At this time, there are only two people in Albemarles budget office. They feel that in the future, there will be a need to hire an additional = management analyst. Also, staff hopes to work on a citizens survey to be sure resources are more = scientifically tied to the citizens expectations. = Ms. Spencer said that through their review of literature and the Internet they found that there is a lot of training available at a fairly minimal cost through GFOA. People can obtain training in the internal auditing functions, or in performance management and performance budgeting. She said if the Supervisors are interested in this type of approach, staff feels a performance management system rather than an internal auditor, would improve the accuracy and efficiency across all departments, and ultimately, increase citizen satisfaction. She offered to answer questions. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks this is an excellent report. May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) Ms. Thomas said Albemarle has a strategic plan which was developed several years ago. She asked if that plan and the budget are ever matched together. Ms. White said in some parts they are. Albemarles strategic plan was developed by putting together a lot of different plans. There was not a = comprehensive look to see how all the parts would come together. Strategic planning involves everybody. After planning, resources would be allocated to things which need to be done. Performance measures would indicate if those things are actually being accomplished __________ Ms. Thomas said she would like to indicate that the Supervisors will not get to the discussion of the Neighborhood Model before lunch. The Board must take a break at 11:45 a.m. to go outside for County Government Day festivities. She said that anyone waiting for that discussion might want to leave at this time, and come back at 1:30 p.m., when the Board will be in Room 235. __________ Ms. Thomas thanked the Audit Committee for bringing these issues to the Supervisors. Because of the vacant personnel positions, it is a good time to take a different direction, if that is the desire of the Supervisors. She said that on Page 8 of the staffs report there is a recommended plan of action, but on = Page 4 of the Executive Summary that is a list of recommendations. She asked what the Supervisors should focus on first. Ms. White then mentioned the seven recommendations in the Executive Summary. No. 1. The Board of Supervisors and School Board continue to receive preliminary end of the year A reports by early October and the official external audit in November. Ms. White said staff has already @ agreed to do the preliminary reports. No. 2. The Board of Supervisors continue to receive quarterly financial reports in the new format A with copies available to the School Board. Ms. White said staff has already undertaken the new @ format. No. 3. The County continue to adhere to the investment policies established in the 1994 Financial A Policies. Ms. White said staff will continue using these policies if that is the desire of the Board. @ No. 4. Staff develop and the Board approve, a charter, which clearly outlines the mission, A responsibilities and composition of the Audit Committee. Ms. White said that discussion has not been @ finished. Staff would need directions if it is to develop a charter, etc. No. 5. Expand the County's budget office, rather than hire an internal auditor, as outlined in the A attached report on Internal Auditing, if the Board wishes to enhance the County's performance management functions. Ms. White said this item needs further discussion. @ No. 6. Staff to develop a land acquisition policy, if the Board so desires. Ms. White said the A@ Board has indicated this morning that it does not want to have such a policy. No. 7. Staff to provide recommendations to the Board in July on a carry-over policy and a A separate equipment, replacement and maintenance fund. Ms. White said staff will present @ recommendations on this item in July. Ms. Thomas said since the Board has just discussed the internal auditor, it should probably discuss No. 5. which contains everything set out on Page 8. Ms. Martin said he has no problem with some kind of internal or objective audit. Mr. Dorrier said one thing which was mentioned at the Committee meeting was whether these positions pay for themselves. They also talked to the head of the JLARC Board in Richmond. They talked with DeVoursney at the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. These people said that these positions traditionally pay for themselves. He does not know if that was the cost of more than one person, but the Committee was thinking about only one person. He likes what was presented about an OMB. He thinks that could do the job of the internal audit function. Right now, Mr. Breedens office strictly deals with = finance, and it is having to struggle just to keep up. He asked Mr. Tucker if a budget manager would help him. Mr. Tucker said that is the direction staff is taking. If the Board wants to move in the direction of anything other than just a specific internal auditor, the idea of the OMB, basically doing some internal auditing, but being more of a management specialist, is good. If there are other issues, the Board could always hire the external auditors to come in and aid in that. He said that some localities focus more on a field auditor which is not internal, but who looks at businesses to make sure revenues are submitted to the County. He said those auditors can pay for themselves. Staff does not know the history of this for Albemarle County, but there is a good chance that over the first two or three years, that position would pay for itself. After that, he does not know if that would be possible. Also, there would be items tied to policy, whether in the School Board or the Board of Supervisors, that would have to be changed if savings are to be found. For that reason, he thinks the OMB approach would be best. May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) Ms. Humphris said this is the first time a field auditor has been mentioned. She said the Board needs to deal with the idea of an OMB and the two unfilled positions today. After that, she thinks that this field auditor position is one the County needs and one which probably would pay for itself. Mr. Tucker said staff will give the Board more information on this position soon. Mr. Bowerman said he had asked about this position a few years ago when discussing the BPOL tax. Mr. Tucker said the County is approaching a size where it makes sense to do this. There are some issues that do need to be discussed with the Board. Ms. Thomas said it might be tied in with the Countys land use taxation break. At this time, there is = no one on staff keeping up with this issue. She said that instead of talking about it now, she would like to say she does not think the County should get into performance indicators and performance auditing unless this Board is willing to give good feedback to staff as to what it thinks is not going ideally. If things are going well, why would the Board ask the taxpayers to support three new positions? It would grow. Is this just a puppy chasing its tail or is it something that really needs to be done? Her frustration with county government tends to come about because it is not getting the things done which it has set out to do. She has no idea that a performance auditor will do that. She likes the way JLARC does its work. It takes a subject matter given to it by the General Assembly, and sometimes comes back saying more money has to be put into the matter. It is not always trying to find the cheapest way, but trying to find out how to get things done. If anyone went into performance budgeting in the County, that would be one of the directions that she personally would want to take. If the Board went into this with six totally different ideas of what performance budgeting might come up with, nobody will be satisfied, and the members will not have served their constituents well. Mr. Perkins said none of these things will begin immediately, but he thinks that performance management is something that needs to be looked at in the future. There are many programs, but are they still in place just because they were in place during the last year? The Schools also have programs. He thinks there should be someone looking at the money spent for operations and management, just as there is someone looking after construction projects. He looks at this as having someone look at the way the publics money is being spent for the operation and management of the County. = Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Tucker does that. Mr. Perkins said yes, but he said there are two A@ vacant positions. Mr. Dorrier said it is hard to look at $160.0 million at one time. Mr. Tucker said that is the easy part. It is all the little pieces that take the time. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Tucker has two deputies who are tasked with different departments. There is a regular process in QUIP II for looking at the performance of those departments and evaluating the department heads. He does not know what efficiency measures are used, but if Mr. Tucker does not feel what is currently being done is sufficient, then the Board needs a recommendation from Mr. Tucker as to what change is needed. Just because a few thousand people will always find fault with what is done, is not reason enough to tear apart the system and redo it. He wants to make sure that whatever is done is productive, cost-effective and really serves the public need, and that it is not already being done now. He is not sure what assistance is needed. Mr. Tucker said the first two items of expanding the role and the position of the budget manager (which is vacant now), and infusing the performance coordinator into that, would take care of a lot of the needs. Over the next 24 months and beyond, staff feels there may be a need for an additional management analyst. The two vacancies can be filled right now if the Board concurs. Staff will need some help by the Board to define what the strategic plan is, and what the measurement levels are. Is that the direction the Board wants to take, or does it feel that what it has been getting with the budget process is adequate? It makes logical sense to expand the role of the budget manager, and have the performance coordinator in that office as well. Mr. Dorrier said the State and the Nation are going to a performance-based auditing process and a change in financial management. This is coming down the pike at 60 miles per hour. Mr. Tucker said A@ staff will have a presentation on this next month. Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Jack Farmer has said this will increase the complexity of his job. So, it may increase the complexity of the Supervisors job also. Ms. = White said a lot of the larger localities have tried to link their resources with planning efforts. There may not necessarily be a cost savings, but it is important that the resources go where the Board wants them to go, and the programs really achieve the outcomes wanted. Ms. Thomas asked if other counties look at their outside agencies as much as Albemarle does. She appreciates that County staff and City staff, working together with the Planning District and United Way, really look at those outside agencies. She feels that Albemarle does not fund any pig in a poke. That is A@ one more huge job that Albemarle is undertaking with fewer people per thousand on staff. Ms. White said because of the complexity of having the City and the County share those agencies, it goes to another level. A lot of the larger localities have that responsibility under their own umbrella. Mr. Bowerman said Albemarle did not want to have any duplication of services and different agencies doing the same job. Ms. Thomas said she is appreciative of this effort. She thinks that adds another level to what County staff is doing, and is a good reason to fill the two vacancies. Mr. Perkins suggested that No. 6 in the staff's recommendation be dropped, and that the Board accept the other recommendations in response to the December 6, 2000, Audit Committee report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) Ms. Thomas said the Board has not given staff any consensus on Recommendation #4 regarding an audit committee. Mr. Martin said what he got out of the conversation was that it would not be a charge to an audit committee, but rather a charge for the audit person or group that would eventually tie into the County Executive. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Committee should have some sort of charge. They really did not know what charge they were operating under. They did not know if the Board would approve what they recommended. He does not think they should just function in the dark. There should be some sort of document that every member of the Committee has stating its purpose. Mr. Martin said if the Board is not talking about rolling the Audit Committee under the County Executive, then he will withdraw his second. Ms. Thomas said apparently there is a charge in the sense of knowing who is a member of the committee. The proposal does not address expanding membership on that committee. She said that in an ideal world, there would be an expanded audit committee every four years. She does not feel the need to have a continuation of this kind of bringing up issues because of the solutions presented. Personally, she is not in favor of an expanded audit committee. She has always appreciated the fact that somebody met with the auditor and talked about the items in the audit. She said auditors have a language all their own, so she has been glad that there was a committee which met and looked at the audit, and also helped when selecting a different auditing firm. Ms. Humphris said she thinks this Board has always understood the function of the Audit Committee. That Committee dealt with the letter from the auditor to oversee any problems the auditor pointed out. She does not see a reason it should be any different now or that the committee should be changed. Ms. White said the consensus of staff was to expand on the charge and set out the role of the Audit Committee, and bring that information back to the Board at a later date. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks there should be a way to get input from the School System since they have 70 percent of the Countys budget. Mr. Martin said he thinks there was a formal vote by this Board six = or seven months ago to include a member of the School Board on the Audit Committee. Mr. Tucker said the School Board asked that a member of their Board be included, and a person was appointed. What has not been done is to formally amend the Boards policy. = Ms. Humphris asked if the School Board's budget is audited together with the Countys budget. Mr. = Tucker said yes. Ms. Humphris said if that is the rationale behind having a member of the School Board A@ on the Audit Committee, that makes sense. Mr. Martin said it makes sense to have all members equal as long as the Supervisors understand the charter. That is to basically take the letter from the external auditor listing any problems found, and then oversee and make sure those problems are fixed. Ms. Thomas said there will a chance later to finalize this particular subject at another meeting. It will not be finalized today. Mr. Perkins said the County has had the same auditors for a long time, and they have done a good job. At one time, every few years the County put out an RFP for a new auditing firm. Mr. Tucker said staff talked to the Audit Committee about this, and recommended that the County stay with the current contract for at least one more year in order to get through this GAS-B34, the new auditing procedures. Ms. Thomas said there was a motion and a second to adopt the recommendations on Page 4 of the Executive Summary, deleting No. 6. Mr. Martin said he will return to his second. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. (Note: The recommendations, as adopted, are set out in full below.) 1)The Board of Supervisors and School Board continue to receive preliminary end- of-the year reports by early October and the official external audit in November. 2)The Board of Supervisors continue to receive quarterly financial reports in the new format with copies available to the School Board. 3)The County continue to adhere to the investment policies established in the 1994 Financial Policies. 4)Staff develop for the Board's review, a charter which clearly outlines the mission, responsibilities and composition of the Audit Committee. 5)Expand the Countys budget office, rather than hire an internal auditor in order to = enhance the Countys performance management functions. = 6)Staff to provide recommendations to the Board of Supervisors in July on a carry-over policy and a separate equipment, replacement and maintenance May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) fund. __________ Ms. Thomas asked if staff needed specific guidance from the Board as to the items listed on Page 8 of the Report. These are staff recommendations to enhance the Budget Managers position, which is a = vacant position at this time. A Performance Coordinator would be hired and the duties changed somewhat and the position placed in the Budget Managers Office. Ms. White said staff will use those guidelines to go = forward and set up some timetables for implementation. Ms. Thomas thanked staff for their work on this report. _______________ Agenda Item No. 11. Proposed Neighborhood Model, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Work Session on. This work session will begin after lunch in Room 235. _______________ Agenda Item No. 12. Break for County Government Day. Ms. Thomas said the Board has time for a break before appearing outside of the Building for a short ceremony. _______________ Agenda Item No. 13. Closed Session: Legal and Personnel Matters. At 11:41 a.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session after the ceremonies pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and commissions and a personnel complaint; and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation relating to a taxation matter, probable litigation relating to the Ivy Landfill, and pending litigation relating to the denial of a site plan. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 14. Certify Closed Session. The Board reconvened in Room 235 at 1:53 p.m. without Mr. Martin or Mr. Perkins in attendance. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open = meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins and Mr. Martin. (Note: Mr. Martin arrived at 1:54 p.m.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments. Ms. Humphris offered motion to reappoint Mr. Jerry E. Jones to the Jordan Development Corporation with his new term to expire on August 13, 2002.; to reappoint Mr. A. C. Shackelford, Jr. and Mr. Joseph T. Samuels, Jr. to the ACE Committee, with terms to expire August 1, 2004; and to reappoint Mr. Robert J. Walters, Jr. to the Regional Disability Services Board with his new term to expire July 1, 2004. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. _______________ Agenda Item No. 17. Approval of Minutes: March 14 and March 21, 2001. Ms. Thomas had read March 14, 2001, and found the minutes to be in order. Mr. Bowerman had read March 21, 2001, and found the minutes to be in order. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve those minutes which had been read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. (Note: Mr. Perkins arrived at 1:55 p.m.