HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-05 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of April 5, 2000
April 11,2000
1, Call to order~
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
· Mr. Paul Grady, a county resident, asked that the Board
consider postponing construction of a fire station across from
Monticello High School. He suggested that, instead, the
visitor's center property be used as an urban park, which could
contain a library, a police sub-station, and a fire station.
4,a. Presentation to Senior Deputy Clerk. PRESENTATION made
by Mr. Martin.
5.1 Appropriation: Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, $92,369
(Form #99064). APPROVED.
5.2 Appropriation: Emergency Communications Center, $80,000
(Form #99065). APPROVED,
5.3 Appropriation: Education, $6,050 (Form ~99066).
APPROVED.
5.4 Appropriation: Education, $102,073.37 (Form #99067).
APPROVED.
5.5 Authorize Chairman to execute "Mutual Aid Agreement"
between Albemarle County and Louisa County. AUTHORIZED
execution of agreement.
5.6 Authorize Chairman to execute "Mutual Aid Agreement"
between Albemarle County and Fluvanna County.
AUTHORIZED execution of agreement.
5.7 Authorize Chairman to execute "Mutual Aid Agreement"
between Albemarle County and Augusta County. AUTHORIZED
execution of agreement.
5.8 Cancellation of VDoT Road Project Agreements, re: Route 649
(Airport Road) and Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II (Rio Road
to Free State Road). APPROVED. [Discussed under
transportation matters (see item 7.)] Consensus of Board to
write to VDOT to express the Board's desire to have VDOT take
the lead on both projects.
5.9 Adopt Resolution supporting reduction of speed limit on Route
20 South. ADOPTED,
5.10 Adopt Resolution to approve establishment of Scottsville
Volunteer Rescue Squad. ADOPTED.
5.11 Repeal Farmer's Market Zoning Text Amendment.
APPROVED.
5.12 Request to set public hearing for leash law in Westmont
Subdivision. SET PUBLIC HEARING for 5/3/00 at 10:45 a.m..
5.13 Proclamation recognizing April, 2000 as Fair Housing Month.
ADOPTED.
5.14 Proclamation recognizing April 9 through April 15, 2000 as
National Telecommunicator's Week. ADOPTED.
5.15 Proclamation recognizing April 9 through April 15, 2000 as
ASSIGNMENT
Meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m., by the
Chairman, Mr. Martin. All BOS members present
(Mr. Bowerman arrived at 9:18 a.m.)
Clerk: Laurie Bentley.
Clerk: Thank Mr. Grady for his comments.
None.
Clerk: Forward signed appropriation form to
M. Breeden, copying appropriate persons.
Clerk: Forward signed appropriation form to
M. Breeden, copying appropriate persons.
Clerk: Forward signed appropriation form to
M. Breeden, copying appropriate persons. Send
letter of appreciation to donors.
Clerk: .Forward signed appropriation form to
M. Breeden, copying appropriate persons.
Clerk: Forward signed copy of agreement to
County Attorney.
Clerk: Forward signed copy of agreement to
County Attorney.
Clerk: Forward signed copy of agreement to
County Attorney.
Clerk: Include in transportation letter to A. Tucker.
County Executive: Write VDOT.
Clerk: Include in transportation letter to A. Tucker.
Clerk: Forward copy of signed resolution to
C. Pumphrey and L. Davis.
None.
Clerk: Advertise public hearing and notify applicant
and property owners.
None. (Proclamation was given to Housing
Department representative during the meeting.
Clerk: Forward signed proclamation to T. Hanson.
Clerk: Forward signed proclamation to S. Painter.
Crime Victims' Rights Week. ADOPTED.
5.16 January 2000 Financial Report. APPROVED.
5.17 Copy of Final Section 4(0 Evaluation of the Albemarle County
School properties, Route 29 Bypass, (State Project No: 6029-
002-F22,PE 101; RUVA-002-001 ,PE 101) (Federal Project No:
NH-037-2 [130]), Albemarle County, Virginia, prepared by the
Federal Highway Administration and Virginia Department of
Transportation (on file in the Clerk's office). [This item was
discussed under Transportation Matters (see Item 7), but no
action was taken.]
7. Transportation Matters.
· Ms. Tucker did not provide an update.
· Ms. Tucker advised the Board that the Meadow Creek Parkway
Phase II and Airport Road projects will go through the normal
VDOT process.
· Mr. Dorrier thanked VDOT for their prompt attention to the
dangerous traffic situation on Route 20 South, including
improvements and the speed limit reduction.
· Ms. Thomas mentioned a 3~24 letter from Mr. John Moore
regarding through-travelling tractor-trailers on Rts 231/22.
Mr. Tucker had not seen the letter; he will follow-up with staff.
· Ms. Humphris asked whether the Governor still opposes photo
red-light enforcement at intersections. Mr. Tucker said the
Governor has until 4/9 to make a decision.
· * Ms. Humphris, referring to a letter from the Transportation
Coalition regarding the Bypass, said it is simply 'window
dressing".
· Mr. Bowerman said he has asked VDOT and staff to look at the
problem of truck through-traffic on Rt. 743, as truckers avoid
Rt. 29. Mr. Tucker said staff will provide a recommendation at
the 5/3/00 Board meeting.
· Mr. Martin asked when VDOT will hold a public hearing on the
Route 29 east- and west-side parallel roads. Ms. Tucker said a
public hearing will be held this fall. If the Board wants
information to reach the public sooner, they should make a
formal request. It was the consensus of the Board to do so.
9. Presentation by Registrar. PRESENTATION made by
Ms. Jackie Harris.
None.
None.
None.
None.
County Executive: Follow up with staff (Clerk has
since given him a copy of the letter.)
None.
None.
Plannin,q staff: Present recommendation at 5/3/00
Board meeting.
Clerk: Include in transportation letter to A. Tucker.
None.
10. School Board Presentation. PRESENTATION made by None.
Dr. Charles Ward.
None.
11, Presentation by the Development Areas Initiative Steering
Committee. PRESENTATION made by Mr. Bob Watson.
12. Continuation of stormwater management discussion. It was the
consensus of the Board to provide information on how the
County can manage the stormwater process itself.
15. Appointments.
· Appointed Ms. Cynthia Dupree to the Rivanna Solid Waste
Citizens Advisory Committee, with term to run from 4/5/00
through 12/31/01.
· Reappointed Mr. Larry Miller to Commission on Children and
Families, with term to run from 7/1/00 through 6~30~03.
· Reappointed Mr. Charles J. Gross to the Community College
Board of Directors, with term to run from 7/1100 through
6/30/04.
· Reappointed Mr. Robert F. German, Jr. to the Library Board,
E..ngineerin,q staff: Provide information to the
Board.
Clerk: Notify appointees and update Boards and
Commissions files. Advertise vacancies as
requested.
with term to run from 7/1/00 through 6/30/04.
Reappointed Mr. Peter L. Sheras to the Region Ten
Community Services Board, with term to run from 7/1/00
thrOu~lh 6/30/03.
16. Other Matters not listed on the agenda from the Board.
· Ms. Thomas said a community workshop will be held on 4~8/00
to discuss the Eastern Planning Initiative.
· Ms. Humphris mentioned a letter from a citizen who asked
about a traff= light at the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and
Rio Road, saying there is no indication as to who has right of
way. He sent the letter to VDOT and the City, as well.
· Ms. Humphris asked if the Farmer's Market is underway yet.
Mr. Tucker said the bill will be signed 7/1/00.
· Mr. Bowerman asked the Board's concurrence with a request
from the Charlottesville Catholic School to expedite their
rezoning request for temporary use of Four Seasons for their
school and to add 50 children. Consensus of Board to do so.
None.
None.
None.
Plannin.q staff: Expedite process.
Clerk: Advertise public hearing for 5/3/00.
20. Public hearing to receive comments on Recommended None.
Operating Budget for FY 2000-2001. HELD PUBLIC HEARING.
21. Public hearing on proposed tax rates for calendar year 2000. None.
HELD PUBLIC HEARING.
22. Adjourn to April 10, 2000 for joint meeting w/Charlottesville City
Council, at the Senior Center.
David R Bow~m~an
Lindsay G. Dorder, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivm~na
Walter E Perkins
White
Sally H. Thomas
April 17, 2000
Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
Dear Ms. Tucker:
At the April 5, 2000 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board took the following action
regarding transportation matters:
Agenda Item No. 5.8 Cancellation of VDoT Road Project Agreements, re: Route 649 (Airport
Roa~l) and Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II (Rio Road to Free State Road). APPROVED.
Agenda Item No. 5.9 Adopt Resolution supporting reduction of speed limit on Route 20 South
(attached). ADOPTED.
Agenda Item No. 7..Other Transportation Matters.
You advised the Board that the Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II and Airport Road projects will
go through the normal VDOT process.
Mr. Dorrier thanked VDOT for its prompt attention to the dangerous traffic situation on Route 20
South, including improvements and the speed limit reduction.
Ms. Thomas mentioned a March 24, 2000 letter from Mr. John Moore regarding through-travelling
tractor-trailers on Rts 231122. Mr. Tucker had not seen the letter; he will follow-up with staff.
Mr. Bowerman said he has asked VDOT and staff to look at the problem of truck through-traffic on
Rt. 743, as truckers avoid Rt. 29. Mr. Tucker said staff will provide a recommendation at the 5/3/00 Board
meeting.
Printed on recycled paper
Mr. Martin asked when VDOT will hold a public hearing on the Route 29 east- and west-side
parallel roads. You said a public hearing will be held this fall. If the Board wants information to reach the
public sooner, they should make a formal request. It was the consensus of the Board to do so.
Sincerely,
Laurel A. Bentley
Senior Deputy Clerk
Attachment
cc: Robert Tucker
David P. Bowerrnan
Rio
Lindsay (3. Dorrier, Jr.
Scottsville
Charlotte Y. Humphds
,Jack ,Jouelt
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivann~
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Sarau~.l
April 17, 2000
Mr. Paul Grady
5676 BrownSville Rd.
Crozet, VA 22932
Dear Mr. Grady:
Thank you for your recent comments to the Board of Supervisors on April 5, 2000, concerning the
land near Monticello High School. The Board appreciates you taking the time to appear and make your
views known
Again, thank you for your comments.
Sincerely,
C'harles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/lab
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGEN DA TITLE:
Appropriation - Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Capital
Improvements
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Approval of Appropriation #99064 in the amount of
$92,369 for renovations at the Juvenile & Domestic Relations
Court
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Mss. White, Gulati
AGENDA DATE:
April 5, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The City of Charlottesville, who manages the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court for the City and County, has been working
with the State Department of Juvenile Justice over the past year to determine the required capital improvements to bring the
holding cells up to state standards. In addition to security improvements, the Juvenile Court Facility required some major
modifications to provide space for the third Juvenile Court judge appointed July 1, 1999.
DISCUSSION:
Phase I of the renovations at the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court are almost complete and Phase II security improvements
are slated to begin in the next few weeks.
Phase I renovations include the configuration of the waiting room outside of one of the current judge's courtrooms to make a
third courtroom, the installation of a new HVAC system in that courtroom; the installation of a new ceiling, lighting and carpeting;
and the installation of a new waiting area. The County's 50% share of the total cost of Phase I renovations is $53,716, and
includes approximately $43,000 in construction costs, $4,000 in architectural services, and the remainder in advertising and
project inspections.
Phase II renovations include the following improvements to the holding cells (required by the State:) the installation of new
video cameras and monitors, the replacement of the iron bunks with concrete base bunks, the installation of additional lighting,
and the installaion of sound barriers between the juvenile and adult cells. The County's 50% share of the total cost of Phase
II renovations is $38,653.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests approval of appropriation #99064 in the amount of $92,369 for the County's share of renovations at the Juvenile
& Domestic Relations Court building.
00.055
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR RENOVATIONS AT JUVENILE COURT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
99064
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
YES
NO X
AMOUNT
1 9010 21050 331000 JUVENILE COURT $92,369.00
TOTAL $92,369.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRI PTI ON AMOUNT
2 9010 51000 510100C.I.P. FUND BALANCE $92,369.00
TOTAL $92,369.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OFSUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
MARCH 20, 2000
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Emergency Communications Center
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation #99065 in the
amount of $80,000.00 for the funding of three new
employee positions.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Hanson, Breeden, White, Gulati
AGENDA DATE:
April 5, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:-
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
At its January 2000, meeting, the Emergency Communications Center Management Board approved $51,700 to
fund three new employee positions for the Center. The positions are systems engineer, systems analyst, and
support analyst. Since the meeting, all positions have been filled. The FY 99/00 funding for these positions has
been revised to $30,000. The salary and fringe costs will be funded from the ECC's fund balance.
At its March 2000, meeting, the ECC Management Board approved up to $50,000 for a consultant to review the
800Mh radio contract. This consultant cost also will be funded from the ECC's fund balance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the appropriations totaling $80,000, as detailed on Appropriation #99065.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
00.057
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
99/00
NUMBER
99065
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND:
EMERGENCY COMM. CENTER
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR 3 NEW EMPLOYEE POSITIONS.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 4100 31041 110000 SALARIES $22,117.00
1 4100 31041 120000 OVERTIME 2,380.00
1 4100 31041 210000 FICA 1,692.00
1 4100 31041 221000 RETIREMENT 2,039.00
1 4100 31041 231000 HEALTH INSURANCE 1,508.00
1 4100 31041 232000 DENTAL INSURANCE 50.00
1 4109 31041 241000 GROUP LIFE INSURANCE 180.00
I 4100 31041 270000 WORKER'S COMPENSATION 34.00
I 4100 31041 312700 CONSULTANTS 50,000.00
TOTAL $80,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 4100 51000 510100 E.C.C. FUND BALANCE $80,000.00
TOTAL $80,000.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
E.C.C.
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
MARCH 24, 2000
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Education
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation #99066, totaling
$6,050.00 for various donations and funding for WAHS
Press Box.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Castner, Breeden, White, Gulati
AGENDA DATE:
April 5, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
Yes
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Donation - Sycamore House Studio Art Shop
Albemarle County Public Schools received donations from the Sycamore House Studio Art Shop in the amount
of $300.00 and Tri-City Insulation Inc. in the amount of $50.00. These donations will help defray the costs of the
Fine Arts Festival.
Donation for Western Albemarle High School
Western Albemarle High School received donations from Edgar Bronfman for $5,000.00; Dennis Cox for $150.00;
ConAgra Frozen Foods for $500.00; and Dr. & Mrs. Robert Rotella for $50.00. These funds are to be used for
-the building of the WAHS Baseball Pressbox/Concession Stand.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests approval of Appropriation #99066, totaling #6,050.00, for various donations and funding for the
WAHS baseball pressbox/concession stand.
BOARD OF SUPER¥ib~-; ~"-~:
00.058
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
99/00
NUMBER
99066
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
YES
NO X
SCHOOL & C.I.P.
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR WAHS PRESS AND VARIOUS SCHOOL DONATIONS.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 2111 61311 601300 Inst/RecSupplies $350.00
1 9000 60302 800651 WAHSPressbox $5,700.00
CODE
2 2000 18100
2 9000 18100
TOTAL $6,050.00
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
181109 Donation .$350.00
181112 WAHS Pressbox $5,700.00
TOTAL $6,050.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
MARCH 27, 2000
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BOARD OF SUPERViSORS
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Education
SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation #99067, totaling
$102,073.37, for various grants and donations.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Caster, Breeden, White, Gulati
AGENDA DATE:
April 5, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
2000 Technology Grant
Chapter 935, 1999 Virginia ACts of Assembly (the 1998-2000 Appropriation Act) authorizes the Virginia Public
School Authority to conduct an education technology grant program 'in the spring of the year 2000. The primary
purpose of this educational technology grant program is to provide for replacement of hardware related to
administrative and student management and information systems. Albemarle County meets or exceeds the
minimum requirements necessary to receive these funds. For participation in the spring 2000 Technology Grant
Program, localities are required to provide a match equal to 20 percent of all grant amounts. At least 25% of the
local match shall be used for teacher training in the use of technology. The local match is provided by funds
already allocated to ClP technology expenditures and operational funds already in the school budget. This grant
will be coordinated with other administrative ClP technology projects as indicated in the Albemarle County Schools
Comprehensive Technology Plan and will result in improved hardware standards for administrative computer work
stations and servers. The 2000 Technology Grant is in the amount of $63,330.00.
Virginia Association of Teachers of English Grant
Linda Hill, a teacher at Albemarle High School, was awarded a grant from the Virginia Association of Teachers
of English, in the amount of $485.46. This award will fund the program Reading and Writing with Our Ears. This
program will target students who are reading below grade level and/or students identified as learning disabled to
help improve their skills and enhance their independent reading efforts.
Virginia Odyssey of the Mind
In 1999, the Virginia Odyssey of the Mind, Jefferson Region, agreed to affiliate with Destination Imagination (DI)
an alternative problem-solving program. The Jefferson Region DI is responsible for providing a regional level DI
competition for county students and surrounding school districts. Our regional tournament was held on March 15
at Western Albemarle High school. About 69 teams of students participated; 31 of which were from Albemarle
County. A total of $7,300.00 came from team registration fees, T-shirt sales, and contributions from corporate
sponsor solicitation. In addition, the Jefferson Region has a carryover fund balance of $1,616.04. Jefferson
Region DI requests that Albemarle County continue as fiscal agent for our region.
Carl Perkins Federal Vocational Education Entitlements
The Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Education has notified Albemarle County Schools of the Revised
Carl Perkins Federal Vocational Education Entitlements for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. This revision increases
Albemarle County Schools entitlement by $7,051.00. These funds will be used to provide vocational staff
development.
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Education
April 5, 2000
Page 2
Vircjinia Department of Education - Due Process Hearin,q Expense Reimbursment
The Albemarle County Public Schools has received a partial reimbursement of Due Process Fees from the Virginia
Department of Education (DOE). This reimbursement is to help cover the cost of Due Process Hearing
expenditures incurred by the Albemarle County Special Education Department. This reimbursement is in the
amount of $10,674.30.
National Science Foundation Grants
The Albemarle County Public Schools has been awarded grants from the National Science Foundation in the
amount of $7,500.00. Albemarle High School in the amount of $3,750.00 and Monticello High in the amount of
$3,750.00. These funds will be used to support the schools' science and mathematics centers and other school
science and mathematics activities.
Teacher Incentive Grants - Virginia Commission for the Arts
Three Albemarle County Public Schools have been awarded Teacher Incentive Grants from the Virginia
Commission for the Arts for a total of $850.00. Two awards for Murray Elementary School in the amount of
$300.00 each, and Burley Middle School in the amount of $250.00. The Teacher Incentive Grant Program has
been established to help strengthen the quality of education in and through the elementary and secondary schools
and to encourage innovative projects which link the arts with non-arts curricula.
Various Donations
Murray Elementary School received anonymous donations in the amount of $440.00. These donations will be
used to purchase data processing supplies, instructional materials, and to support the reading program at the
school.
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $2,826.57. This donation
will be used for the remedial reading teacher to work extra time with several students at the school.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests approval of Appropriation #99067, totaling $102,073.37 for various donations.
00.059
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99~00
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
99067
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND:
SCHOOL & C.I.P.
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR VARIOUS SCHOOL DONATIONS AND PROGRAMS.
CODE
1 9000 62190 800707
EXPENDITU RE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Equipment Grant $63,330.00
1 3104 60301 601300 InsVRec Supplies 485.46
1 3129 61104 113000 ProFOther 3,000.00
1 3129 61104 120310 OveAime Sp. Even~ 2,500.00
1 3129 61104 210000 FICA 421.00
1 3129 61104 520100 Postage 100.00
1 3129 61104 580000 Miscellaneous 1,895.04
1 3129 61104 601300 Materials 1,000.00
1 3207 61190 800100 Equip/Mach 7,051.00
1 2112 62110 312100 Prof. Sew 10,674.30
1 3104 60301 601300 Ins~Rec Supplies 3,750.00
I 3104 60304 601300 Ins~Rec Supplies 3,750.00
I 3104 60616 601300 Ins~Rec Supplies 600.00
1 3104 60251 601300 Ins~Rec Supplies 250.00
1 2215 61101 601300 Ins~RecSupplies 240.00
1 2215 61101 601600 Da~ Proc. Supplies 200.00
1 2206 61101 152100 Sub-Wages-Teacher 2,614.57
1 2206 61101 200000 FICA 212.00
CODE
2 9000 24000
2 3104 18OOO
2 3129 16000
2 3129 18100
2 3129 18000
2 3129 51000
TOTAL $102,073.37
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
240265 Equipment Grant
181235 English Grant Award
161260 Jefferson Region Reg Fees
181109 Contributions
189918 Proceeds-Sales
510100 Appro-Fund Balance
$63,330.00
485.46
2,100.00
700.00
4,500.00
1,616.04
2 3207 33000 330107 Carl Perkins 7,051.00
2 2000 24000 240212 DOE DueProcess 10,674.30
2 3104 18000 181238 Nat'lScienceFoundation 3,750.00
2 3104 18000 181239 Nat'lScienceFoundation 3,750.00
2 3104 24000 240328 Murray Elem Inc. Grant 600.00
2 3104 24000 240333 Burleyln¢.Grant 250.00
2 2000 18100 181109Donation 440.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation 2,826.57
TOTAL $102,073.37
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
MARCH 27, 2000
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Mutual Aid Agreement with Louisa County
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
BOS approval of Chairman authority to execute the
"Mutual Aid Agreement" between Albemarle County
and Louisa County.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Pumphrey
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA DATE:
April 5, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: × INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Mut,,~al Aid Agreement
Currently Albemarle County does not have written mutual aid agreements for fire and rescue services with its
neighboring counties. To assure the terms under which such aid is delivered and to maximize the statutory
immunity provided by Virginia Code §§ 27-2, 27-4, and 27-23.6, a standard agreement has been prepared and
forwarded to each county for review and approval.
DISCUSSION:
A Mutual Aid Agreement prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney between Albemarle County and
Louisa County has been approved by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the Mutual Aid Agreement on behalf
of the County.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
00.054
MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this 02/~~'-4 day of /'T~2 re,/) ,2000, by and
between Albemarle County, a political subdivision o£the Commonwealth of Virginia,
hereinafter referred to as "Albemarle", and Louisa County, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as "Louisa",
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be mutually beneficial to Albemarle and Louisa to enter into
an agreement concerning mutual aid with regard to fire and rescue services; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire that the terms and conditions of this Mutual Aid
Agreement be established pursuant to §§ 27-2, 27-4 and 27-23.6 of the Code of Virginia;
NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the mutual benefits
to be derived by Albemarle and Louisa from this Agreement, Albemarle and Louisa hereby
covenant and agree each with the other as follows:
1. That Albemarle and Louisa will endeavor to provide fire suppression, fire
prevention, rescue, hazardous materials response, and other related governmental services to the
other county within the capabilities available at the time the request for such support is made.
Such response may be by county-paid employees or by county volunteer company or department
firefighters and rescuers.
2. That nothing contained in this Agreement should in any manner be construed to
compel either county to respond to a request for services in the other county when the resources
of the county to which the request is being made are needed, or are being used, within the
boundaries of its own county, nor shall any such request compel the assisting county to continue
to provide services in the other county when its personnel, apparatus or equipment are needed
within the boundaries of its own county.
3. That each county acknowledges that it is fully capable of providing fire services,
rescue services, hazardous material response services, and other related governmental services to
adequately serve its respective county.
4. That neither county shall be liable to the other for any loss or damage to property
or personal injury or death of personnel resulting from the performance of this Agreement.
5. That each county shall indemnify and save harmless the assisting county from all
claims by third parties for property damage or personal injury which may arise out of the
activities of the assisting county resulting from the performance of this Agreement.
6. The county requesting assistance shall not be required to reimburse the assisting
county for apparatus, equipment or personnel occasioned by a response for assistance, or for
damage to such apparatus or equipment, or injuries to personnel incurred when responding in the
other county; provided, however, the county requesting assistance under the terms of this
Agreement shall pay the responding entity from the other county the actual cost of specialized
extinguishing or hazardous material mitigation agents used in rendering assistance pursuant to
this Agreement.
7. That the county requesting assistance pursuant to this Agreement shall make such
request to the emergency communications center of the assisting county, which will then contact
the appropriate county officials to determine its response.
8. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the personnel
making such response shall not become employees of the county requesting assistance for the
purposes of the Virginia Workers Compensation Act.
9. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the personnel
manning such responding units shall remain under the command of the senior responding officer,
and shall work as a unified company and shall not be split apart during the emergency operations
unless ordered by the senior responding officer.
10. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance and the senior
responding officer determines that the emergency operations are being conducted in an unsafe
manner, the assisting county may limit its assistance to a support service or withdraw the
assistance to ensure the safety of its personnel.
This Agreement may be modified only by the mutual written consent of both
11.
counties.
12.
This Agreement may be terminated at any time by either county giving thirty (30)
days written notice of termination to the other county.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, Albemarle's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and
Louisa's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors execute this Agreement, they being authorized to
do so.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
,~'~mjla~"County Attorney
I~ouisa Coun~]~ttorney t~'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
By ~'~~
Charles S. Martin, tJhairman
Board of Supervisors
COUNTY OF LOUISA
B Y BC ~) aEr~V~a~ ~ uKp;brve; sJor~: Ch~
3
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Mutual Aid Agreement with Fluvanna County
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
BOS approval of Chairman authority to execute the
"Mutual Aid Agreement" between Albemarle County
and Fluvanna County.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Pumphrey
AGENDA DATE:
April 5, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
Currently Albemarle County does not have written mutual aid agreements for fire and rescue services with its
· neighboring counties. To assure the terms under which such aid is delivered and to maximize the statutory
immunity provided by Virginia Code §§ 27-2, 27-4, and 27-23.6, a standard agreement has been prepared and
forwarded to each county for review and approval.
DISCUSSION:
A Mutual Aid Agreement prepared by the Albemarle County Attomey between Albemarle County and Fluvanna
County has been approved by the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the Mutual Aid Agreement on behalf of
the County.
00.060-A
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this ,.,q~ ~Y day of ~?'~;-e_~ ,2000, by and
between Albemarle County, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
hereinafter referred to as "Albemarle", and Fluvanna County, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as "Fluvanna",
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be mutually beneficial to Albemarle and Fluvanna to enter
into an agreement concerning mutual aid with regard to fire and rescue services; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire that the terms and conditions of this Mutual Aid
Agreement be established pursuant to § § 27-2, 27-4 and 27-23.6 of the Code of Virginia;
NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the mutual benefits
to be derived by Albemarle and Fluvanna from this Agreement, Albemarle and Fluvanna hereby
covenant and agree each with the other as follows:
1. That Albemarle and Fluvanna will endeavor to provide fire suppression, fire
prevention, rescue, hazardous materials response, and other related governmental services to the
other county within the capabilities available at the time the request for such support is made.
Such response may be by county-paid employees or by county volunteer company or department
firefighters and rescuers.
2. That nothing contained in this Agreement should in any manner be construed to
compel either county to respond to a request for services in the other county when the resources
of the county to which the request is being made are needed, or are being used, within the
boundaries of its own county, nor shall any such request compel the assisting county to Continue
to provide services in the other county when its personnel, apparatus or equipment are needed
within the boundaries of its own county.
3. That each county acknowledges that it is fully capable of providing fire services,
rescue services, hazardous material response services, and other related governmental services to
adequately serve its respective county.
4. That neither county shall be liable to the other for any loss or damage to property
or personal injury or death of personnel resulting from the performance of this Agreement.
5. That each county shall indemnify and save harmless the assisting county from all
claims by third parties for property damage or personal injury which may arise out of the
activities of the assisting county resulting from the performance of this Agreement.
6. The county requesting assistance shall not be required to reimburse the assisting
county for apparatus, equipment or personnel occasioned by a response for assistance, or for
damage to such apparatus or equipment, or injuries to personnel incurred when responding in the
othe~ county; provided, however, the county requesting assistance under the terms of this
Agreement shall pay the responding entity from the other county the actual cost of specialized
extinguishing or hazardous material mitigation agents used in rendering assistance pursuant to
this Agreement.
7. That the county requesting assistance pursuant to this Agreement shall make such
request to the emergency communications center of the assisting county, which will then contact
the appropriate county officials to determine its response.
8. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the personnel
making such response shall not become employees of the county requesting assistance for the
purposes of the Virginia Workers Compensation Act.
9. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the personnel
manning such responding units shall remain under the command of the senior responding officer,
and shall work as a unified company and shall not be split apart during the emergency operations
unless ordered by the senior responding officer.
10. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance and the senior
responding officer determines that the emergency operations are being conducted in an unsafe
manner, the assisting county may limit its assistance to a support service or withdraw the
assistance to ensure the safety of its personnel.
This Agreement may be modified only by the mutual written consent of both
11.
counties.
12.
This Agreement may be terminated at any time by either county giving thirty (30)
days written notice of termination to the other county.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, Albemarle's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and
Flux;anna's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors execute this Agreement, they being authorized
to do so.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
,~:~B'e m ~l:t~"C o unty Attorney
Fluvanna County Attorney
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Charles S. Martin, ~hki~inan
Board of Supervisors
COUNTY OF FLUVANNA
By '~/~,~~/
X~ta~c~'~ce, ChmWnan
Boar/d/0f Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Mutual Aid Agreement with Augusta County
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
BOS approval of Chairman authority to execute the
"Mutual Aid Agreement" between Albemarle County
and Augusta County.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Pumphrey
AGENDA DATE:
April 5, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
BACKGROUND:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: .~~'~- ~
Currently Albemarle COunty does not have written mutual aid agreements for fire and rescue services with its
neighboring counties. To assure the terms under which such aid is delivered and to maximize the statutory
immunity provided by Virginia Code §§ 27-2, 27-4, and 27-23.6, a standard agreement has been prepared and
forwarded to each county for review and approval.
DISCUSSION:
A Mutual Aid Agreement prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney between Albemarle County and
Augusta County has been apprOved by the Augusta County Board of Supervisors.
RECOM MEN DATIO N:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the Mutual Aid Agreement on behalf
of the County.