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 15. Proposed Neighborhood Model, Work Session. Ms. Lee Catlin said at its April 4, 2001, meeting, the Board conducted a work session to review and discuss the proposed Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Board discussed and identified issues relating to Neighborhood Model Principles 1 through 5 and 8, and determined that the remaining material would be reviewed at a subsequent work session. Materials pertinent to this work session were distributed as an attachment to the Executive Summary for the April 4 work session - specifically worksheets for the remaining Neighborhood Model Principles (6, 7 and 9 through 12) as well as for sections on master plans, staffing issues and philosophy. Mr. Cilimberg said the conversation will begin with Principle No. 6, Buildings and Spaces of Human A Scale. It is stated that the Zoning Ordinance needs to address the human scale aspects of new @A@ development. Listed as action options are to modify zoning regulations to be in keeping with minimum building code requirements. Modify zoning regulations to allow for lesser setbacks and zero lot line by- A right. Modify other zoning requirements to relate to building heights, parking location, spatial enclosure @ and street trees. Develop overlay districts after master plans are completed to reflect the human scale A@A@ elements for each Development Area. Not recommended is to leave regulations as they are currently. He said there will be staff time needed to make these changes. The DISC Committee identified a number of changes which can be made to move development more toward the urban form. Ms. Thomas asked if there are zoning regulations which are not in keeping with minimum Building Code requirements. Mr. Cilimberg said to meet the Building Code, setbacks could be reduced. The Countys setbacks are greater than what the Building Code requires for safety purposes. = Ms. Thomas asked if these three recommendations are in ascending order, or in order of importance, does the Board have to choose among them? Mr. Cilimberg said they note that at a minimum, modifications could be made that would allow the setbacks the Building Code might allow. There are other areas which are not related to the Building Code. The last item mentions overlay districts and is more of A@ an approach to the way an area would be zoned. These options could be used in combination with each other. Mr. Dorrier asked the definition of human scale development. Mr. Cilimberg said it is how the A@ individual, as a pedestrian, relates to the enclosure and the buildings in a particular area. It is not just buildings. He said if there is 200 feet from a store to the parking area, that is not human scale. There is also the relationship of activities where people might be able to shop. The Fashion Square Mall is an example of something that is pedestrian friendly. Ms. Thomas asked if there is anything in the action options that raises a red flag? A@ Mr. Bowerman asked if the options in the second bullet are undertaken, is there a need for the first bullet? Mr. Cilimberg said the Board does not need to make that kind of decision today. Ms. Catlin said these action options are just to give ideas of what things might happen. If there is nothing in these options that a Board member dislikes, the conversation can go to the next item. __________ Mr. Cilimberg said Principle No. 7 is entitled Relegated Parking. It is stated that longstanding A@ needs for diminishing the prominence of parking on sites have been identified. A partial listing of action options shows: Change the parking requirements in the Zoning Ordinance to result in changes in all items shown in the column listing policy or regulatory changes. Prioritize parking changes and develop ordinance amendments on the least difficult items at first. Hire a consultant to develop changes to parking regulations. Leave current policy regarding County ownership of parking areas intact. The County acquires land for development of public parking lots or garages. Mr. Cilimberg said this principle has some relationship to the discussion of human scale. It de- emphasizes the mass of parking associated with uses and tries to emphasize other ways to provide for parking whether it be on-street, through a cooperative means, whether it be through dedicated areas for parking that are not necessarily attached to the use. Staff outlined how current parking regulations work, and then listed the potential ways to change the ordinance to provide for parking in different ways. It is about a more urban form and what would likely be seen in a high density area. That parking can be less obvious and noticeable within the developments. It points to the possibility of addressing parking in new ways. This has become a significant issue in Crozet which is a small town with limited parking, and how under current parking requirements businesses can provide the parking required. This has been a challenge and has forced staff to look at where parking can be provided if it is not on-site or next to the site. Mr. Cilimberg said various options are mentioned, including changing parking requirements. Staff is actually working on this at this time. The Board may want to talk about the current policy regarding County ownership of parking areas. May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain such policy. Mr. Cilimberg said he understands the County is not in the business of providing parking for general businesses. Ms. Thomas said that might change if the County is urging a number of businesses to share parking so that there is a parking structure (two-level parking). That is so expensive that the County might be asked to be more involved. Mr. Tucker said that is a policy decision that would need to be revisited. Ms. Humphris asked when the Board would have that discussion about providing public parking lots, the acquisition, ownership and maintenance, etc. At what period in this work does that discussion take place? Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks it would take place during the master planning process, or the discussion could be triggered by a development proposal even before the master planning is completed. Ms. Thomas said she does not think the Board wants to change its policy in isolation. Ms. Catlin said she does not know that the language of the principle will keep the Board from making that policy decision at the appropriate time. Mr. Perkins said the County might become involved in parking by trying to work out a grievance between the different businesses. This was done in Crozet with the churches so there could be weekday parking at the churches. Patrons of restaurants can use other parking lots in the area after five oclock. = Ms. Catlin said she made a note that the policy discussion will take place later. Ms. Thomas said she would amend it to say county role in owning parking because she does not think anybody disagrees A@ with what Mr. Perkins just said. That is changing regulations and facilitating creative solutions to parking problems. Mr. Dorrier said the word ownership may be the word giving the problem. While the County does A@ not want to own parking lots, it wants to at least influence those somewhat. Mr. Bowerman said the County could be a facilitator. Ms. Thomas said she does not get a feeling from the Board members that they do not want to facilitate, but the Board does not want to jump into ownership. Mr. Bowerman said he is uncomfortable with the last bullet (The County acquires land for development of public parking lots or garages.) in the way of ownership. He would rather play a role in the development of them. Mr. Dorrier suggested striking out the word development and inserting the word A@ facilitation instead. Mr. Bowerman said he does not like acquires land. A@A@ Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board is saying that any other ownership of parking is something that will need to be discussed. Mr. Bowerman said if the wording is left in that is fine, but he is uncomfortable with it being left in. The statement is too strong. Ms. Catlin said this document is meant to just stimulate discussion. Staff can make sure that any ownership discussion comes before the Board, as opposed to any facilitation/mediation process. Mr. Bowerman said he would rather the sentence read: The County facilitates development of public parking A lots or garages. @ Ms. Humphris said that public parking lots infers ownership. Mr. Bowerman suggested striking A@ the word public. Ms. Catlin said when all of this information comes back to the Board, it will not be in this A@ form. Mr. Bowerman said he does not want staff to develop a policy so the County can buy parking lots. Ms. Catlin said staff just wants to be sure that is not something the Board wants to have come back to it without further discussion. Mr. Dorrier said this is talking about public parking lots. He thinks that where the Board is talking about public versus private, the Board should stick with the word public. Mr. Bowerman A@AA@ said he is not sure this statement is really talking about public parking lots. Mr. Cilimberg said this is A@ referring to parking in general. Mr. Martin and Mr. Dorrier suggested striking the word public and just A@ saying parking lots. A@ __________ Mr. Cilimberg said Principle No. 9 is Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability with Dignity. A@ Points of Discussion are: The County would need to be more proactive in assuring that affordable housing in the Development Areas is provided. Although the County would not be expected to build affordable housing, it may need to take initiatives to ensure the provision of affordable housing. County policy should promote the provision of affordable housing in the Development Areas rather than in the Rural Areas. County policy should promote the provision of affordable housing as a part of neighborhoods rather than being built in enclaves. Affordable housing should look like other housing and blend into neighbors. A@ Listed as action options are: Create incentives for suppliers of affordable housing such as fee waivers, density bonuses, or fast-tracking; County government or non-profit could offer public assistance to allow participation in the market; develop a mandatory affordable housing ordinance (this would require new enabling legislation from the General Assembly). Work with non-profit groups to promote the Development Areas as the appropriate locations for low- to moderate-income housing production; develop incentives for affordable housing production in the Development Areas. Work with non-profit groups and the development community to promote ways to blend affordable units into proposed housing developments in neighborhoods. Leaving current policies and practices as they are is not a recommended option. Mr. Cilimberg said there was much discussion about working with non-profits to promote the Development Areas. This would involve not only Planning Staff but the Housing Office, and the committees working on the master plans. Those committees will use the people who live in a particular area as part of the master planning process. Mr. Dorrier said he met with Mr. Overton McGehee of Habitat for Humanity and he is very interested May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) in meeting with the County and the DISC Committee in developing guidelines and incentives for low-cost housing in the