BOARD OF SUPERVI[SORS
00.061-A
MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this 2~d day of ~,~,4c~ ,2000, by and
between Albemarle County, a pOlitical subdivision Of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
hereinafter referred to as "Albemarle", and Augusta County, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as "Augusta",
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be mutually beneficial to Albemarle and Augusta to enter
into an agreement concerning mutual aid with regard to fire and rescue services; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire that the terms and conditions of this Mutual Aid
Agreement be established pursuant to § § 27-2, 27-4 and 27-23.6 of the Code of Virginia;
NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the mutual benefits
to be derived by Albemarle and Augusta from this Agreement, Albemarle and Augusta hereby
covenant and agree each with the other as follows:
1. That Albemarle and Augusta will endeavor to provide fire suppression, fire
prevention, rescue, hazardous materials response, and other related governmental services to the
other county within the capabilities available at the time the request for such support is made.
Such response may be by county-paid employees or by county volunteer company or department
firefighters and rescuers.
2. That nothing contained in this Agreement should in any manner be construed to
compel either county to respond to a request for services in the other county when the resources
of the county to which the request is being made are needed, or are being used, within the
boundaries of its own county, nor shall any such request compel the assisting county to continue
to provide services in the other county when its personnel, apparatus or equipment are needed
within the boundaries of its own county.
3. That each county acknowledges that it is fully capable of providing fire services,
rescue services, hazardous material response services, and other related governmental services to
adequately serve its respective county.
4. That neither county shall be liable to the other for any loss or damage to property
or personal injury or death of personnel resulting from the performance of this Agreement.
5. That each county shall indemnify and save harmless the assisting county from all
claims by third parties for property damage or personal injury which may arise out of the
activities of the assisting county resulting from the performance of this Agreement.
6. The county requesting assistance shall not be required to reimburse the assisting
county for apparatus, equipment or personnel occasioned by a response for assistance, or for
damage to such apparatus or equipment, or injuries to personnel incurred when responding in the
othe} County; provided, however, the county requesting assistance under the terms of this
Agreement shall pay the responding entity from the other county the actual cost of specialized
extinguishing or hazardous material mitigation agents used in rendering assistance pursuant to
this Agreement.
7. That the county requesting assistance pursuant to this Agreement shall make such
request to the emergency communications center of the assisting county, which will then contact
the appropriate county officials to determine its response.
8. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the personnel
making sucl~ response shall not become employees of the county requesting assistance for the
purposes of the Virginia Workers Compensation Act.
9. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the personnel
manning such responding units shall remain under the command of the senior responding officer,
and shall work as a unified company and shall not be split apart during the emergency operations
unless ordered by the senior responding officer.
10. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance and the senior
responding officer determines that the emergency operations are being conducted in an un_safe
manner, the assisting county may limit its assistance to a support service or withdraw the
assistance to ensure the safety of its personnel.
This Agreement may be modified only by the mutual written consent of both
11.
counties.
12.
This Agreement may be terminated at any time by either county giving thirty (30)
days written notice of termination to the other county.
13. The services performed and expenditures made under this Agreement shall be
dee~ned to be for public and governmental purposes and all immunities from liability enjoyed by
the counties or voluntary fire companies or departments within their boundaries shall extend to
activities pursuant to this Agreement outside their boundaries.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, Albemarle's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and
Augusta's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors execute this Agreement, they being authorized
to do so.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
By
Charles S. Martin,
Board of Supervisors
COUNTY OF AUGUSTA
~//J. Dohald Hanger, Chain~an
,fi' Board of Supervisors
3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~marl~'ounty Attorney
Augusta County Attorney
4
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Cancellation of VDOT Road Project Agreements.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Cancel Route 649 (Airport Road) Project agreement s;
withdraw approval of agreement for Phase II of Meadow
Creek Parkway (Rio Road to Free State Road).
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Mawyer
AGENDA DATE:
April 5, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In an attempt to expedite two major road projects, the County proposed to take on VDOT project responsibilities for the Airport
Road Project (Rt. 649) and the design of Phase II of the Meadowcreek Parkway (Rio Road to Free State Road).
The Airport Road Project was to be administered by the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport Authority on behalf of the County.
To this end, on November 20, 1997, the County entered into an agreement with VDOT to design and construct the Airport
Road Project and in December, 1997, entered into a pass-through agreement with the Airport Authority that would require
the Airport Authority to actually administer the Project.
Meadow Creek Parkway, Phase, II, envisioned an accelerated design process to be administered by the County. The purpose
was to locate the road so that right of way could be identified and protected as develOpment occurred. The Board of
Supervisors in December, 1999, authorized the County Executive to execute a contract to take on this VDOT responsibility.
This contract has not been executed.
DISCUSSION:
The Airport Road Project Agreement expressly provided that VDOT would condemn any right of way necessary for the Project
upon the request of the County. Similarly, the proposed Phase II Project for the Meadowcreek Parkway did not contemplate
the County acquiring any right of way other than through the subdivision process. The County's clear intent for both of these
projects was that VDOT would have to acquire any property that could not be acquired voluntarily. VDOT's position now is
that it cannot efficiently obtain right of way unless it has utilized its own resources to design and administer the projects. Based
upon this, the management of both projects can best be handled by VDOT rather than by the Airport Authority (for the Airport
Road Project) or by the County (for the Meadow Creek Parkway Project). This will allow VDOT designers and right-of-way
specialists to work hand in hand to acquire the needed right-of-way in a more organized and efficient manner rather than a
bifurcated one.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff now believes that VDoT will provide a more effective and efficient design and acquisition process if allowed to handle
these two projects directly. We believe both projects can be moved through design, acquisition and construction phases more
quickly by VDOT. Therefore it is recommended that the County cancel its agreement s with VDOT and the Airport Authority
for Project #0649-002-158,C501 (Rt. 649) and that the County withdraw its approval to execute the proposed agreement with
VDOT for the Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II Project from Rio Road to Free State Road.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORs
00.057
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
COUNTY OF ALgEMARLE
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLO~ESVILLE, 2~11 ~ G. TUCKER
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Tuesday, March 21, 2000
RE: Airport Road and Meadow Creek Parkway
Dear Mr. Tucker,
I am writing in regard to our meeting on March 7, 2000 and YOur letter dated
March i4, 2000.
The Airport Road Project #6049-002-158,C501 has been administered under two
agreements. The first agreement, dated November 20, 1997, was between the
County of Albemarle and VDOT. This agreement gave the County the authority
to design the project, acquire right of way, and administer construction. The
second agreement, dated December 15, 1997, was between the County of
Albemarle and the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport Authority. This agreement
gave the Airport Authority to design the project, acquire right of way, and
administer construction for the project on behalf of the County.
Since the beginning of the design phase of this project, VDOT worked closely,
and directly, with the Airport to develop plans for the project. The County has
not participated in this process. VDOT was given the impression that the Airport
Authority had full authority to make decisions and commitments on behalf of
Albemarle County. We also assumed that the Airport Authority was keeping the
County informed about the development of the project.
Early in the design phase of the project, the Airport Authority requested that it
be allowed to design the projeCt in a manner that met VDOT geometric
standards but did not meet all VDOT criteria for plan development. The Airport
Authority also indicated that it planned to do plat-based right of way acquisition
rather than the plan-based right of way acquisition that is typically done on a
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
VDOT project of this type. VDOT permitted these changes from our typical
design methods entirely on the basis of the Airport's assertions that VDOT would
not be involved in right of way acquisition for the project.
Plan development was proceeding smoothly until September 15, 1999 when the
County Attorney's office indicated to VDOT and the Airport Authority that it no
longer intended to participate in the right of way acquisition process. A
summary of this change in understanding between the Airport Authority and the
County is contained in the attached letter from Airport Council Lisa Kelley to Mr.
Davis, Esq. County Attorney. At this time the County also requested that VDOT
perform all condemnations that would be needed in the right of way acquisition
process for the project.
As a result of the withdrawal of County support for right' of way acquisition and
condemnations, the Airport Authority researched its authority to acquire right of
way. After extensive review, the Airport Authority determined that its charter did
not give it the authority to acquire right of way through condemnation for the
Route 649 project.
As mentioned above, the plans had been developed for two years with the
understanding that VDOT would not be involved in the right of way acquisition
process. As a result, the plans were developed in a manner that is not suitable
for use by VDOT. The plans were developed in a CAD format that is not
compatible with VDOT's CAD system. The Airport's plans were also developed to
be used for plat-based right of way acquisition which is not compatible with
VDOT's plan-based acquisition system.
Based on the above plan difficulties and the County's request for VDOT to
perform all right of way condemnations, we feel the only logical and efficient
manner in which to proceed is for VDOT to bring the project back in-house. This
will allow VDOT designers and right of way specialists to work hand in hand to
acquire the needed right of way in an organized and efficient manner.
We strongly believe that the County's requested two step, County / VDOT, right
of way process will be very inefficient and costly and should be avoided. The only
other viable option would be for the County to use its power of condemnation for
right of way acquisition for the project as was originally envisioned. Therefore,
we believe that the County should give consideration to rescinding the November
20, 1997 County State agreement which would allow VDOT to complete work on
this project.
We are very concerned that the proposed Meadowcreek Phase !! project is
heading in the same direction as the Airport Road project. The Meadow Creek
Phase !! agreement was originally envisioned as a means to accelerate design
and right of way acquisition for the project. !t was our understanding that the
County would oversee the design process and that the County would acquire
right of way through proffers and condemnation if necessary. The agreement
that ! recently signed contained these features.
Recently, the County has sent me a modified agreement that does not propose
County acquisition of any right of way. You also informed me at our meeting on
March 7, that the County does not have, nor does it intend to add, staff with the
expertise to oversee the design phase of this project. Therefore, the current
County proposal would essentially result in VDOT managing the County's design
consultant to produce project plans. The County's role in this process would be
primarily to serve as a "middle-man" between VDOT and the design consultant.
We believe that it would be more efficient and economical for VDOT to have this
work performed by VDOT staff and consultants under contract to VDOT.
VDOT is not opposed to County / VDOT agreements. For example, Chesterfield
County builds numerous projects under agreements each year. However, in
order to accomplish this goal, Chesterfield County has staff with road design and
construction expertise that work specifically on these projects, if Albemarle
endeavors to move in this direction, VDOT would be very supportive. However,
at this point in time, you have indicated that Albemarle is not interested in
"getting into the road building business." We respect this decision and look
forward to continuing our traditional role as the area's road design and
construction experts.
! hope that this letter has helped to clarify our positions on the Airport Road and
Meadow Creek agreements. Tf ! can provide any additional information, please
let me know.
Sincerely,
RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE,
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors shares the concerns of
county residents regarding the recent series of tragic accidents that
have occurred along Route 20 South between Ronte 53 and Ronte
1150 (Mill Creek Drive Extended); and
this stretch of roadway has had a history of being the site of serious
traffic crashes; and
the opening of Monticello High School in the fall of 1998 added a
significant volume of traffic to Route 20 South, including a high
number of young and inexperienced drivers; and
improvements to Route 20 South, including the widening of the
roadway to four lanes between Route 53 and Route 1150, are a top
priority for the Board of Supervisors among future road projects for the
county;
BE IT RESOLVED,
that I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board
of County Supervisors, do hereby endorse the a reduction of the speed
limit on that roadway from 55 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of 5 to
0 ~ as recorded below, at a meeting held on April 5, 2000.
oard of Coln y
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier x
Ms. Humphris x
Mr. Martin x
Mr. Perkins x
Ms. Thomas x
(Absent)
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22911
March 17, 2000
A. G. TUCKER
RESIDI:::NT ENGINEER
Route 20 South
Safety/Operational Review
Mr. Charles Martin, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Martin:
This is in reference to the recent series of tragic accidents that have occurred along Route 20 south
between Route 53 and Route 1150, Independence Way.
We understand the County's and citizens' concerns about improving this section of roadway. Currently,
some design funding has been allocated to the project and survey work is complete. Additional funding is
required for the design, right of way acquisition and construction phases of this four-lane project. We are
anticipating many requests to improve this section of road at the annual Preallocation Hearing (all statewide
hearings are now postponed due to General Assembly activities and Transportation 2000 Act preparations, but
will be rescheduled in summer/fall of this year). It is our hope that additional funding will be allocated and that
the four-lane project can move forward.
In the interim, we are conducting a safety/operational study. This study will include reviews of the
current speed limit, signs, pavement markings, shoulder widths, and accident history. It is anticipated that
larger signs and additional chevrons, raised pavement markers, paved shoulders where possible, and a reduced
speed limit to 45 mph may be appropriate. These measures can be implemented relatively soon and we are
aiming to have them in place no later than the start of next school season, if not immediately. We do request the
Board's endorsement for reducing the current speed limit of 55 mph to 45 mph. This endorsement, by way of
resolution, will ensure that this reduction receives the necessary attention from your law enforcement agencies
to make it effeCtive:'
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Mr. Charles Martin
March 17, 2000
Page 2
Route 20 South
Safety/Operational Study
As necessary, I will be available to discuss this matter at the April 5th Board meeting. I thank you in
advance for the Board's support of our review.
Sincerely,
AGT/smk
Cc~
Board of Supervisors
Chief Miller
R. Tucker
J. Hores
D. Askew
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution to Approve Establishment of Scottsville
Volunteer Rescue Squad
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Pumphrey, Davis
AGENDA DATE:
April 5, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
In 1975, the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad ("SVRS") was established in the Town of Scottsville and has
been providing rescue squad services in the Town and the County since that time. In 1996, SVRS acquired
property in the County and in cooperation with the County built a new building and relocated its operation into
the County.
DISCUSSION:
Virginia Code Section 15.2-955 provides that no volunteer rescue squad shall be established after July 1, 1984
in any locality without the prior approval by resolution of the governing body. Because of the relocation of its
building in 1996, the SVRS technically established its operation in the County in 1996. To comply with the
Virginia State Code, it is necessary for the Board of Supervisors to adopt a Resolution to approve SVRS's
reestablishment of its operation in the County.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution approving the establishment of the Scottsville
Volunteer Rescue Squad in the County.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
00.062
Larry Davis
401 Mclntire Road, Room 320
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
February 25, 2000
-~UNT¥ OF ALBEMARL
ATTORNEy 'S OFFICF
Dear Mr. Davis,
During recent research by the Fire & Rescue Division of Albemarle County, it
became apparent that Albemarle County had never officially recognized the Scottsville
Volunteer Rescue Squad as being an rescue squad within the county. Since we receive
funds from the county to supplement our fund raising activities and co-own our squad
building with the county it appears that we are unofficially, (officially), recognized. I
have enclosed a copy of our Articles of Incorporation. Please let me know if you need
any additional information that may assist you in gaining our recognition. I can be
reached by phone at (804)286-6508 or fax (804) 286-6509.
Sincerely Yours,
Kevin W. Quick
Chairman,
Board of Directors
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
ESTABLISHMENT OF RESCUE SQUAD
WHEREAS, Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad, Inc. ("SVRS") was established in
1975 for the purpose of providing rescue squad services in the Town of
Scottsville and its vicinity; and
WHEREAS, SVRS has provided valuable rescue squad services to the Town and to
Albemarle County Since 1975; and
WHEREAS, in 1996, SVRS in cooperation with the County reestablished its operations
in a new building located in Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, SVRS continues to provide essential rescue squad services to the Town
and County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County hereby approves the establishment of the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue
Squad, Inc. as a rescue squad in Albemarle County nunc pro tunc pursuant to
Section 15.2-955 of the Code of Virginia.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct
copy of a ResOlution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by
vote of 5 to 0 on April 5, 2000.
~ ~o~ci of Cour~'ty Super~sors
/
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution to amend the zoning ordinance as
related to farmer's market
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Recommendation that the board withdraw this
resolution of intent based upon changed
circumstances
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish
AGENDA DATE:
April 5, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ORIGIN:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
A resolution of intent was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in September, 1999 to amend the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 3.1 (Definitions), 5.1:35 (Supplementary Regulations), and 10.2.2 (Rural Areas
District). These current Ordinance sections are provided as Attachment A. The Boards' resolution is Attachment
B.
BACKGROUND:
On October 13, 1995, the Board of Supervisors adopted an amendment to the County Zoning Ordinance to permit
farmers markets in the C-1, Commercial and HC, Highway Commercial zoning districts. Prior to that action,
farmers markets were not a permitted use in the Zoning Ordinance. Although originally recommended by staff
to be permitted in RA District by special use permit, the ultimate amendment did not include farmers market as
a permitted use in the RA zoning district. The reasoning was that a farmers market should be located near the
population (customers) it serves and that if a market is desirable in the RA District, it would be most appropriately
located on a school property where there are existing supporting facilities (paved parking, restrooms, etc.).
Furthermore, if sponsored by the County, the market would be considered a public use, and would not require a
special use permit. In summary, with the opportunity to provide for farmers markets at schools as a publicly
sponsored use, there was not a significant need to provide it as a defined use in the RA zoning district.
In recent years direct marketing approaches such as farmers markets have gained in popularity and the County
has received more frequent interest in establishing farmers markets. In 1998, one group attempted to establish
a new farmers market at Albemarle High School with the assistance of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Office
and County. However, it was determined that the County did not have state enabling legislation to establish and
operate a farmers market. Following this determination, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent
to amend the RA zone to allow farmers market by special use permit.
Recently, both the House and Senate of the General Assembly, by unanimous vote, passed a bill to allow localities
to establish, operate and maintain a local retail farmers market. This was among the initial bills signed by the
Governor (Attachment C).
DISCUSSION:
Since the General Assembly has authorized localities to establish farmers market, there does not appear to be
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution to amend the zoning ordinance as related to farmer's market
April 5, 2000
Page 2
a compelling reason to amend the RA district to allow this use by special use permit. To the contrary,
it appears that the Boards' original intent was to regulate the location of farmers markets in the RA district by
permitting the use only on public land. With no change in circumstance that would seem to change this intent, it
may be inappropriate to encourage petitions from private property owners.
It should be noted that some landowners have been advised that the RA zone may be amended to allow farmers
market by special use permit. As a courtesy, staff has provided these individuals with a copy of this report as well
as the date of Board consideration of this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors withdraw the resolution of intent adopted September 15, 1999.
ATTACHMENTS
A- Zoning Ordinance provisions related to Farmers Market
B- Boards' Resolution of Intent of September 15, 1999
C- House Bill No. 973
00.068
2
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 1
Dwelling Unit: A single unit providing complete, independent living facilities for one (I) or more
persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation.
Easement: A right possessed by the owner of one parcel of land by reason of ownership of such
parcel to use the land of another for a special purpose not inconsistent with the general property
fights of that owner. (Added 7-20-88)
Eating Establishment: Any restaurant, coffee shop, cafeteria, short-order cafe. lunchroom.
luncheonette, hotel dining room, dinner theatre, tavern, soda fountain, eating place or any other
establishment maintained and operated where there is furnished for compensation, food or drink of
any kind for consumption primarily therein; provided, however, that a fast food restaurant shall
not be included within the meaning of this definition, and that a snack bar or refreshment stand at
a public or nonprofit recreation facility, operated solely by the agency or =group operating the
recreational facility, and for the convenience of pawons of the facility, shall not be deemed to be
an eating establishment. Entertainment which is provided for the enjoyment of the patrons shall be
considered accessory to an eating establishment.
Dancing by patrons shall be considered as entertainment accessory to an eating establishment.
provided the space made avaiIable for such dancing shall not be more than one-eighth (1/8) of that
part of the floor area available for dining. Provisions for dancing made available under this
definition shall be subject to the permit requirements of Chapter 3 of the Code of Albemarle.
£ave: The lower portion of a roof that ove~angs the wall.
I. An individual; or
Two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or guardianship, andIor
not more than two (2) unrelated persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a
dwelling or dwelling unit: or:
For the purposes of this ordinance the following shall not apply to the R- 1. R-2 and
residential dismcts: a group of not more than six (6) persons not related by blood.
marriage, adoption or guardianship living together as a single housekeeping unit in a
dwelling or dwelling unit.
Farm Sales: The sale of agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise produced on the
farm, with subordinate sales of produce or merchandise not produced on the premises.
Merchandise not produced on the premises shall be companion items intended to be used with (for
planting, caring for, displaying, combining with, canning, or preserving) the agricultural or
horticultural produce which is produced on the farm. but shall not include farm machinery, and
equipment (except hand tools), buiIding materials, furniture, or other like items. Examples:
Canning jars, pumpkin carving kits, wreath making supplies, floral arranging supplies, potting
soil, pots, packaged fertilizer, mulch, peat moss. pruning shears, gardening gloves. Christmas tree
decorations. (Added 10- 11-95)
Farm Winery: An establishment located on a farm with a producing vineyard, orchard or similar
growing area and with facilities for fermenting and bottling wine on the premises where the owner
or lessee manufactures wine from fresh fruits or other agricultural product~ predominantly grown
or produced on such farm or from fruits, fruit juices or other agricultural products grown or
produced elsewhere. (Added 12-16- 8 I)
Farmers' Market: An existing parking area used periodically by two (2) or more farmers only for
the seasonal sale of a~icultural or horticultural produce or merchandise produced on their farms.
18-3-5
ATTACHMENT A
ALBE~ COUNTY CODE
PAGE 2
5.1..35 FARM SALES
One (1) farm sales structure may be established per farm. In addition to displays and sales of
agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise which is produced on the farm. it may
include companion items not produced on the premises, but intended to be used with the
agricultural or horticultural produce which is produced on the farm. The farm sales structure
shall not be established until the agricultmal or horticultural produce growing area has been
established and is in production. Such growing area shall be reestablished on an annual basis.
bo
The total retail sales area in the farm sales structure shall not exceed fifteen hundred (1,500)
square feet. Greenhouses shall not be counted as pan of the total retail sales area. unless one
is designated as the farm sales structure. At all times, at least fifty (50) percent of the retail
sales area inside the farm sales structure shall be agricultural or horticultural produce or
merchandise produced on the premises. The remaining fifty (50) percent area may be
companion items. Displays outside the farm sales structure shall be limited to agricultural and
horticultural produce only.
A preliminary schematic plan in accordance with section 32.4.1 shall be submitted along with.
and become a part of, the special use permit application. The plan shall include the area of
the farm sales structure, parking and entrance. The plan shall address, in particular,
provisions for safe and convenient access from and to the public road. adequacy of delineation
of parking, and- general information regarding the exterior appearance of the proposed site.
Based on the submitted information, the board of supervisors may then waive the requirement
for a site development plan in a particular case, upon a finding that the requirement of a site
development, plan would not forward the purposes of this ordinance or otherwise serve the
public interest. No such use shall be established without Virginia Department of
Transportation approval of commeroial access to the site.
The farm sales structure and parking area shall not be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any
adjoining property, not under the same ownership. The farm sales structure shall meet front
yard setbacks for a primary structure. The parking area shall not be located closer than ten
(10) feet to any public or private street right-of-way.
Farm machinery, and equipment (except hand tools), building materials, furniture or other like
items, shall not be offered for sale.
f. All farm sales structures shall meet all applicable requirements of the Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code. (Added 10-11-95)
5.1.36 FARMERS' MARKET
a. A site development plan shall be required, unless waived in accordance with section 32.2.2.
b. Farmers' markets shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) days per week, during daylight
hours, between May 1 and November 30 only. Days and hours of operation shall be only
those specified on the site development plan.
c. The parking area for all farmers' and customers' vehicles shall not be located closer than ten
(10) feet to any public street right-of'way.
d. The applicant shall make adequate arrangements for the removal of trash and debris and
general restoration of the site following an event. The zoning administrator may establish and
require the posting of a bond in an amount deemed sufficient for such purpose.
18-5=18
Bill Tracking - 2000 session ATTACHMENT C
HB 973 Local retail farmers markets.
Patron-Mitchell Van Yahres
Summary as passed:
Local retail farmers markets. Allows localities to establish, operate, and maintain local retail
farmers markets.
Full text:
01/24/00 House: Presented & ordered printed 005701964
02/01/00 House: Printed as engrossed 005701964-E
02/17/00 House: Enrolled bill text (HB973ER)
03/02/00 Governor: Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0015)
Amendments:
House amendments
Status:
01/24/00 House:
01/24/00 House:
01/27/00 House:
01/31/00 House:
02/01/00 House:
02/01/00 House:
02/01/00 House:
02/01/00 House:
02/02/00 House:
02/02/00 House:
Presented & ordered printed 005701964
Referred to Committee on Agriculture
Reported from Agriculture w/amendments (22-Y 0-N)
Read first time
Read second time
Committee amendments agreed to
Engrossed by House as amended
Printed as engrossed 005701964-E
Read third time and passed House (Block Vote) (98-Y 0-N)
VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (98-Y 0-N)
02/02/00 House: Communicated to Senate
02/03/00 Senate: Constitutional reading dispensed
02/03/00 Senate: Referred to Committee on A~mSculture, Conservation & Nat.
02/14/00 Senate: Reported from A. C. & N. R. (14-Y 0-N)
02/15/00 Senate: Const~ reading disp., passed by for the day (39-Y 0-N)
02/15/00 Senate: VOTE: CONST. RDG. DISPENSED R (39-Y 0-N)
02/16/00 Senate: Read third time
02/16/00 Senate': Passed Senate (38-Y 0-N)
02/16/00 Senate: VOTE: PASSAGE R (38-Y 0-N)
02/17/00 House: Enrolled bill text (HB973ER)
02/21/00 House: Enrolled
02/22/00 House: Signed by Speaker
02/22/00 Senate: Signed by President
03/01/00 Governor: Approved by Governor-Chapter 15 (effective 7/1/00)
03/02/00 Governor: Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0015)
~.~Go to (General Assembly Home) or (Bills and Resolutions)
http ://leg 1. state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504, exe?ses=001 &typ=bil&val=hb 973 3/16/00
Bill Tracking - 2000 session Page 1 of 1
summary [ pdf
CHAPTER 15
An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 3 of Chapter 9 of Title 3.! a section
numbered 3.1-73.5:1, relating to local retail farmers markets.
IH 973]
Approved March 1, 2000
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Article 3 of Chapter 9 of Title 3.1 a section
numbered 3.1-73.5:1 as follows:
3.1- 73.5:1. Local retail farmers markets.
Any locality may establish, operate and maintain a local retail farmers market. The local retail
farmers market may request to be part of the network of farmers markets within the Commonwealth
or may be independent of such network. Nothing in this section shall invalidate the actions of any
locality taken prior to enactment of this section.
Go to (General Assembly Home)
http://leg 1 .state.va.us/cgi-birdlegp504.exe?001 + ful+CHAP0015 3/16/00
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan recommends that support be
provided for agriculture and related industries; and
WHEREAS, '.'farmers' market" is currently allowed only within the C-1 Commercial
and HC Highway Commercial zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, the definition of "farmers' market" contained in the zoning ordinance is
deemed as unnecessarily restrictive to allow the Board of County Supervisors to consider the
appropriateness of individual proposals; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Board of County Supervisors to liberalize existing
zoning restrictions to allow agricultural efforts in the County to flourish;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that for the purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice, the Board of County Supervisors hereby
adopts a resolution of intent to amend the definition of and supplementary regulations for
;'farmers' market" and to provide for "farmers' market" within all commercial zoning districts
and within the RA Rural Areas district; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning Commission is
requested to hold a public hearing on this resolution of intent, and to remm its recommendations
to this Board of County Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
resolution of intent adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGEN DA TITLE:
Leash Law Request for Westmont Subdivision
SU BJ ECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Set Public hearing for leash law request.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley
AGENDA DATE:
April 5, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
Under Section 4-213 of the County Code, homeowners may request the restriction of dogs from running at large in certain
areas approved by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
DISCUSSION:
Of the 3 homeowners located in Westmont Subdivision, 2 have signed a petition supporting the adoption of the leash law
request; one homeowner is opposed to this request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing on this matter for May 3, 2000. A copy of the petition and formal request
can be found in the Clerk's Office for your information and review.
00.067
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
David P. Bowerman
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Forrest B. Mmsludl, Jr.
COUNI~ OF Al REMA~I F_
: ' Office of Board of Supervisor~
401 Mdntire Road
GhadoResville, Y'h-~inia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
TO WHOM ADDRESSED:
Chmles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
Sa~ H. Thomas
You have inquired about the County's Dog "Leash" law. In order to qtmlify for addition
under this law, you must live in an area that can be readily identified by plat which has
been recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court (this would apply to most
areas referred to as "subdivisions"). The request would need to apply to all recorded
sections of a partitular subdivision.
In order for this request to be placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda for discussion,
you will need to furnish the following information:
1 ) A petition(s) which has been signed by a majority of those persons currently residing
in the subdivision (petition forms are attached).
2) A copy (copies) of the recorded plat listing deed boOk and page numbers for the
recording.
3)
The plat should be marked to indicate the number of homes in the subdivision;
those persons signing in favor; those persons opposed; those persons who could not
be contacted or who refused to sign; the number of vacant lots.
When all of this information has been obtained, forward same to the Clerk to the Board,
401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902-4596. The request will then be
placed on the next available agenda of the Board for discussion. At that time, the Board
may order a public hearing advertised for a future date which cannot be nearer than
three weeks due to advertising constraints. At the public hearing the Board will take
comments from anyone wishing to speak, either in favor or in opposition, to the request.
After that part of the process is completed, the Board may adopt the advertised
ordinance (a copy of the ordinance is attached).
You may also wish to inform your representative on the Board of Supervisors that you
are contemplating this action.
Ella W. Carey, Clerk
Attachments (2)
Printed on recycled paper
PETITION FOR DOG "LEASH" ORDINANCE
We, residents of .i~'~ ~_~/ ~/-0 ~U~'F (subdivision or other
area), respectfully request that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors include this
area under the provisions of County Code Section 4-213(a) which makes it unlawful for
any dog to mare, run, or self-hunt off of the property of its owner or custodian and not
be under the owner's or custodian's immediate control, the law commonly referred to as
the ~Leash' Ordinance.