Development Areas. He feels something creative would come from that. Ms. Thomas said she thinks this is something on which the County needs to be pro-active. Everything else being done is raising the cost of land and housing in Albemarle County. She used to think that a mandatory housing ordinance was the right way to proceed, but even in places where there is such an ordinance, they have found that if there are mandatory regulations for developments of 50+ houses, they have a lot of 49 or less housing developments. Mr. Martin said that no matter how hard the County tries, it will be very difficult to get affordable housing in these areas. Mr. Dorrier suggested that more units be allowed if some of them are low-cost units. Ms. Thomas said the County already has a bonus provision in effect for this, but it has never been used. Mr. Martin said it does not work. Mr. Cilimberg said staff needs to study whether it is the right kind of bonus. Ms. Elaine Echols said three different presentations were made to the Countys Housing = Community including the different housing agencies. She thinks that Habitat was present at one of the meetings. Mr. Cilimberg said it was recognized by the DISC Committee and the Planning Commission that this idea will be tough to get into practice. There is no easy answer. Mr. Bowerman said the County needs to be open to the private sector when they propose a mixed-use community. The County needs to have the flexibility to accommodate what they want to do that meets these needs, and to not add expenses unnecessarily. Ms. Catlin said that beyond emphasizing the creative, pro-active, and open nature of these possibilities for partnerships, was there anything else of concern to the Board members? There was no reply. __________ Mr. Cilimberg said Principle No. 10 is Redevelopment. Points of Discussion are: Most A@ redevelopment activity will take place by the private sector. County investment may be needed to help spur redevelopment in some cases; regulatory changes will be needed to make redevelopment easier. Listed as action options are: County staff creates a comprehensive redevelopment strategy; opportunities for redevelopment are identified during the Master Plan process; County economic development efforts are increased to facilitate redevelopment; responsibility for redevelopment will remain with the private sector; County investment in infrastructure may be necessary to support desired redevelopment; investigate resources to support redevelopment through low interest loans or state grants; require private sector to assume some level of responsibility for providing infrastructure; investigate incentives including forms of taxation, i.e., tax deferrals for rehabilitation in the Development Areas; review appropriate regulations and revise to accommodate redevelopment goals of infill and mixed use; permit redevelopment on non- conforming sites without requiring total conformity with Zoning Ordinance; no expansions to the Development Areas boundaries while opportunities for redevelopment are still available. Ms. Thomas asked for an example of what kind of investment in infrastructure might be necessary to support the desired redevelopment. Mr. Cilimberg said road systems in an area where the redevelopment occurs will have to be able to handle the traffic being generated. Also, water and sewer to serve those properties must be able to handle the increased demand. Stormwater is another factor to be considered. Mr. Martin said this might also be where the subject of public parking would need to be considered. Ms. Echols said the DISC Committee also discussed the fact that the Albemarle County Service Authority does not currently have the lines in place to support redevelopment. Usually the developer pays the cost of extending the water and sewer lines, and in some areas that could be difficult to do and prohibitively expensive for one individual. With public participation, that was discussed as a way to facilitate redevelopment. Mr. Dorrier said the County could facilitate access to lower interest financing through bonds, etc. Mr. Cilimberg said there are a whole range of things that could be included as possibilities. Mr. Perkins said that under the column headed Policy or Regulatory Changes it says to Maintain A@A firm boundaries for Development Areas to encourage redevelopment rather than Development Area boundary expansions. He asked if there is a need at this time for review of boundaries. Are the current @ boundaries right? He said that should be looked at whether there are firm boundaries or expanded boundaries. He is thinking about Crozet. If someone is not willing to put the resources in to make the area between Routes 240 and 250 accessible, then how long should that area remain in the Growth Area? Maybe that area should be taken out of the Growth Area. Mr. Dorrier asked when the County last locked in rigid boundaries. Ms. Thomas said it was in the same motion that created DISC. Ms. Catlin asked if the Board would want to have staff review how appropriate the boundaries still are before putting in a freeze on the boundaries. Mr. Cilimberg said in 1996 the Board approved the Land Use Plan without changing boundaries, and indicated that it wanted the Development Areas Initiative Study undertaken, and the Rural Areas study undertaken. After that, the Board said it would revisit the boundaries question. Staff has not looked at boundary expansion, but there is a Comprehensive Plan amendment May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) request pending for an expansion. Mr. Perkins said staff admits that the boundaries were drawn in a haphazard manner. The Wendell Wood property indicates that. It is only a line on a piece of paper, without any logic to what was drawn in that particular place. Mr. Cilimberg said staff always tries to have logical boundaries, but sometimes they are a result of a political process. In establishing the boundaries on the eastern side of Crozet, they were changed to reflect what would drain to the Lickinghole Basin because the boundaries were drawn based on the bottom of the drainage area, rather than the top. Ms. Catlin said she thinks Mr. Cilimberg is saying that the discussion today will change the understanding of the sequence which was set up five years ago. Mr. Dorrier said it also affects infrastructure and how far the County will go. Mr. Martin said the statement Maintain firm boundaries for A Development Areas to encourage redevelopment rather than Development Area boundary expansions @ may not be set in stone until there is another review. Ms. Echols said there is a section in Chapter 2 of the Neighborhood Model which speaks specifically to Development Area boundaries in terms of implementation. The DISC Committee wanted to provide some guidance on what to do with development area boundaries. DISC looked at the holding capacity of the development areas. There are extensive pages in the supporting documents, population projections and density analyses relating to holding capacity. They concluded that there was sufficient capacity within the boundaries to the year 2015. Their recommendation to the Board is in the second document, when the Board discusses policies. The Board may want to postpone a full discussion of this question until it gets into that document. Ms. Thomas said she thinks it is important to leave the message that the Board is not proposing to expand the amount of land in the Development Area even if it looks at making some of the boundaries more sensible. As soon as the Board says it is open to punching holes in the boundaries, there will be a A@ lot of enthusiasm for development, and the whole idea of DISC is over. She did not think that is what Mr. Perkins was saying when he brought up this issue. Mr. Dorrier said the Board does not want to encourage speculation. Mr. Perkins said this whole idea started as infill. It has gotten much beyond that idea. It is a design of new projects using different approaches, and the County has to change some of its regulations to accommodate the things that developers are beginning to propose. Ms. Catlin said the idea of the total development area holding firm is something the Board is committed to and agrees to, but there may be some boundary adjustments needed. Mr. Perkins said one reason for this is the lack of infrastructure. Mr. Martin said he agrees with Ms. Thomas, but he does not want to see the Board supporting a mandatory situation where nothing can change. Mr. Bowerman said firm edges are important. It is part of the concept and does not mean the growth areas cannot be expanded. But, there is a rationale between firm edges and development areas and things outside of them. Mr. Dorrier said the Board might develop guidelines to be used for making any change in the growth area. Mr. Cilimberg said those guidelines are already in place. He said a couple of things are being mixed and they should be kept separate. This document is trying to define a way to hold firm to those boundaries, to be efficient, and to develop in a better way. No matter what the boundaries are, the Neighborhood Model would still be the way in which development would take place. Mr. Martin said it is important that the Board not be seen as having signed off on something it has not signed off on. Comments are being made which address different things. He agrees that basically this document is setting out what is wanted within those boundaries. He does not want people to misinterpret what the Board is saying now. Mr. Dorrier said a lot of areas may require a boundary adjustment. Mr. Cilimberg said expanding or just adjusting boundaries is not the emphasis of the Neighborhood Model. By virtue of the fact that the County accepts Comprehensive Plan amendment requests from citizens, the County may, at some time, receive proposals to expand or change boundaries. Mr. Martin said that is what he was speaking about. Some comments seem to indicate that the County would stop having Comprehensive Plan amendments, and the answer to that would be we dont A= adjust boundaries. He just wanted it to be clear that is not what the Board is saying. @ Ms. Catlin said it seems that the language of the principle is fine because it talks about what is happening within the boundaries. What the Board does not want is the implication that by approving this, the boundaries are absolutely set in concrete. Ms. Thomas said if there is a distinction between firm and cast in concrete, that can be A@A@ verbalized. __________ Mr. Cilimberg said Principle No. 11 is Site Planning that Respects Terrain. The Point of A@ Discussion is: The zoning regulations for disturbance of critical slopes relate more to rural area goals than to Development Area goals. Listed as action options are: Modify the Zoning Ordinance to reflect any or all of the items listed under policy or regulatory changes; place site grading regulations in the Design A@ Manual. Mr. Cilimberg said this is an area where the Neighborhood Model is a proponent of looking at topography and how to utilize that topography in a way that is more creative and sensitive to the environment. This brings into the conversation the present regulations regarding critical slopes, and how those regulations may need to be changed. He said the Planning Commission has already adopted a May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) resolution of intent to look at critical slopes provisions. There is a need to look at how critical slopes are treated in rural areas and in urban areas. This principle talks about how to draft design solutions to deal with difficult terrain. Whatever reasonably good land lies in the Development Areas, has for the most part, been taken. Now, staff is dealing with land that has bad terrain. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 2:39 p.m.) Ms. Thomas said she read recently that when communities have gotten into what is being called new urbanism, they have often gone far away from working with their contour issues. She does not like A@ the sound of that. She wants this to be a community that can maintain its concerns about what the water is like and not assume that urban streams have to be put into culverts in order to get the development density that is being talked about. She thinks the Engineering Department, and others looking at streams in the Development Areas, is going about this in the right way. She assumes what they are trying to do is be sure there is water quality and protection of erosion of potential slopes, etc. even while having development. If anything in this principle suggests that everything be paved over, then she doesnt like it. (Note: Mr. = Bowerman returned at 2:42 p.m.) Ms. Echols said the master plans will help to identify significant environmental resources in a better manner than the current Open Space Plan. They want to find the environmental values of the surrounding communities rather than have to make a case-by-case judgement every time there is a request for some kind of a stream modification. There are not good regulations now as to what can be covered, and what cannot be covered over. The master plans will help to determine those kinds of things. They have also been dealing with site grading, so the Planning Commission has already adopted a resolution of intent to modify the ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said the DISC Committee and the Neighborhood Model point out integrating the drainage area master plan with the master plans that will be undertaken in the Development Area neighborhoods. Ms. Catlin asked if there were anything in this principle that should be noted for staff. There was nothing mentioned. __________ Mr. Cilimberg said Principle No. 12 is Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas. The Point of A@ Discussion is: The Neighborhood Model includes suggested edge treatments. In most instances, development in the Development Areas should extend to the boundary with the Rural Area. Listed as action options are: Allow development community to address edge treatments as they prefer in by-right developments; consider proposed edge treatments in rezonings and special use permits where the property abuts a rural area or city boundary; include edge treatments in Master Plans for the Development Areas. Mr. Cilimberg said the question of how to treat the edges will be addressed primarily through the master planning process. There is no clear policy with regard to boundaries adjacent to the Rural Areas. There may be a desire to bring development up to the boundaries, or there may be other edge treatments preferred. That will all have to be addressed in the master plan process for each of the neighborhoods. Mr. Dorrier said this is a problem in the Scottsville area. There is the town which decides what development will occur within its boundaries. Then, there is the one mile around it which is in the rural areas. These two areas adjacent to each other have had no central planning. Mr. Martin said that is the way it is in the northern part of the County. The development area does not end looking at woods and pastures. There are houses on two-acre, or one-acre lots, and backing up to them are four homes per acre. That is when people get upset. They want their property to back up to a property of the same size lot. Ms. Thomas asked if all of the action options are possible. Mr. Cilimberg said yes. Mr. Martin A@ said in order to develop, that list needs to be expanded. Mr. Dorrier asked about the term edge treatments. Mr. Cilimberg said edge treatments can be to A@ bring development right to the edge, or it can be to soften the edge, maybe through landscaping or open space. Ms. Thomas said the edge could be a greenway into which the County put money. That produces an area where houses on two-acres, or the old farms, can back up to the greenway, and on the other side of that greenway is the denser development. Mr. Martin said that eventually that action option needs to be increased and still use the word and/or because he thinks there are more options needed on A@ the edge. Mr. Cilimberg said that there will be nature features on the edge, or man-made features like a road. One of the edges of the Hollymead area is a road. Mr. Dorrier asked if when the master plans are formulated for each community if there will be edge treatments shown and possible boundary adjustments. Mr. Cilimberg said the master plan process itself will get into the question of boundary adjustments. However, it may identify where boundaries are logically different from what exists at the present time. Ms. Echols said the Board should know that in most instances it is anticipated that development will occur up to the boundary with the rural areas. The Planning Commission feels a buffer area adjoining the rural area is important for protection of adjacent properties. They feel that in most instances the use of the development areas are maximized on the development area side. She asked if that is something the Board May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) agrees with. Mr. Martin said when this whole idea started it was directed to infill and boundaries. The Committee never really got into how to deal with those boundaries. He wanted to sit on the architectural selection committee because he really wanted to see how the boundaries were treated. In the area where he lives that is a big problem. When there are homes on two-acre lots and then across the road there might be 25 units per acre, he thinks consideration needs to be given to not just putting as many units as possible on the development side. He thinks how the boundaries and edges are treated will be very important to the people who currently live in the rural areas. Ms. Thomas suggested that the statement say that treatment of the boundaries should be sensitive to the community that is already developed. If there is a growth area boundary that has no residential on either side of it, there is not the same need for sensitivity as where there is development going right up to that boundary. If the boundary is the backyard of a lot of houses, then there will need to be more sensitivity to what is backed up to that existing community. Mr. Martin said the Board needs to keep an open mind. It cant say that development can come = right up to the edge. Mr. Dorrier said the concept under regulatory changes Master Planning process should establish A the desired features of the boundary between the Development and Rural Area. Identify appropriate entity to protect/maintain buffered edges is very important. Ms. Thomas agreed. @ Ms. Catlin said the language is okay, but the Board wants to emphasize additional action options for edge treatments, with particular sensitivity to those boundaries with existing development. __________ Mr. Cilimberg said the next item is entitled Master Plans. Points of Discussion are: Master plans A@ will be needed for each of the Development Areas. Development will involve property owners, residents, staff, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors members; master plan will identify the majority of the = investment needs of the County; creation of master plans will raise citizen expectations for the commitment of resources to implement plan elements. Action options are set out on Pages 19-20 of the Executive Summary which is on file in the Clerks Office. = Mr. Cilimberg said references have been made throughout this discussion to Master Planning which is a very important part of the process. The Neighborhood Model recommends undertaking these Master Plans as quickly as possible. Realistically, what DISC decided and staff has realized is that the initial Master Plan should be focused on one place as a pilot, and then continue at a rate of two per year. This will involve staff resources and consultants going through a process facilitating community involve- ment. People who will be involved in this process, and who will review that for these neighborhoods, probably know little about the principles. An education component will be important. In essence, this will be a land use plan change for each neighborhood as these master plans are finished. One of the first questions to be decided is which place gets its master plan done first. The next plan to be done under the old process was for Hollymead. But, there is interest in a variety of places for the new master plans. The Board will have to make that decision, but it does not have to be done today. Mr. Cilimberg said one action option is to continue to rely on the Comprehensive Plan for County investment needs in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. As Master Plans are completed, fund Master Plan improvements after already identified CIP improvements have been completed. He said they did not recommend that the Board try to fund all of the existing improvements identified in the CIP in the next CIP cycle. They also did not recommend that the plan elements simply get programmed into the County CIP budget as resources allow without any further resource commitment. Those projects will take many years to complete. This is an awareness issue. Ms. Thomas said the official map for transportation improvements is a separate issue. It not an or. Mr. Cilimberg said that in Virginia, an official map is not used often. It is used more in urban areas and A@ cities. The Comprehensive Plan serves the purpose of an official map in a lot of counties. When master planning is done and roads defined more specifically in that process, there may be a need to adopt that as an official map. Mr. Dorrier asked the possibility of a master plan for the Scottsville region. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 3:00 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg said the Scottsville Development Area was incorporated into the town of Scottsville in the boundary adjustment. There is no longer a County development area in Scottsville. To do the town of Scottsville would involve getting Scottsvilles decision-makers to buy into this = as the way they want to do business. They have the responsibility for planning in their town. Mr. Dorrier said he sees that as a reality, but to have a smooth interaction between County development and town development, there needs to be a master plan developed using that process. For example, his property is not in the town of Scottsville. The road in front of his house separates him from the town. He said the town wants to develop a master plan, but wants to work with the County to make it a reality. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Dorriers property is surrounded by a Rural Area. Mr. Dorrier said it is not = really rural. Mr. Perkins said it lies outside of a growth area. Mr. Dorrier said it is on the other side of the highway which separates the town from the County. There are many people who are on land which is zoned for a density of two acres or less. They are affected by what happens. May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) Ms. Catlin asked if Mr. Dorrier is saying that to the extent possible, he would want to see the plans come together. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks there is room for a marriage of the plans. The town wants the Neighborhood Model. Mr. Perkins said he thinks this is something the County should be willing to assist the town with, but master planning for the town is up to the town. He thinks that one of the first master plans should be for a neighborhood which connects to the City. There would be more benefit achieved from that than going out to areas such as Hollymead. What is done in one area next to the City is probably what will be done in the rest of the surrounding areas. Ms. Thomas said she knows there is a limit to the time that staff can spend on this issue. If there were money, and the Board wanted to get started on master planning (and there are areas which desperately need this planning), she would say to do more than one plan at a time. She understands the value of doing one plan is that a lot is learned from the process. But, she is a little desperate about what is happening in some areas. __________ Ms. Catlin said the next two items are the global view (Staffing to Implement Ordinance Changes A@ and Philosophy The Way or One Way) which are issues that do not relate to specific sections or AC@ chapters of the report. They are just points for discussion. Ms. Cilimberg said the Point of Discussion for staffing is: The extent to which additional staff may A be needed is dependent on the level of regulatory change and maintenance responsibilities the County may take on. He said this is just a listing of work items, and if there is anything listed with which Board members @ disagree, that fact should be stated now. Staff has already anticipated work on the first master plan. There must be discussion with VDOT as to how to make changes they would be willing to accept. Also, they must talk with the Albemarle County Service Authority as to changes they can work with. There is the question of maintenance of new facilities that will be needed to make the Neighborhood Model a reality. There are the hard costs of construction and the labor costs for maintenance. Those things will have to be factored into how to move forward with the implementation process. There is a lot that can happen without adding additional staff. Mr. Dorrier said he would like to know if it is financially feasible for the development community to produce this model. He knows there are several developers doing it now, but he wonders if there will be movement toward this model. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Bob Watson stated to the Planning Commission that there is willingness among the developers to try. They see this as a shared effort involving both developers, the County and the general public. Ms. Thomas asked if this Board has the ability to Direct the ACSA to find ways to encourage and A allow street trees in the easements. That wording is listed as an action option. Mr. Cilimberg said he does @ not know the answer to that question. Mr. Tucker said the Board can to some extent because it does appoint members to the ACSA. However, the word direct may be too strong. A@ Ms. Thomas suggested changing that word to strongly encourage or whatever this Board can A@ actually do. Ms. Humphris agreed. __________ Ms. Catlin said the last item to be discussed is on the sheet entitled Philosophy The Way or One AC Way. @ Ms. Thomas said she knows that one group of developers is proposing a change to PUD zoning regulations as a way for them to get moving with some development. She does not recall that being listed as one of the first ordinance changes to be made. If it is presented to the Board as a proposal for an ordinance change, she thinks it will become the first change made. She does not disagree with making a change without waiting for master plans and all the other regulatory changes that will take quite some time to formulate. Mr. Cilimberg said staff views the Comprehensive Plan amendments to the Rivanna Village, the Sperry Property, and the Hollymead Town Center, as a form of master planning, even though they were initiated by the property owners. There has been a lot of effort put into these proposals by the applicants. Ultimately, the Board has the final decision on each request. In terms of the philosophy, the Neighbor- A@ hood Model puts emphasis on more universal principles than those that may be done based on the context of the general area. He brought the Boards attention to the Points of Discussion: The principles relating =A to pedestrian orientation, neighborhood friendly streets and paths, interconnected streets and transportation networks, and site planning that respects terrain would be expected in all new develop-ments. Adherence to these principles is needed to accommodate the density proposed by the Land Use Plan and make liveable areas. The principles relating to a mixture of uses, a variety of housing types, neighborhood @A centers, buildings and spaces of human scale, and redevelopment would be provided where it makes sense in the larger context of the general area. He said this intends to say that all the principles are @ important, but some are more critical than others. These things will require changes to ordinances, and in general, just looking at things differently. Mr. Martin asked how a staff person would, in putting together a report, treat things like sidewalks, curb and gutter. Mr. Cilimberg said staff would provide an analysis based on all of the principles, but would focus on the ones that made the most sense in the context of the proposal. Staff would have to look at the May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) surrounding areas and topography, how the developer proposes to lay out the street(s) and provide for pedestrians, and how the proposal relates to the land around it. He has seen projects where there was only one road going in, where the development was done very differently. Staff visited a development in Richmond where a street was created with on-street parking, street trees, and row house development with alleys behind the houses on either side. Mr. Martin said in asking the question one way or the way, staff has actually concluded that it is A@A@ the way. Mr. Cilimberg said it is the way in form, but it does not mean that every principle can be A@A@ adhered to, or will be necessary in every development. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Neighborhood Model also includes all of the principles of sustainable development. Ms. Echols said in the second set of documents there is discussion about how to make sustainable communities; sustainable urban areas and sustainable rural areas. She said that in reply to Mr. Martins question, when looking at the page entitled Philosophy and the points of discussion read by Mr. =A@ Cilimberg, these are Comprehensive Plan goals that current regulations are not helping meet the goals for density. That is why those were given a higher priority. Mr. Perkins asked about the idea of connectivity when the person asking for the rezoning has no power to force the connection. Mr. Cilimberg said a developer has no power to condemn land to make the connection, so such requests have to allow for that possibility when the means are available for the connection to be made. Mr. Cilimberg said he would like to mention the whole idea of the way or one way. Staff sees A@A@ the completion of developments now where there are certain things the Neighborhood Model calls for, that dont make sense because it would be a complete change from what exists in that development. It is a = context thing. The Board will see one such request next month in Mill Creek. It does not meet all 12 principles, but it would not make sense for it to do so because of its relationship to the Mill Creek development that has already occurred. He said requests must be viewed in terms of how they fit into a particular location, and the particular pattern of development. He said many requests are for in-fill, and since they are surrounded by existing development, it will dictate what will happen on that