NAME (Please print clearly)
26
27
28
4
29
5 3O
6 31
7 32
8 33
9 34
10 35
11 36
12 37
13 38
14 39
15 40
16 41
17 .4 42
18 43
19 ~,~
20 45
21 46
22 47
23 48
49
50
24
25
(Sheet No. of Sheets)
Westmont Subdivision
I~ostrictivo C4~vonants
1. No resiclen~e~ buiid~n& g~rage or oth~ ou~bui~dinl~s ~ot
rcsidc~c, or ~tetlite dish or eny other ~provcm~ts (oth~ th~ f~ces or wzlls) shall be ~ect~
dos~ to any prepay line t~an ~y f~t, None ortho Io~ sh~ bo improved or oc~pi~ for
other tl~ zin~ ~y r~id~s. No mobUc hom~, double w~e mobile hem=. m~ufsc~urcd
h6mc (es dofin~ ~ V~Sinia ~dc S~tion 3~$,3), t~por~ building, b~ent. ~1~.
s~ck or tr~lec, unattached K~g~ or ot~r outbuildin~ or stmci~rcs shell bc used for
~it~ion, ~ t~ra~y or p~By. ~o mobll~ homo or s~ck ~t
ilv~8 ~ of~ J~t 1~ ~e fo~ ~vo ofba~, ~m~, ~o~s end
u~hcd spaces. ~~o of one ~d on~ffloor o~ mor~ ~ ~vo
~noloacd li~n~ tr~ of~ l~t 2,2~ aq~o feet, ~xol~iv~ ofb~~,
~y unfinishod"spaces.
3. Household pets, ho~ ~ ~d o~ ~ ~ s~ ~ ~ow~ on ~
leu. for so long ~ ~ ~ ~t~n~ on ~ prop~, but ~, ~ ~ pi~ ~i not ~
p~ttc~ to be ~t~d on ~y t~ ~c ~cr ~ f~ ~s s~l b~ ~t~ to o~
anim~ per ecre. ~sin8 or matnt~ng a~ ~imals for ~mm~ pu~os~ is ~t~ctly
pro~bit~d.
pr~s~ ~pt ~t prof~o~ fi~ ~t ~ ~ 24 ~ by 30 i~ ~ be a~ow=d.
~. ~o purc~ of~y I~ ~ whether ~ o~ by ~r~ ~tancc. or
o~e~t~e, ah~l m~d~da ~y p~ of ~y lot by ~, or ot~ ~t fo~ ~ zdjustm~t of
6. No ~h ~ toola ~y bo stor~ on any lot ex. pt where con.cd ~om ~c
~to of~hborlng ~m~ ~d pub~o m~k T~h to ~ kept in pm~r ~nt~n~s. No inop~le
~ tm~ or o~or motor v~ ~ be p~tt~ on any lot ~d no au~ vchlcics sl~ bo
~or~ thor~n.
~estrtcttve C~venants
(C~ntinuedl
'7. No commercial busiao$~ or ~ ~;=pt pr0f~ond o~=~ ah~l ba ~ried o~
upon ~y lots, nor s~l[ an~n$ ~ ~t~n~ on ~y lot m~y b~omo an ~oyanco or ~sanc~
8. ~[eo~ ~ble ~d t~ophono ~ ~ha~l bo via under~ound w~es.
9. Util~ eu~cnu arc r~ by tho Grantor for ~0 ~o~ alon~ tho front, r~r
and ~d~ of all lets·
10. ~posc~ foundations s~al[ bo Psr;od and earth ton~ or covered ~th br~ck or
public roads.
l 1. Satcilltc dishes shall bo sero°ned t'rom thc vlew ot'ne|l~hborin~ homes
Said convc-TanCc is sub]cot to rcstrlctlons, easements, and conclitions ¢ontainct in
duly recorded d~cds, plats and other instruments con~t|tutins construct|Y0 notice in tho chein ct'.
title to tho abovo-dcsoribo~t pFopony which have not expired by · time l~m;t-t~on oonta'mo~ hcroln
or otherwise have become incR'cctivc.
R.ct'cr~¢e is n~dc to tho e.t'ores~.id deed and pier for & moro perticul~' dcscrSptlon
el'tho propvrty convoyed ho~cin and for m~ttcrs a/Tcctins sa, mc.
V~rlTI'~SS the following slsrmturcs and seals:
mDads. Jr. [ I I'-
Cards Husl~es/~lv~s ~.~"
STATE OF VH~G~NIA
COU~IT¥ 0~' ALB~ toow[t:
Tho t'oregoifl8 irutrumoflt wa~ acknowlcdl;ed befo~'o mo this ] ~'~ ) day of'
.
_./J~X",,~.,/'/j/~,g'o~,_, , ig95. by Samos Wi~lism Davis, ,Tr. end C,~rio Hushes Davis.
Notary Public ' - ; -
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
~HEREAS,
April, 2000, marks the thirty-second anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of
1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to affirmatively
further housing choices for all Americans; and
WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive province
of the Federal government; and
WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than Federal
efforts; and
WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, that diminish the rights
of all;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing
opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2000
as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourage all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in Albemarle
County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
Signed and Sealed this 5th day of April, 2000.
Charles S. Martin, Chairman
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
INTER
OFFICE
To: Tom Hanson
From: Laurie Bentley
Subject: Proclamation
Date: April 12, 2000
MEMO
I have attached the proclamation the Board adopted on May 5, 2000, proclaiming April 9 through April 15,
2000 as National Telecommunicator's Week.
/lab
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATOR'S WEEK
emergencies can occur at anytime requiring response from police, fire or emergency medical services;
and
~, when an emergency occurs the prompt response of law enforcement, firqfighters and emergency
medical personnd is critical to the protection of life and preservation of property; and
~, the safely of our police offtcers, firgqghters and emergency medical personnd is dependent upon the
qualify and accuracy of information obtained from citizens who telephone the Charlottesville/
UVA/ AIbemarle Coun~ Emergency Communications Cente~, and
WHEREAS, public safety communications officers are the first and most critical contact our citizens have with
emergemy services; and
~, public safely communications officers are the single ~ital link for our law enforcement, and
emergency medical personnd by monitoring their activities by radio, providing them information
and ensuring their safe~y; and
WI-1ERE~, public safefy communications officers of the CharIottes~ille/UVA/ Albemarle Counfy Emergency
Communications Center have contributed substantially to the apprehension of criminals, and
treatment of patients; and
WHEREAS, each communications officer has exhibited compassion, understanding and professionalism of their
job during the pust yea~,
NOW, ~ORE, BE IT RESOL VEI),
that the Albemarle Counfy Board of Supervisors hereby proclaims the week of
· APRIL 9 TI-IROUGHAPRIL I$, 2000
"NATIONAL T£LECOMMUNICATOR 'S
and joins in honoring the men and women whose diligence and professionalism keep our counfy
and citizens safe.
Signed and Sealed this 5a day of April, 2000.
Charles S. Martin, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
INTER
OFFICE
MEMO
To: Susan.Painter/-~-~
From: Laurie Bentley~.~
Subject: Proclamation"-
Date: April 12, 2000
I have attached the proclamation the Board adopted on May 5, 2000, proclaiming April 9 through April 15,
2000 as Crime Victims' Rights Week. Thank you.
/lab
Crime Victims' Rights Week
WHEREAS, year 2000 marks the twentieth anniversary of the commemoration of National Crime Victims'
Rights Week; and
the victims' rights discipline in America has, for nearly three decades, dared to dream of a nation
that is free from violence and an America where crime victims are consistently provided supportive
services to help them wpe with the trauma of crime and victimization; and
WHEREAS, while the rate of most crimes continues to decrease, U.S. residents will experience nearly 31
million criminal victimizations, including nearly 8.1 million violent crimes; and
over 30,O00 federal and state laws have been passed that define and protect the rights of crime
victims, 32 states have passed constitutional amendments that afford victims important
participatory rights throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems; and a federal
constitutional amendment currently pending in the U.S. Congress; and
important partnerships have been formed among criminal and juvenile justice agencies, allied
professionals, and victim services to ensure that crime victims are treated Nth dignify and respect;
and
our nation's and commonwealth's commitment to victim assistance, crime prevention, and public
safety has resulted in countless individuals and collaborative initiatives that truly do our
community justice; and
WHEREAS, the new millennium affords us the opportunity to continue to dare to dream of a nation where
liberfy and justice for all includes each and every person who has been touched by crime; and
the Albemarle County Victim/Witness Assistance Program is joining forces with other victim
service programs, criminal justice qfficials and concerned citizens throughout Virginia and America
to enhance awareness of crime victims' rights;
NOW, THEREFORE,
L Charles Martin, Chairman on behalf of the Albemarle County, Board of
Supervisors, do hereby recognize
April 9 through April 15, 2000
Crime Victims' Rights Week
in the County of Albemarle, and I calI this observance to the attention of ali our
(~
(5~)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
January 2000 Financial Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
January 2000 Financial Report for the General, School, and
Capital Funds
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters; Mss. White, Gulati
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA DATE:
April 5, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
· REVIEWED BY: ~
Attached are the January 31,2000 Monthly Financial Reports for the General, School, and Capital Funds.
General Fund revenue projections were revised as part of the 2000/2001 budget process. Car tax revenues from the state
are classified as local revenues where budgeted, not state revenues where received, for comparison purposes.
General Fund expenditure projections have not been revised at this time.
Education revenue projections have not been revised at this time.
Education expenditure projections reflect a 7.5%, $453,125, operating expense holdback, net compensation adjustment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of the January 2000 Financial Report.
BOARD OF SUPER¥ISORS
00.047
~_mO _ ;:o0 m X _l ;:o ..i m r-I m 0 0 m
m,-n mz--mm O. z O. m -I .-n
· -I ~(fJu iI l~ IT1
~ Z U) r-- ri" Z
0 ~ ~,, ,...,,
OCr- 0 -n I'n 0~ ~'"n ~ ~
~o>~ _-Im_~m mmm~ ~m
~_~o ~ ~_< ~z~ zo~
~zo z m~ ~ z
0 .-n rn ~o ~, > m "n "
C ~ Z
~-~Z~ ~- ~-~ (~ ~ Z
~ z < o
Z :~ m
z
m
Z 0
~ Z
I~ la o: I~I~ o o i~l~ o:Io~ ® o~ ~ o: Or:
I_O [_(~o _1~ I-., IO o -~ IlO IO~ (3o I-~ (D oo ~ o3 i~ ~ -I1
-~ ~ '.-:. -, o'm ~.n ~ o '..-, ,~. 'o ~,o 'o~ 'o /m z
l,,.~ .l~ ~ ]~[I~ ~Z~
~o~ ~o~o o oI~~oo~
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ~ ~
. ':~ ================================================================ ~::::~::~ :~' '::~::::~ ~ ~::~::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,:: ::[~ ::[~:. ~ ~:: ::::: ?: ~::~::~::?: ~::?:~]~?:~,~ ~ ~ ::~ ::~ ~::~:: ~:: ~::~::~::~:::
:::::::::::::::::::::: ========================= :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
. :-: :.: ::.:+: x :: :.:.::: :::::::::: ::::: ::: ::::::::2 ::: ::2::::: ::: :.: :.:.::::. ::.:.:.:.:: ::: :.:.:.:::: ..: .:::::: ::: :2::::.::::: :: :.:.:: :: :::%::: ::::.::~: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ITl
Z
C:
m
(/~
0
ITl
X
ITl
Z
m
m
m
00~0 ~0~
~o ~
I'll
rrl
Z
-I
Z
rn
0
[11
rn
z
rn
0
rn
rn
_--' ~ z z
__. ~ ~:"
-- ITl
0
-- --I
X
m
Z
Ill
oo oo--~o--~ c:D c~ ~--~
0~0~ ~
I~1~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~
~?:~:: ::~ s:: :??:~s::~s:'~ ~?:~::~ ~s~ ~ ~ ~ss ~ s~ ~ :: :::::: ~:: ::~ :: ::~ ::~ ~ ::======================== I::
~?~; ::~::~:?: :?:] ::~ ~::~:.~::~::~ ::~ ~::~:.~ ~::~ ~::~ ~ ::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~:: :::: ::::~ ~::~ ::~::~:.:: ~ ::~ ::7:::?::::::: ~:: ?::::::::::: ?: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
============== == ===== ======= ====== =========== ======= ==== ====== == ========== ====== ====================== =========== == ==:::?q "::~ ?::::::: =========================== :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::~:.::~
Z
~
¢z~~ ><
o ~ ~ ~ z~
~ ~ UO
m
0 ~
~ 0
zl~m
c"r'
ZO
O0
rn
Z
To:
From:
Subject:
Cc:
Date:
Memorandum
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Albemarle/C~o~unty Board of Supervisors
/ ///
Through-travelling Tractor-trailers on Routes 231/22
Senator Emily Couric
March 24, 2000
Attached to this memo is a series of letters between Senator Couric and me regarding
the ongoing issue of through-travelling tractor-trailers on Routes 231/22 between
Gordonsville and Shadwell. This issue is well known to the Board and was the subject
of a resolution back in 1995 requesting that the Commonwealth Transportation Board
(CTB) institute a restriction on through-travelling tractor-trailers on that read segment.
The reasons behind the request are a matter of public record and I will not reiterate them
here.
The Board will find by reading my letter to Senator Couric dated February 25, 2000 that
there have been several recent incidents involving illegal tractor trailers travelling Routes
231/22 (only two among daily occurrences) which resulted in my contacting the County
Police. You will note that those two specific instances resulted in less than satisfactory
responses by the County Police and instigated my correspondence with Senator Couric.
I thought at the time that Senator Couric would contact the Board, but with the business
of the ongoing session taking precedence, she did not. I now see that I was remiss in
not contacting you myself. I want the Board to know that, overall, I was very dissatisfied
with the response of the County Police to my two calls, and I request that the Board take
this matter up with Chief Miller at your earliest opportunity.
Senator Couric wanted to investigate the possibility of introducing a bill at the next
session of the Legislature requesting a restriction on through-travelling tractor-trailers on
Routes 231/22. To that end, she requested that the Division of Legislative Services
investigate previous bills. The resulting letter from Legislative Services is also included
with this memo. I frankly am appalled by Mr. Wambold's response to Senator Couric
and find the tone of his letter insulting.
It is instructive that between 1992 and the. 2000 session of the Legislature no fewer than
6 bills were submitted requesting that the State restrict through-travelling tractor-trailers
on one read or another. Without even knowing the merits of the foregoing bills, their
failure says less about the magnitude of the problems with trucks on Virginia's roads
than it does about the total lack of responsibility of the CTB and the Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDOT).
Which brings us to our local problem, the total abdication of responsibility by the County
Police to enforce the laws governing the types of trucks permitted to travel Routes
231/22 and presumably other such roadways in the County. If Chief Miller is correct that
John Moore
5899 Gordonsville Road
Keswick, VA 22947
March 23, 2000
The Honorable Emily Couric
General Assembly Building
Richmond, VA
Dear Senator Coudc:
Thank you for your reply to my letter of February 26 and for forwarding Alan Wambold's
letter.
Since my last correspondence with you, you may have received a letter from Kat's father
in which he related his unpleasant encounter with an auto carrier on Route 231 while he
and Kat's mother were on their way to visit us last week. As you are aware, auto
carriers are one of the categories of tractor-trailers that are restricted to the Virginia
Access System as defined by VDOT. As you also are aware, Route 231 is not part of
the Virginia Access System; thus the truck was travelling the road illegally.
At first glance Mr. Wambold's letter is indeed discouraging. In fact, it appears as if Mr.
Wambold has gone out of his way to be discouraging. The quotations he includes
reference "reasonable access to terminals, facilities for food, fuel, repairs, and rest". As
there are no such facilities on either Route 231 or Route 22 between Shadwell and
Gordonsville, what is the hardship that would be imposed on trucks through the
imposition of a restriction on that road segment? The language regarding household
goods carders and other certain combinations requiring reasonable access to their
destinations is in the regulations to afford them the ability to get into towns and onto
roads that otherwise would be restricted to them. Never mind that the movers abuse
that privledge and drive their rigs wherever, whenever they choose, including Routes
231/22.
Before requesting that you enter legislation that would only go the way of its
predecessors, I would be interested in knowing the circumstances behind the last six
bills requesting through-truck restrictions. I feel that it would be instructive to know the
who, where, why, and how of each of those bills to determine whether those situations
have any commonality with that of Routes 231/22.
It seems to me that the situation with Route 231/22 is unique. This is a 12 mile segment
of road with the following attributes: 1) a narrow travelway, no shoulders, numerous blind
hills and curves, and embankments that come to the edge of the pavement, 2) a history
of accidents involving cars and tractor-trailers, 3) designated a Scenic Byway, 4) travels
through the Southwest Mountains Rural Histodc District, and 5) does not provide the
sole means of access to any other road. Other roadways included in the Virginia
Access System adequately serve Gordonsville and Shadwell.
And perhaps most importantly, Route 231/22 is being abused by the trucking industry.
The road has become the defacto truckers bypass around Charlottesville and it is
Memorandum
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
March 24, 2000
it is impossible or at least impractical to enforce the law regarding tractor-trailers on
Routes 231/22 (and who could disagree) then the only logical recourse is a total ban on
through-travelling tractor-trailers. Once posted, it is unlikely that such a ban would be
totally ignored, if it were, at least the County Police would not have any difficulty in
determining whether a particular tractor-trailer was or was not permitted. It is important
to remember that the restriction would not affect trucks other than through-travelling
tractor-trailers and that it would not restrict local businesses from serving their customers
located on Route 231/22, such as the Cismont Store. The restriction would simply mean
that tractor-trailers would use Routes 33, 15, or 250 instead of 231/22.
As a Board, you decided how you stand on this issue back in 1995 with the unanimous
adoption of the resolution to VDOT and the CTB. In the intervening years, despite
promises of the Virginia Truckers Association of voluntary compliance and because of
the lack of enforcement by the County and State Police, the problem of tractor-trailers,
particularly those that are illegal, has worsened. There appears to be no solution
possible through normal enforcement procedures, so the only viable recourse is a
restriction on through-travelling tractor-trailers. Otherwise, the government may as well
change the law because to take no action is to condone the breaking of the law, which
as I point out in my letter to Senator Couric will have serious legal ramifications when the
next inevitable accident involving an illegal tractor-trailer occurs.
The residents of Routes 231/22 want to know that we still have the support of our local
elected officials. I personally request that you take the issue up again with Chief Miller
and if he is adamant that his department is powerless to enforce the law on Routes
231/22 then I would request that you immediately inform Senator Couric so that she is
aware that the through-travelling restriction is our only recourse.
Thank you for your time and attention to this vitally important matter.
Sen. Emily Couric
March 23, 2000
Page 2
traversed by illegal trucks 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, and the County and State
Police have totally abdicated their responsibilities for enforcing the law on this road.
In short, it is the contention of the residents of Routes 231/22 and the County Board of
Supervisors that the physical nature of the road makes it unsuitable for travel by tractor-
trailers of any size. The fact that tractor-trailers are incompatible with the road and its
automobile traffic is evidenced by the history of accidents on the road. The state's
Scenic Byway designation coupled with the existence of the Rural Histodc District, and
what that designation means for the expected traffic on the road, are incompatible with
high volumes of through-travelling commercial truck traffic. The industries in
Gordonsville can be accessed from Route 33 (designated in the Virginia Access System)
and Route 15, both of which provide access to Route 29 and to 1-64. Likewise the UPS
and other businesses in Shadwell have direct access from Route 250 to 1-64. Route 250
from the 1-64 interchange to the intersection of the road serving UPS also is in the
Virginia Access System. Route 250 beyond that intersection is not in the system, yet
UPS flagrantly disregards that fact and sends its tractor-trailers up and down Route
231/22 every day.
Finally, the foregoing combined with the fact that the police cannot enforce the existing
laws that differentiate among which types of trucks are allowed and which are prohibited
can lead to only one conclusion - that all through-travelling tractor-trailers must be
restricted from the roadway. What other solution can there be? Certainly the
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) would not suggest that truckers be allowed
to continue to travel the road illegally? After the next accident on Route 231/22 between
a car and an illegal truck, a lawsuit is inevitable when it is disclosed that the CTB had
ample opportunity to remove the trucks and did not. Their culpability will rank right up
there with the failure of the County and State Police to enforce the law after six years of
constant requests from the citizens and a resolution by the Board of Supervisors.
I would humbly request that you have someone (Legislative Services?) research the
background of the previous bills for which records exist so that we can determine how
best to lay the groundwork for a bill, if that becomes our only recourse. Even though the
CTB has been intractable on this issue to date, we should be sure that we have
exhausted that remedy before proceeding with a bill. I am not interested in initiating
actions with no hope of success. I am interested in setting a precedent if need be.
If we indeed have to wait for the next session of the Legislature for the initiation of a
restriction on through-travelling tractor-trailers, that means we have to put up with
another year of illegal truck traffic on Route 231/22, a wholly unacceptable situation.
As always, we appreciate your efforts on our behalf.
~YJ~)hn P. Mo~'~~ '
Cc Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
EMILY COURIC
SENATE OF VIRGINIA
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:
AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
EE~UCATION AN{:) HEALTh
REHAbILItATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
March 10, 2000
John Moore
Winda!e
5899 Gordonsville Road
Keswick, VA 22947
Dear John:
Thank you for your most recent correspondence of February 26. I am
enclosing a letter I received from the Division of Legislative Services during the
middle of our session regarding our ongoing conversations about Virginia Routes
22/231 in Albemarle County. I found Alan Wambold's analysis quite discouraging.
Perhaps the best course of action for you to take at this point is to work at
the local government level by contacting Chief Miller and the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors. If, after reading Mr. Wambold's letter, you would like for
me to introduce a bill banning truck traffic on Routes 22/231, I will be happy to do
so next session.
!hcpe to see you mn.d Kat again sometime soon.
Senator, 25th District
Enclosure
E.M. MILLER. JR
DIRECTOR
COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA
DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
FEB 1 0 20~
GENERAL ASSEMBLY BUILDING
910 CAPITOL STREET. 2ND FLOOR
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23219
804~ 786-3591
FAX (804) 371~169
February 8, 2000
The Honorable Emily Couric
308 General Assembly Building
910 Capitol Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Senator Couric:
This letter is in reply to your inquiry about the practicality of legislatively
banning truck traffic from Virginia Routes 22 and 231 in Albemarle County, east
of Charlottesville.
Except for streets within cities(and very few 'towns that maintain their own
streets), the authority to designate "no through-truck" routes lies with the
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). However, even the CTB's power to
ban trucks from certain highways is not absolute, since federal law (mirrored in
Virginia statues) requires that long-distance truck traffic be allowed "reasonable
access to terminals, facilities for food, fuel, repairs, and rest" and that "household
goods carriers" and certain tractor truck semitrailer combinations be afforded
"reasonable access to points of loading and unloading, except as designated,
based on safety considerations."
For highways outside cities (and very few towns), if citizen requests to the CTB
for a ban on through-truck traffic are unsuccessful, imposition of such a
prohibition is, at least theoretically, possible through action by the General
Assembly. While these bills are certainly not unprecedented, they are,
nevertheless, uncommon: my impression over the course of my 25 sessions with
the General Assembly staff is that such bills occur slightly less than once a year.
Because these measures are embodied in uncodified acts, it is more difficult to
get a reliable, accurate count of them than it would be if they addressed a specific
section of the Virginia Code.
Since 1990, when computerization of our drafting system began to give us better
data on this kind of bill, six attempts have been made to legislate "no through-
truck" routes: one in 1992, one in 1993, one in 1996, one in 1997, one in 1998, and
one in the 2000 Session. Not one of these bills has passed. In fact, not one of
them has even been acted on favorably in the house in which in was introduced;
the one bill considered this year (Senate Bill No. 226, offered by Senator Potts)
was killed in committee even before the session reached its half-way point. I
think this is sufficient evidence to say that such bills have an absolutely abysmal
"track record."
Additionally, in the unlikely event that truck-ban legislation for Virginia Routes
22 and 231 should be passed by the General Assembly and signed into law by the
Governor, enforcement of such a statues provisions would still depend on the
actions of agencies that have consistently opposed all such legislation for at least
the past 25 years. While, as an elected representative of the people, you, of
course, do have the option of offering such legislation, my reading of recent
history involving similar legislation suggestions that doing so might well be,
practically speaking, an exercise in futility.
Sincerely yours,
Alan B. Wambold, PhD.
Research Associate
John Moore
5899 Gordonsville Road
Keswick, VA 22947
February 25, 2000
The Honorable Emily Couric
General Assembly Building
Richmond, VA
Dear Senator Couric:
Thank you for supporting the Preservation Alliance of Virginia and for helping to make
Kat's last Legislative reception a success. It meant a lot to Kat that you attended.
Also, thank you for your inquiry regarding status of the tractor-trailer issue on Routes
231/22. I mentioned to you that I had called the County Police the day of the reception
(the 16th) and the week previously to report a tandem tractor-trailer driving south bound
on Route 231. My first call ended with my report to the dispatcher, who said they would
pass my complaint along to a patrol unit. I actually thought my call had been effective
when I saw a rig from the same company, north bound, about 45 minutes later with only
one trailer in tow. My thinking at the time was that the police had stopped the driver,
made him uncouple the tandem rig, drop a trailer, and then made him turn around.
That thought turned out to be pure fantasy when a week later, almost to the hour,
another tandem rig from the same company went northbound on Route 231. I called the
police again, was put through to dispatch and accepted their offer to have an officer
follow up with a return call. An officer called me back in about 15 minutes and
proceeded to get into an argument with me over the legality of tandem trailers on Route
231. The officer assured me that tandem dgs "are not prohibited" on Route 231. I told
him that tandem rigs are not permitted. I assured him that I had the Code of Virginia and
a copy of the VDOT Virginia Access System map, approved under the 1982 Surface
Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), dght in front of me and that I was relatively
certain of my facts. I guess the last straw was when I asked him how it was the police
could enforce the law if they did not even know what it is. After that he referred me to
the Sergeant on duty. (Unfortunately, the piece of paper with both of the officer's names
got discarded and a call back to the office did not jog my memory.)
I immediately called the Sergeant relating to him the entire incident. He was very
receptive and we had an extended conversation about the issue. Apparently the
Sergeant lives on Route 15 and ddves Route 231/22 every day. He agreed that tandem
trailers specifically are not permitted on the road and he added that the road's status as
a Scenic Byway placed additional restrictions on trucks. I assured him that the scenic
status of the road has absolutely no effect on the types of trucks permitted on the road.
We talked about enforcement actions and we agreed that stopping trucks is neady
impossible once they are on the road. The Sergeant added that the County Police
cannot stop the trucks to check their logs or weight, but that they can stop them for traffic
Sen. Emily Couric
February 25, 2000
Page 2
violations, which includes STAA violations for length and category. The big question
was where to stop them. i mentioned the Keswick Post Office when it is closed. He said
that is a possibility but that sight distance on the curve may be a problem. I am not
convinced sight distance really is an issue because there is ample room for several dgs
and cars there to pull well off of the road. Additionally, truckers pull over and sleep there
during the overnight hours all the time!
The Sergeant and I seemed to agree that the best course of action is to stop the trucks
from ever getting on the road in the first place. He asked if we couldn't get VDOT to put
up signs on 1-64 and in Gordonsville reminding the truckers of the restrictions on the
road. What a novel idea! I told him we had tried that course of action but that VDOT
(specifically Mr. Butner) had refused to do so.
The citizens who live on Route 231/22 and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
first asked the Commonwealth Transportation Board to restdct through travelling tractor-
trailers from Routes 231/22 back in September 1994. The pdmary reason was safety
based on the limitations of the road, the conflict with the size of the trucks, and the
speeds at which they are operated. Since 1994, there have been numerous accidents
and incidents involving trucks of all kinds on the roadway, including the tdple fatality in
1995 involving a tractor-trailer and a car. It now is clear that Chief Miller was not kidding
when he told us in the last public meeting on the subject, held on May 10, 1996, that the
County Police cannot and will not enforce the laws that restrict the types of trucks
travelling on Routes 231/22. This sentiment was echoed by the State Police special
truck unit officers attending the meeting who stated that they have only two units in the
region, both of which are needed to patrol 1-81 and 1-64.
Because the state and local law enforcement authorities have abdicated their
responsibilities for enforcing the laws regarding truck restrictions on Routes 231/22 and
because, the Virginia Trucking Association has proven that they have no control over
either their own members or the industry as a whole, the only recourse left is the all out
restriction on through travelling tractor-trailers that was requested by the County Board
of Supervisors in the unanimous 1995 resolution addressed to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board.
The time has come to put an end to the shameless disregard for the law by the trucking
industry and the dangers to which they are exposing the residents and travelling public
on Routes 231/22. The industry has proven itself incapable of self-regulation and the
police have been good their word that they are incapable of enforcing the law. The
citizens of Albemarle County are tired of being ignored by the bureaucrats appointed by
their elected officials. Over the past 6 years, every one of our elected representatives
has at one time supported the restriction to through travelling tractor-trailers on Routes
231/22. The bureaucrats of VDOT and the Commonwealth Transportation Board have
been content to ignore those requests, as they appear more interested in catedng to an
industry whose expansion helps to justify their existence.
Safety is the number one concern of the citizens residing along Routes 231/22 and
because the existing regulations are insufficient to protect us, it has come time to try a
different course of action. There is precedent enough for the requested restriction, and
there is sufficient alternate truck access to the Gordonsville area via alternate routes,
routes that currently are included in the Virginia Access system. That the restriction may
Sen. Emily Couric
February 25, 2000
Page 3
be perceived as inconvenient by a few truckers is a weak rationale for not protecting the
public safety. The truckers are using the roads we pay for with taxes as a means for
conducting business, and the state has every dght to regulate how and where they
travel, especially as a means to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Thank you again for your interest in and attention to this vitally important matter. With
your assistance, we are looking forward to a resolution in the very near future.
CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIR( INIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219-2000
March 23, 2000
EARL T. ROBB
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR
Route 29 Bypass
Final Section 4(f) Evaluation
Albemarle County School Properties
Federal No. NH-037(130)
State No. 6029-002-F22, PE 101
Albemarle County, Virginia
The Honorable Charles Martin
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Mr. Martin:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation of the Albemarle County School
Properties located in Albemarle County, Virginia, that was signed on March 13, 2000. The Route 29
Bypass under the current design will use a portion of this property. This Final Section 4(f) Evaluation
takes into account the additional information and comments that were obtained as a result of the
circulation of the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, as well as other data collected subsequently. By signing
the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, the Federal Highway Administration has determined that all possible
planning and practicable measures to minimize environmental harm to the Albemarle County School
Properties have taken place.
Please also find enclosed a Revised Record of Decision for the Route 29 Bypass in Albemarle
County that has been prepared and signed by the Federal Highway Administration on March 13, 2000.