property. Ms. Thomas said if it is an area that has gone through the master planning process, she thinks the theory is that existing neighborhoods will have had a major hand in that planning. Some people on the DISC liked to say it was proposing a process, rather than a finished product. Mr. Cilimberg said when doing the master planning process with people who actually live in those areas, there will be resistance to some of the principles, particularly locations within the context of neighborhoods. The Committee and the Planning Commission viewed this as the way to the form that is wanted. If it is just viewed as one way, A@A@ the form will never be realized. Mr. Martin said he just wants it to be clear that the Board has crossed the line where it is no longer saying a way, but is saying the way, or at least the only way to get to where the County wants to go. He A@A@ said it would have been harder to say that several months, or even a year, ago. Now that there are developers who have already participated in being reviewed with the 12 principles in mind, and there are others who are willing to be a part of that process, it is easier for people to accept this concept. It is not quite the way yet, but is quickly becoming the way to do business in Albemarle County. A@ Ms. Catlin said a lot of the work of the Planning Commission before this document came to the Board was taking out a lot of the prescriptive language which made the way too rigid. Mr. Cilimberg said A@ the greatest example of that was the whole idea of the transect which is the model which will be used for master planning and development. The Commission felt the transect was a way to do it, but not the only way. Ms. Thomas said there will be a public hearing on the Neighborhood Model on May 16. Ms. Catlin said she does not think there has been any change to the amendment the Board has seen before it goes to public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg said there might be one change in language based on the discussion today. Ms. Echols said she found a couple of places that need changes. She referred the Board to page 24 in the book and the statement The Neighborhood Model proposes maintaining the A existing borders for the Development Areas and having distinctive boundaries between the Development Areas and the Rural Areas. She is not sure the first phrase remains as strong as it is written because of @ the discussion today about potential boundary adjustments. Unless the Board likes the sentence as written, she would propose a modification to the first part of the statement. She said this came out of the discussion on redevelopment. The words not expanding Development Area boundaries were in the section today A@A@ about redevelopment, but in the amendment they show up under clear boundaries. A@A@ Ms. Thomas asked if Ms. Echols has words to propose which embody what the Board said today. Ms. Echols said she does not have any words yet. Ms. Catlin said the discussion in No. 10 was about making sure the Board advocated firm boundaries and accepting the language of the principle. However, Mr. Martin did not want by adoption of that to imply cast in concrete boundaries. A@ Mr. Dorrier said he wanted some sort of statement that any adjustment of the boundaries would be accomplished through the master planning process. May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) Ms. Echols said if the Board agrees with what is written, she will not make a modification. If the Board thinks the language is too strong, she will propose some other language. Mr. Martin said the Board will soon see a new request, and if it is cast in stone, it might as well not review that request. Ms. Humphris said she understood that there was a clear understanding on clear boundaries, that the Board liked the statement under Policy or Regulatory Changes on page 18, Master Planning process A should establish the desired features of the boundary between the Development and Rural Area. Identify appropriate entity to protect/maintain buffered edges. Then because of the discussion and what Mr. Martin @ said, the Board ended up with the statement Boundary should be sensitive to already developed A neighborhoods. @ Ms. Echols said that is also on page 24 of the book in the last paragraph. She was going to incorporate that sentence into the last paragraph, saying In most instances it is anticipated and the Board A@ said Development Areas need to be sensitive to the existing development in the Rural Areas. That would A@ be added. Mr. Martin said that is a different discussion about borders and boundaries than what Ms. Echols was talking about in the first instance. What she brought up was the firmness of the Development (Growth) Area boundary and the amount of acreage in that area. In the second paragraph on page 24, that is the boundary as the Rural Area boundary meets with another boundary. Ms. Thomas said one sentence refers to boundary treatment and the other refers to boundary A@A adjustment. @ Ms. Catlin asked if the Board members feel that No. 12 captures the boundary adjustment correctly, or is it too strong. Mr. Martin said he can live with that as long as he is not accused of saying the boundaries will never change. Ms. Thomas said it does propose that existing borders be maintained, but the Board has said there may be some places where they do not totally make sense, and they will have to be looked at. Mr. Dorrier has said the best place to do that is while doing the master planning for each particular area. All Board members did not say they agreed with that thought. Mr. Perkins said he started that discussion by saying that there may be some places in the existing boundaries which need to be taken out of the growth areas. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Perkins had said that when doing the Master Plan for Crozet, if it is found that there is a section inside of the boundaries that has no access, that will influence whether that area should remain in the boundaries. There may be a case where someone proves to the Board that in order to have connectivity an area needs to be put in the growth area boundaries. That will also have to be considered. Mr. Dorrier agreed. He said the Board will soon have a development proposal coming before it where this may apply. Ms. Catlin asked if in the language to do with treatment of boundaries there needs to be language included referring to sensitivity to existing areas? Does that language need to be incorporated into the amendment? Mr. Martin said he thinks the language needs to be in the amendment. Ms. Thomas agreed. Ms. Echols said on Page 88 in reference to public parking, there are statements about incentives for encouraging provision of parking garages, that relate to establishment of a public parking authority, to finance operating profit from the construction of garages, and the County being responsible for the construction of parking structures, site acquisition and operation of parking facilities. She has changed those words to facilitation; facilitating the establishment of something, and facilitation of construction and A@ acquisition of these kinds of things, rather than making a strong statement. Ms. Thomas said she feels that embodies the conversation today. (Note: Mr. Martin and Mr. Dorrier left the meeting at 3:39 p.m. There was not a quorum present from this time until the meeting adjourned.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 10. Quarterly Financial Report. Ms. Roxanne White presented the financial report for the nine months ended March 31, 2001. She said that overall, revenues are still showing growth over those of last year, which reflects a stable local economy. While sales tax, business license revenues, and other local tax revenues continue to show decreases since the initial revenue estimates, projected real estate tax revenue has increased. Ms. White said State revenues continue to be estimated to increase by $3.856 million, while local personal property tax revenue has decreased by $3.4 million. This is primarily due to the reporting changes associated with the personal property tax relief program. Federal revenue estimates have decreased by $0.214 million during this current fiscal year. This projected decrease remains unchanged since the last quarters report. = Current revenue projections of $121.796 million reflect a $2.604 million (2.2%) increase in the revenue projection over what the County appropriated on July 1, 2000. When anticipated revenues are combined with the budgeted Fund Balance and use of other funds, the total estimated resources in the current fiscal year are $130.035 million. Expenditures are within appropriate levels (75%) for the first three quarters of the year. Total May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) expenditures are 72.8 percent of the current budget. Since the second quarterly report, additional appropriations of $0.030 million have been approved by the Board for a revised total of $127,513 million. Ms. White said this report indicates there will be a total of $2.522 million in unobligated revenues on hand by the end of this current fiscal year (June 30, 2001) based on estimates as of March 31, 2001. However, $2.068 million of the FY01 projected revenues were approved during budget work sessions for = FY02 General Government initiatives and the FY02 transfer to the School Division. If projected revenues == are realized, $0.677 million in "Projected Unobligated Funds" could be available at the end of the current fiscal year for contingencies, capital projects or other one-time needs. Projected expenditures have not been revised at this time. The Fund Balance Report indicates that the County has an audited Fund Balance of $20.499 million; $0.830 million was appropriated in approved projects in the FY01 adopted Budget; an additional = $7.776 million was appropriated for projects between July 1 and March 31, 2001. These projects were ones not completed by July 1, 2000, but which were approved during the budget process, and new capital and operating projects; a total of $2.068 million has been committed for FY02 General Government = initiatives and/or will be transferred to the School Division; a minimum Fund Balance of $12.5 million has been committed to cash liquidity purposes. The $12.5 million balance remains within the County's financial policy of maintaining a Fund Balance "equal to no less than eight percent of the County's General Fund, plus School Fund;" due to future funding commitments for the FY02 budget, the current year net Fund = Balance shown as of March 31, 2001, is a negative $1.845 million. However, due to projected year-end FY01 revenues of $2.522 million, "Projected Unobligated Funds" are estimated to be $0.677 million as of = July 1, 2001. As to Fiscal Impact, current year revenue estimates are based on FY00 actual revenue collections, = as well as any trend indicators gleaned from the third quarter collections. There is a perception at the Federal level that the national economy seems to be slowing down as evidenced by recent cuts in interest rates by the Federal Reserve. This slow down may affect the State and localities during the course of the next fiscal year. Because of the possibility of a changing economic climate, higher than anticipated construction costs, General Assembly deliberations regarding the State budget and other variables, the County's Projected Unobligated Funds of $0.677 million should always be viewed as subject to change as the last quarter of the fiscal year unfolds. This report was received for information only. _______________ Agenda Item No. 18. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Tucker mentioned that the School Board approved a 4.2 percent merit increase for its classified employees instead of the recommended 3.9 percent. He asked the Board members if they wanted him to consider doing that for General Government classified employees. It would cost about $62,000. He did mention this to Mr. Martin before he left, and Mr. Martin supports the idea. Ms. Humphris said this puts the Board of Supervisors in an awkward position. She thinks the County Executives recommendation for a 3.9 percent increase was the appropriate recommendation. She = wishes the School Superintendent had gone along with that amount in order to have commonality. She said going back and undoing the careful budgeting the Board did just because the School Board did not agree, bothers her. Secondly, Mr. Ken Boyd has said the School Board has extra money so it should give it back to the Board of Supervisors. However, those are one-time moneys to donate to the Board, so it is a silly thing. She is sure the School Board has plenty of needs for that money, so they should keep it. She thinks it is grand-standing. Ms. Thomas said she does not know what Mr. Boyd has done. Ms. Humphris said he went to the media and said the School Board has $57,000 that they do not need. Since it would be nice to have commonality, he wants the School Board to donate the money to the Board of Supervisors so it can give its employees the 4.2 percent increase. Mr. Tucker said he had intended bringing this matter up for discussion anyway. Ms. Humphris said it is not that she does not want the employees to have that additional percentage, but it is the general principle. Mr. Tucker said that in hindsight, Ms. Humphris was right. He had hoped that he and Dr. Castner would have presented comparable budgets in that area. He thinks that in the future, staff has to make sure both boards understand what is being presented, and sign off on it. A@ Ms. Humphris asked what this will look like to the public if the Board of Supervisors changes its mind to go along with this idea. Ms. Thomas asked what will happen if there is not commonality anymore. Commonality has been valuable in a lot of ways. Ms. Humphris said this is a one-time aberration because there was not an understanding when there should have been. Mr. Tucker said he does not think it is the money, and he understands what Ms. Humphris is saying. He would probably use General Government recurring funds. He did not know what the School Board was going to do, and they have now voted for the 4.2 percent increase. Ms. Humphris said they did that because the Supervisors gave them the money. Mr. Tucker said the 3/10th of a percent was deducted from the money given the Schools. Ms. Humphris said that obviously with all of their needs, they felt that they could still do that. Mr. Perkins said the Board of Supervisors and the School Board worked hard to achieve commonality. It seems like they are just pitching it out. Mr. Tucker said there have been times when there May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) were different scales, and different amounts for teachers and classified employees. Dr. Castner did not agree that there should be a difference for classified employees. Mr. Tucker said the School Board is now saying the percentage must be kept common with the teachers. Mr. Tucker said he had mentioned a few weeks ago the 97 percent to mid-point market. He said the consultants calculated on 97 percent of what should have been 100 percent, and staff has now recalculated the shortage, and it is about $134,000. Based on the consensus he just heard, he is not sure he should bring it back up. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Perkins has been silent and she and Ms. Humphris disagree, so that is not much of a consensus. Ms. Humphris said she thinks all the Board members should have a say. She is sorry that the whole thing came up. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Supervisors should ask the School Board if they want to abandon the whole commonality policy. Ms. Humphris said there is a time when some of the School Board members are newer and the commonality principle is not as ingrained in them as it was among the people who worked hard to get it. Ms. Perkins said there are probably other violations of that policy. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the School Board sees commonality differently. They want commonality among all their employees. Mr. Perkins said all the compensation studies he has been involved with, had the teachers in a separate category. There were times when some teachers got 10 to 12 percent. Mr. Tucker said when they apply their formula, it will not be common because the 4.2 percent is just an average. He said he will bring this item up for discussion again next week. __________ Ms. Thomas mentioned receiving a letter from the Rivanna Trails Foundation. They are asking that the County appoint a committee on greenway development. She spoke to Mr. Wayne Cilimberg who indicated that staff can prepare a plan of action for the Board's review on June 6. __________ Ms. Thomas mentioned that she and Mr. Martin met with Councillors Blake Caravati and Maurice Cox to draft a charge for the CHART Committee (formerly CATS Committee). The Board will receive a copy of the goals and criteria for judging projects to discuss on May 9. She said there was a lot of interest expressed in having transportation planning and land use planning, and working closely together. __________ Ms. Thomas said she will be meeting with the EXACTA Sports people in about a week. Anyone who is interested can accompany her. For $3.0 to $5.0 million, the County can get a baseball stadium and team in this area. The City would put up a like amount. Private investors would put up twice that amount. She told them that she had never met anyone who was enthusiastic about this except really die-hard A@ baseball fans, and she has only talked to three such people. Ms. Humphris said there is an interesting proposal coming to Richmond for a stadium for the Braves. It is at a cost of $60.0 million. She realizes that is probably a higher league than what would be offered here, but she has never sensed any community support for taxpayers to participate in such a project. Ms. Thomas said she has become aware of a way in which this community is really unusual. The community has so many opportunities for families to take their kids to games because of what are called lesser sports at the University of Virginia. There is soccer and Lacrosse and the womens teams which A@= provide good family entertainment. Most communities of this size do not have the same opportunities. That is what she has told these people so far. __________ Mr. Tucker said that last week he, Mr. Larry Davis, Mr. Tom Foley and Mr. Jack Kelsey attended a conference in Roanoke regarding environmental management systems and how to handle hazardous waste materials. It was very informative. Staff will be working on some type of system soon and develop a policy for the Board's review and adoption. This conference was more attuned to larger cities because of their major public works functions. One thing the County needs to look at is the Schools Vehicle = Maintenance Shop. There are hazardous materials used by the Parks system also. Where the hazard comes in is with the different authorities, de-icing at the Airport, water and sewer treatment plants, are the big items. Ms. Thomas asked if there was some new regulation which brought this up. Mr. Tucker said no. A@ Roanoke was cited in 1998 on a criminal violation by the EPA and fined over $500,000. Their acting city manager has to see a probation officer once a month. Mr. Davis said Roanoke City pleaded guilty to a felony. It was basically storing hazardous materials with improper labeling. The grievous offence occured in the 70s and 80s when they had buried barrels of hazardous materials in their storage yard. The EPA felt that was something that went beyond civil liability to criminal liability. On most of the offenses the statue of limitations had run out, but once they examined them more closely, they found enough violations to pursue criminal violations. Mr. Foley said the thing they were convicted on was the labeling requirement, which anybody could miss, but it was serious enough for them to be convicted. Ms. Thomas said when she worked at the University, she was very aware of the microscope they May 2, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) are under to take care of every item both in the Medical Center and all the research, and other areas. Mr. Tucker said the University was cited a year or so ago. Ms. Thomas said it is more than a full-time job dealing with this area. They have given up and no longer send anything to the landfill. They decided that they cannot educate their Medical Center staff well enough. They are incinerating everything. _______________ Agenda Item No. 19. With nothing further to come before the Board members present, the meeting ended at 4:08 p.m. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 08/01/2001 Initials: LAB