If you have any questions with regard to these matters, please do not hesitate to contact
Mr. Earl T. Robb, State Environmental Administrator, at the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Sincerely,
J.~;ark Wit~
Environmental Planner
Enclosures
BOA .¢.D OF SUPERVISORS
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
REVISED RECORD OF DECISION
Federal Highway Administration
Virginia Division
Route 29 Bypass
Albemarle County
EIS Number: FHWA-VA-EIS-90-02-F
A. Proiect History
Between 1987 and 1993, VDOT, in cooperation with Albemarle County and the City of
Charlottesville, conducted the Route 29 Corridor Study which looked at alternatives to relieve traffic
congestion and improve the movement of traffic on Route 29 in Albemarle County north of
Charlottesville. On April 8, 1993, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued its Record of
Derision (ROD) for the Route 29 Corridor Study in which the selected alternative was identified as "a
combination of improvements to be implemented over a number of years in three phases to serve
immediate, medium range and long-term transportation needs." The immediate needs were addressed
by implementing the base case improvements which provided for six lanes with turn lanes on existing
Route 29. The medium-range improvements would be addressed by three grade separated interchangns
on Route 29 at Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Rio Road. The long range needs would be
addressed by alternative 10 which was modified to eliminate proposed interchanges at Route 654 and
Route 743. Shortly after FHWA issued its ROD, changes were made to the selected alternative. More
specifically, changes were made to the southern and northern termini of alternative 10. The southern
terminus was moved to allow for a direct connection into the North Grounds of the University of
V~trglnia. The northern terminus was mOdified by shiffing it more than a mile to the north side of the
South Fork Rivanna River to avoid a planned school and reduce business relocations. These changes
and their associated impacts were addressed in an Environmental Assessment in accordance with 23
CFR 771.130(c) to determine the need for a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In
February of 1995, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) rescinded its previous decision
regarding the grade-separated interchanges on Route 29. In July of 1995, FHWA issued a Finding of
No Significant Impact concluding that a supplemental EIS was not warranted for the modifications to
the southern and northern terminus. In 1996, VDOT approached FHWA regarding several minor design
revisions that were under consideration at the suggestion of the Route 29 Design Advisory Committee.
At that time, the decision was made to reevaluate the changes that occurred on the project since the
ROD was issued in 1993 to determine the need for a supplemental EIS. This Reevaluation was signed
onMarch 13, 2000, and concluded that a supplementalEIS was not warranted. In 1998, the Albemarle
County School Complex was identified as a Section 4(0 resource. Accordingly, a separate Section 4(0
Evaluation was developed and circulated in February of 1999 in accordance with 23 CFR 771.135(m).
The Final Section 4(0 Evaluation was approved on March 13, 2000, also.
Because of the CTB action to eliminate the grade-separated interchanges, the selected alternative
has changed, Also, due to the identification of a Section 4(0 property affected by the bypass alignment,
there have been changes to the mitigation measures and a new Section 4(0 finding. Accordingly, this
Revised ROD is being issued in accordance with 23 CFR 771.130(b)(2) which requires that a Revised
ROD be issued when a new alternative is selected that was fully evaluated in the EIS but was not
identified as the preferred alternative.
B. Selected Alternative Decision
The final EIS for the Route 29 Corridor Study demonstrated that no single alternative by itself
will satisfy all of the identified needs for the project. Instead, a combination of improvements over a
number of years was identified as the best solution. The final EIS (pages S-5 to S-6) identified the
selected, or preferred, alternative as:
For the short range, construct the Base Case and begin planning for grade-separated
interchanges at Hydraulic Road, Rio Road, and Greenbrier Drive. Access to the North
Grounds of the University of Virginia is recommended to be developed as soon as
possible. Alternative 10 modified to eliminate interchanges at Route 654 and 743, is
approved as a corridor for future development and Albemarle County is requested to
assist in preserving the necessary right-of-way.
For the medium range improvements, grade-separated interchanges are to be
constructed on existing U.S. Route 29 at Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Rio
Road, as traffic and economic conditions allow. Right-of-way for alternative 10 is to
confmue to be preserved, with advance acquisition of right-of-way procedures exercised
as needed and as economics permit.
For the .long term improvements, the Alternative 10 bypass, modified to eliminate
interchanges at Route 654 and Route 743, is to be constructed when traffic conditions
dictate and economic conditions permit. The interchanges were eliminated due to
objections from Albemarle County officials and citizens.
The originally selected alternative was a combination of alternatives analyzed in the final EIS.
This combination included the base case with grade-separated interchanges alternative (page I1-8 of the
final EIS) and alternative 10 (page 11-7 of the final EIS). The new or revised selected alternative also
includes a combination of alternatives analyzed in the final EIS but not identified as the selected or
preferred alternative. This includes that combination of the base case alternative (page 11-2 of the final
EIS) and alternative 10 (page H-7 of the final EIS). More specifically, this alternative entails:
Construct the base case alternative. The base case improvements to widen Route 29
to six lanes with turning lanes has already been completed.
Construct alternative 10 with modifications at the southern and northern terminus as
addressed in the EA/FONSI dated July 1995. Alternative 10, with modifications, is a
four-lane divided, limited access bypass to the west of existing Route 29. It would
extend from the Route 250 Bypass and the North Grounds of the University of Virginia
on the south end to existing Route 29 north of the South Fork Rivanna River on the
north end. Alternative 10 is approximately 6.24 miles long with no intermediate access
points to crossroads or adjacent properties.
C. Alternatives Considered
When the Route 29 Corridor Study was developed, several alternatives were evaluated to meet
the purpose and need for the project. These included the Base Case Alternative (The No-Build
Alternative which assumed programmed improvements to widen Route 29 to six lanes with turn lanes
would be implemented), the Base Case Alternative with three grade-separated interchanges (at Hydraulic
Road, G-reenbfier Drive, and Rio Road), seven corridor alternatives for a bypass on new location, an
Expressway Alternative along existing Route 29, a Mass Transit Alternative, and a Transportation
System Management Alternative.
D. Section 106 and Section 4(f)
At the time the ROD was issued for the Route 29 Corridor Study, a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) had been executed between the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), the
Advisory Council on I-Iistofic Preservation (ACHP), the Federal Highway Administration and the
Virginia Department of Transportation for a no adverse effect on Westover and an adverse effect on
Schlessinger Farm. The MOA documented how the adverse effect would be taken into account.
Despite the changes to the southern and northern termini, no additional districts, buildings, structures,
or objects on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places were identified. However, two
archeological sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places were identified near the revised
northern terminus. The VI)HR and ACI-IP concurred with a determination of no adverse effect for these
two sites. Another archeological site was identified northwest of Stillhouse Mountain in connection with
design efforts to shill the alignment to minimize impacts at this location. VDHR determined that the site
was not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Finally, during additional studies of design
modifications at the northern terminus, another structure, Brook Hill, was identified as being eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places. VDHR concurred with a no effect determination on this site.
When the ROD was issued for the selected alternative, it avoided any use of known Section 4(f)
properties including the playgrounds and recreational facilities associated with Jack Jouett Middle
School, Albemarle High School, and Mary Greer Elementary School. Accordingly, there were no
known Section 4(f) impacts associated with alternative 10, either direct or constructive. As the changes
were made to the southern and northern termini, no Section 4(f) impacts were identified at these
locations either. The current design, however, uses land from the Albemarle County School Complex
which has been identified as a "district park." In total, approximately 12.43 acres (after implementing
measures to minimize harm - see below) of the 218 acre site will be used by the project. Despite
extensive coordination with Albemarle County throughout the development of the Route 29 Corridor
Study and the subsequent Environmental Assessment for the design modifications to the southern and
northern termini, the Albemarle County School Complex was never identified as a "district park."
Documentation of the significance of the Albemarle County School Complex as a significant recreational
resource was not provided by county officials until August of 1998. Shortly thereafter, FHWA decided
to subject the complex to the provisions of Section 4(f). In accordance with 23 CFR 771.135(m), a
separate Section 4(0 Evaluation was developed and circulated to all individuals, agencies and
organizations that received a copy of the final EIS. After receiving a large volume of comments, the
comments were addressed as appropriate in the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. Despite comments from
the U.S. Department of the Interior on a draf~ of the Final Section 4(0 Evaluation that they did not
believe that all possible planning to minimize harm had been done, FHWA addressed the U.S.
Department of the Interior's concerns in a letter dated March 7, 2000. On March 8, 2000, FHWA legal
counsel issued a legal sufficiency determination for the Section 4(0 Evaluation prepared for the
Albemarle County School Complex. The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation was approved on March 13,
2000.
Aside from the Albemarle County School Complex, there will be no Section 4(0 direct or
constructive use of the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School and the historic sites ofWestover, Schlessinger
Farm, and Brook Hill.
E. Measures to Minimize Harm
All practicable measures to minimize environmental harm have been incorporated into the
decision. The following mitigation measures have been considered and are to be implemented during
final design and construction:
To minimize harm to the Albemarle County School Complex, the cross section of the bypass at
this location has been reduced by eliminating the median, crossing the property on a bridge instead of
a fill, and by suppressing the roadway to minimize visual and noise impacts. In addition, the alignment
has been shined to the degree possible to avoid any direct use of the trail behind lack louett Middle
School on the Albemarle County School Complex, and the trail behind Mary Greer Elementary School
will be reconnected outside of the highway fight-of-way. Finally, a fence will be installed along the
right-of-way to prevent pedestrian access and disturbed slopes revegetated.
A Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement was executed in 1992 which documents how the
adverse effect to Schlessinger Farm will be taken into account.
To minimize impacts to the federally listed endangered James spinymussel, there will be time-of-
year restrictions on construction and erosion and sedimentation control measures implemented. In
addition, the fact that the bypass will cross this location on a bridge instead ora fill will further minimize
impacts to the lames spinymussel.
The design modification at the southern terminus has helped to reduce the length of the bypass
in the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir watershed from 4.2 miles to 3.3 miles. An extensive
stormwater management plan has been developed to protect the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir.
This includes 17 stormwater retention ponds which have been designed as wet ponds to achieve a higher
pollutant removal efficiency. In addition, concrete curb will be incorporated along fall sections within
the reservoir watershed in order to capture 100 percent of the roadway runoff. The nmoffwill be
collected through a series of curb, median, and ditch inlets and conveyed to the stormwater management
facilities through concrete pipe systems. A monitoring program will be established to measure pollutant
concentrations at several out-fall locations before, during and after construction. A dry sump area will
also be created at the outfall of each drainage system where runoffis conveyed to awet pond. The sump
area will be sized to hold a volume equal to the capacity ora tanker truck, approximately 1,100 cubic
feet. Because of these efforts, runofffrom approximately 10 acres of existing development outside the
project right-of-way in the vicinity of Woodburn Road will be collected and taken to the proposed ponds
for treatment. This runoff currently drains into the reservoir untreated. Finally, rock check dams will
be used in all of the fill ditches of the proposed roadway within the reservoir's watershed. Turbidity
curtains will be used at three locations along the reservoir during construction.
A variable-width median will be employed to reduce environmental impacts at sensitive locations
and to provide a more aesthetic appearance. In addition, retaining walls will be used to reduce right-of-
way impacts.
The alignment has been shifted to eliminate impacts to a pet cemetery on property owned by the
Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In addition, the alignment has been shit~ed to avoid
impacts to the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School which was located in the path of the selected alignment.
F. Monitoring Program
A formal monitoring program was not proposed. Routine project coordination during the
remainder of final design development, the completion of right-of-way acquisition, and construction will
ensure that environmental commitments will be adhered to.
Document AvailabiliW
The draf~ EIS prepared for the Route 29 Corridor Study was approved by FHWA on May 11,
1990, and circulated for review and comment on May 17, 1990. On May 25, 1990, a notice of
availability of the draf~ EIS appeared in the Federal Register. On January 20, 1993, the final EIS was
approved by FHWA On March 5, 1993, a notice of availability of the final EIS appeared in theFederal
Register. On April 8, 1993, FHWA issued its ROD for the Route 29 Corridor Study. On November
4, 1994, FHWA approved a drat~ EAfor design modifications at the southern and northern terminus and
made it available to the public. On July 6, 1995, FHWA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact for
the EA. On February 18, 1999, the Draft Section 4(0 Evaluation for the Albemarle County School
Complex was circulated for review. All comments received on the Draft Section 4(0 Evaluation were
incorporated in the Final Section 4(0 Evaluation which was approved on March 13, 2000. A
Reevaluation of environmental impacts and previous environmental documents was approved on March
13, 2000, and concluded that a supplemental EIS was not warranted.
F } dVieSri ~nH/{b/;wm~a'ySt~.'. &ratio n~~
Virginia Division
Agenda Item No. 5.17 Copy of Final Section 4(f) Evaluation of the Albemarle County School
properties
THIS ITEM WAS SCANNED UNDER TRANSPORATION MATTERS.
CHARLES D, NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH VIRQINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 ORANGE ROAD
CULPEPER, VA 22701-3819
March 24, 2000
DONALD R, ASKEW
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
State Project 723-G
Route 250
Albemarle County
PMI//6096
RIGHT OF WAY - Notification of Proposed Conveyance of Excess Right of Way
Former property of Harrison Waite
Parcel 015
Requestor: Mr. Kenneth S. Wood
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Attn: Mr. Charles Martin, Chairman
Dear Mr. Chairman and Board Members:
The Virginia Department of Transportation has received a request from Mr. Kenneth S. Wood to purchase
excess land owned by the Commonwealth that is adjacent to his property. The subject property being
requested is located along State Route 689 with its intersection at Route 250 in the Crozet area. Enclosed is
a copy of the plan sheet showing the area to be conveyed shaded in red.
When property owned by the Commonwealth is proposed to be conveyed, it is required that the governing
body of the county, town or city be notified.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
E. T. Landis, Jr.
Transportation R/W Agent Senior
Phone (540) 829-7696
Toll Free//1-800-275-9202, Ext. 7696
ETL,jr/rms
Enclosure
130ARD OF SUPERVISORS
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
FAX (804) 972-4126
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832
TTD (804) 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator 0~
March 27, 2000
1999 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals
Please find the attached 1999 annual report of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Summary
information from the five preceding years is included to provide context.
The number of appeals (five) in 1999 was three less than the number in 1998. Three of
the appeals were from the determination of use, and two of the appeals were from the
determination of violation.
The number of variances in 1999 decreased by one, (from 40 in 1998 to 39 in 1999).
Setback variances, mostly for setbacks for structures, signs, parking, and towers,
increased the most. The setback variances for additions to existing nonconforming
houses (primarily) continue to be an issue. Draft amendments to the zoning ordinance to
deal with this will be scheduled for public hearings in the near future.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
1999 AN NUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
INTRODUCTION
This report includes summarized information for the past five years (1995 -1999), in
addition to the 1999 annual report.
The Code of Virginia states that the Board of Zoning Appeals shall submit a report of its
activities to the governing body at least once each year. {Sec. 15.2-2308} This report
is a brief outline of the past and pending activities.
II. PERSONNEL
The Board of Zoning Appeals consists of five members. They are appointed by the
Circuit Court for a term not to exceed five years. The Board members during 1999
were:
Member
Term Expiration
Max C. Kennedy
Chairman
Reappointed May 23, 1998 for a five year term - May 23, 2003
Richard Cogan
Vice-Chairman
Reappointed May 23, 1997 for a five year term - May 23, 2002
George Bailey
Secretary
Reappointed May 23,1995 for a five year term - May 23, 2000
William Rennolds Reappointed May 23, 1996 for a five Year term - May 23, 2001
David Bass
Reappointed May 23, 1997 for a five year term - May 23, 2002
William Rennolds turned in his letter of resignation on January. 10, 2000. He has
agreed to serve on the Board until a replacement is appointed.
III. OPERATING PROCEDURES
Regular meetings of the Board are held the first Tuesday of each month starting at 2:00
p.m. Special meetings are called in cases of appeals or a high number of submittals,
when the regular schedule does not provide sufficient hearing time.
The Board operates with a set of by-laws. In addition, there is a procedure statement
for filing and processing applications to be heard.
1999 Annual Report
Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals
Page Two
IV. EXPENSES
The Board of Zoning Appeals does not have a separate budget. Compensation and
mileage is included within the budget of the Department of Building Code and Zoning
Services. The BZA is specifically funded within the Zoning cost center. Funding for
Board members' salaries in 1999 is consistent with prior years and was a total of
$3,700. They are each reimbursed $35 per meeting, and mileage traveled to the
meeting.
Staff to the Board includes the Director of Building Code and Zoning Services (Zoning
Administrator) and the Chief of Zoning Administration (Deputy Zoning Administrator).
Support staff includes the Office Associate IV and the Office Associate III.
V. ACTION SUMMARY
The number of actions considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals during 1999 and
each of the previous four years is shown by category in the following table:
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ACTIONS 1995 - 1999
VARIANCE 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
TYPE
SETBACK 9 7 14 25 21
SIGNAGE 4 2 5 2 4
MISC. 5 9 3 5 8
(VOID)
SEPTIC 3 2 1 0 1
RESERVE
APPEALS 7 3 8 8 5
YEARLY 28 23 31 40 39
TOTALS
1999 Annual Report
Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals
Page Three
VI. IMPACT ON BOARD REVIEW
A change to the State Code has increased the number of appeals by stating that the
Zoning Administrator's decision if not appealed in a timely fashion (within thirty days),
are final and unappealable. A later Code amendment has stated that after sixty days, a
decision may not be changed or reversed by the administrator or other administrative
officer unless the decision was improperly obtained. Many appeals result from official
determinations of zoning violation through enforcement action.
A wholesale revision to the sign regulations in 1992 decreased the number of sign
variances. Some sign variance requests such as height of wall signs, are recurring. A
draft zoning text amendment to address this has been completed and will be presented
to the Board of Supervisors in early 2000.
The Board of Zoning Appeals held 13 meetings in 1999. The prior years' summaries are
as follows:
1999 13 meetings
1998 13 meetings
1997 13 meetings
1996 11 meetings
1995 10 meetings
Appeals were as follows:
1999
2
3
Determination of violation
Determination of use
1998
2
5
1
Determination of violation
Determi.nation of use
void
1997
1
3
2
1
1
Parking on Rt. 6
Deferred (2 lighting & 1 height wall signage)
Determination of violation
Signage
Parcel subject to EC Regulations
c:annual report 1999.doc
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Members, Board of Superviso~~'z~ ~ .
F_Jla Washington Carey, CIvIC, CI~~'
Reading IJst ~or April 5, 2000
March 30, 2000
November 3, 1999
November t 8 (A), 1999
January 5, 2000
February 2, 2000
February 9, 2000
February t6, 2000
Mr. Martin
Ms. Thomas
pages I- 16 (Item # 14a) - Mr. Perkins
pages 16 (Item # t 4a) - end - Ms. Humphris
pages I- 18 (Item #9) - Mr. Bowerman
Pages 18 (Item #9) - end - Ms. Thomas
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Martin
..... 'BOA -TO -B
April 5, 2000-10:15 a.m.
A Monthly Communications Report of activities from the Albemarle
County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
Recent
Highlights: School Board Briefs (Attachments 1 and 2)- March 13,
and March 27, 2000
April 2000 School Library Media Month is designated to support the
hard work of School Libraries and Media Centers. Media Centers
promote literacy, information access and evaluation, love of
literature, effective use of technology, collaboration in the
teaChing/learning process, intellectual freedom, professional growth,
instructional leadership, and lifelong learning.
Media Centers also educate young people and are a collaborative
effort of thousands of dedicated teachers, administrators, and
students. They ensure the best possible future for our children and
are a vital element of our educational system.
We will receive a Spot Redistricting Report on Cale Elementary
School at the May 8 Board meeting and will approve an
implementation plan in June for the 2000-2001 School Year. The
Redistricting Committee has made a proposal and will obtain public
comment on Wednesday, April 12 at 7:00 p.m. at Cale.
The School Board will continue to support the Computers4Kids
Program. Recently, we committed $10,125 of in-kind services
over a three-year period.
We have made significant improvement in the teacher Reduction-
in-Force Process. This year, we have reduced the number of RIF
letters to 11, compared to 15 last year although principals were
asked to make plans assuming no staffing for growth. The
majority of these positions were in elective areas, which are always
uncertain at this time of year. These letters must be sent by April
15 to affected teachers. Many of these individuals' status will be
resolved if we are able to fund the additional positions in the
budget.
We hosted the Virginia School Boards Association's Central
Regional Forum on March 21 at Monticello High School. Over 50
school board members from several school districts attended. The
Forum was very successful with Dr. Peter Sheras presenting on
School Safety: Crisis Planning. Our thanks to Mr. Dorder for
attending.
The Board may take action on April 10 to increase High School
Summer Program Rates from $175 to $185 for a three-week period
and from $350 to $370 for a six-week period. This program is
self-sustaining program and pays for itself. The reason for the
increase is due to staff salaries and materials.
..Attachment 3 - Proposed 2000-2001 School Division Calendar.
The Board will adopt a calendar at its April 10 meeting. School
will begin on August 28, 2000 and is proposed to end on June 8,
2001.
will be back this evening to reiterate the School Board's position
on our request for funds.
Future
The Board will meet with local legislators on April 14 to discuss
the outcome of the General Assembly Session on Education-
Related Bills. The Composite Index and the Virginia
Retirement System will also be discussed.
The Board will receive a report on the pilot program for
Administrators and Teacher Evaluations in May. These plans
will be completing a one-year testing phase.
Mr. Koleszar and I will attend a Virginia School Boards
Association (VSBA) Conference on
Superintendent/Administrator Evaluations on April 7 that will
include information about uniform performance standards and
criteria to be used by local boards in evaluating superintendents,
teachers, and administrators.
The School Board is considering having our meetings taped and
played on Adelphia Cable. Students at Monticello High School
are willing to tape three hours of our Board meetings each
month, here in room 241. If the Supervisors are interested in
taping one of your meetings, we would be happy to investigate
the possibility with Monticello High School.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BOARD BRIEFS
Also available at http://k12.albemarle, org .WE EXPECT SUCCESS"
SCHOOL BOARD iV[EETING: March 13, 2000
BOARD ACTION AND ACTIVITIES
The Board declared April 2000 as School Library Media
Month for Albemarle County Public Schools and asked
that this observance be brought to the attention of all
citizens.
The Board will receive the Superintendent's
recommendations concerning a spot redistricting for Cale
Elementary School at its May 8 meeting. The Board will
consider the recommendations and take public testimony
and action in June. Any changes will be implemented for
the 2000-2001 school year. Currently, a Redistricting
Committee has been appointed and is meeting. All
meetings' are open to the public for observation, with two
public input sessions being planned. Additional
information can be obtained bycnlling 296-5877.
The Board desigmted the Chairman to send a letter of
support to the Computers4Kids Program, committing
$10,125 of in-kind program services over a three-year
period.
The Board approved the Year-to-Date Financial Report,
January31, 2000. The School Board Reserve will remain
frozen and may be used to fund additional fuel costs.
The Board will receive a report at an upcoming meeting
on how many students participate at the same time in
physical education classes in school gymnasiums. The
report will include safety issues.
The Board directed the Chairman and staff to work with
the Albemarle County Police Department, Board of
Supervisors, and anyone else on recommending a
solution to the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDoT) about improving road conditions and safety on
Route 20 near Monticello High School, given the recent
number of accidents.
BLUE RIDGE VIRTUAL
GOVERNOR'S SCHOOL
Initial discussion about an academic year governor's school
occurred in the spring of 1997 with the Superintendents of
Albemarle, Charlottesville, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Nelson,
and Orange counties. Following the discussion and with the
approval of the various school boards, the state legishture
appropriated planning monies for the regional progrnm
Planning for the program - including needs assessments,'
curricular focus groups, and program discussions - continued
with designees from all divisions participating. A school
board for the technology-based regional program was formed
in August 1999 and a school board member from each
district was appointed to serve on the Governor's School
Joint Board of Control (Mr. Koleszar is Albemarle's
representative.) The Joint Board of Control governed further
planning during the 1999 -2000 school year including the
approval of a technology Request for Proposal (RFP), mission
statement, and curricular plan.
Costs for implementing the Blue Ridge Virtual Governor's
School at one county high school were presented in the
Albemarle Schools FY 2000 budget. Additional work on
curriculum development, technology options, and program
implementation is ongoing. At its meeting on March 1, 2000,
the Governing Board of the Blue Ridge Virtual Governor's
School approved a schedule for implementation for the
Governor's School. At this point, the Board has not
approved a budget for participation.
The Board received the report for information. Periodic
updates will be provided.
LANGUAGE ARTS TEXTBOOK
SELECTION RECOMMENDATION
Language Arts Textbooks and Tradebooks, for Grades 6-12,
proposed for adoption will be on disphy for 30+ days
(Marchl5 to April 24) at the Albemarle Resource Center,
located at 1200 Forest Street in Charlottesville, 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays. A list of the textbooks
can be found on the http://kl2.albemarle.o, rg webske and in
each middle and high school media center.
A Textbook Selection and.Adoption Committee, in accord
with School Board Policy IIAA, Tectbo~ Stat/on art
A dqvt/ot developed specific evaluation checklists to
determine alignment of materials with Albemarle County
curriculum goals. The committee also reviewed proposed'
textbooks to ensure that they met the selection criteria in
Policy lIAA: (1) overall instructional purpose, (2) educational
suitability and age appropriateness, (3) timeliness, (4)
importance of the subject matter, and (5) the quality of th~'
product:
The textbooks will be considered for public testimony and
adoption at the April 24, 2000 Board meeting.
ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP
COMPENSATION PROGRAM
In August 1996, the School Board adopted a priority-for FY
1996-97 to transition from the Career Ladder to an Academic
Leadership Compensation Program. A Task Force, chaired
by the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, was directed
to operate within the funds budgeted for Career Ladder. On
November 25, 1996, the Board received a preliminary-report
on the model On February 19, 1997, the Board adopted the
Academic Leadership Compensation Program and transition
plan.
As one of the Board priorities for the 1997-98 schoo! year,
the Academic Leadership Compensation Program was
implemented, revised, and refined. On January26, 1998, the
Board received for information the proposed changes in the
Academic Leadership Compensation Program for the 1998-
1999 school year. The revisions were presented lo the Board
on March 22, 1999 for information and action. Following
this meeting, the revisions were implemented for the 1999-
2000 school year.
The Albemarle County Academic Leadership Compensation
Program Handbook has been refined and revised for the
2000-2001 school year. All revisions were made within the
allocated amount for the 1999-2000 school year. A copy of
the Albemarle County Academic Leadership Compensation
Program Handbook, reflecting the revisions for the 2000-
2001 school year, is available in the School Board office. To
view a copy, please call 972-4055.
The Board asked for additional information regarding the
following three positions: Parent-Teacher Organization
Ihkon, Public Rehtions Coordinator, and School
Climate/Care and Share Coordinator. The Board will receive
an update on these positions at its April 10 meeting and will
determine if these positions should remain as a part of the
Academic Leadership Compensation Program.
COMMENDATIONS
Kiasha Billups, a Monticello High School senior, was the
recipient of the Real Virginian Academic and Humanitarian
Award presented by Governor James Gilmore on Februar7
21, 2000. She was nominated byher principal and her history
teacher. Kiasha was one of seven students from Virginia to
receive this prestigious award. She is a member of the
National Honor Society, a representative in the Youth
Leadership Initiative held at the University of Virginia,
secr_etary of the Student Government Organization, Chaphln
of the NAACP Youth Council, and a member of the SHOUT
and Photography Clubs at Monticello I-[tgh School. Kiasha is
also involved with the Toy Lift, volunteers at Heritage Hail,
and participates in indoor and outdoor track and field, while
maintaining a 3.3 GPA.
Each year the county art teachers select artwork for the
poster advertising the Albemarle County's Fine Arts Festival.
The following Greer Elementary School students contributed
to this year's poster:.
· BrktanyMouring
Emma Taylor
Mio Kozaiwa
Maho Okubo
Betsy Ulrope
Krisde Lou
Walker Nfilby.
Gerald Terrell, Principal of Cale Elementary School, was
recendy named the recipient of the Martin Luther King, Jr.
Community Service Award for Albemarle County by a. panel
of leaders from the community to recognize his commitment
and ideals of Martin Luther King, Jr.
REDUCTION-IN-FORCE (RIF) PROCESS
At irs February28 Work Session, the Board asked to recede
updated information on the Reduction-in-Force process.
State law requires teachers being non-renewed to be notified
by April 15. The hw also requires that nodce be given of a
recommendation for non-renewal. In Albemarle County,
non-renewal, unrelated to performance, generally falls into the
categories of enrollment or programmatic uncertainties and
certification. (If a teacher has an expiring certificate and has
not yet completed requirements to update the certificate, the
teacher will be non-renewed pending completion of these
reqUirements.)
The April 15 requirement, unfortunately, forces the school
division to make decisions concerning RIF before all
necessary information about enrollment, programs, and
budget is available. For example, elective enrollments may
not be fully known at this time of year, necessitating caution
in staffing these areas. Staffing that might be driven by
budgetary considerations cannot be fully resolved until the
end of the budget process in late April.
During the past three years, extensive steps have been taken
to reduce the number of R.IF letters that are delivered and to
place teachers receiving them into other positions. The
Board has received reg~flar updates on this process each year.
Tkis year, the R.IF letters that will be sent are for poskions
where there are uncertainties in elected and non-core areas.
There are 11 teachers in this category. There will also be nine
reductions from full time to part time. The Board will receive
additional kfformation at its March 27 meeting.
AI,BEMARI E COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BOARD BRIEFS
Also available at http://k12.albemarle.org
"WE EXPECT SUCCESS"
SCHOOL BOARD MEETING:. March 27, 2000
BOARD ACTION AND ACTIVITIES
The Board expelled an Albemarle High School student and a
Western Albemarle High School student for being in
possession of a controlled substance. In addition, the Board
also expelled another Western Albemarle student for bringing
a weapon to school, a Monticello High School student for
being in possession of a controlled substance, and a
Sutherland Middle School student for chronic disobedience.
All students were expelled for the remainder of the school
year and through summer school.
The Board deferred review of PolicyJC, Sd.x~lA tterdanc~, and
PolicyJEC, S&odAdrrission, to a future Board meeting.
SCOTTSVILLE ELMENTARY SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT PRE SENTATION
Ms. Jeannette Orrock, Scottsville Elementary School
Principal, said the three School Improvement Program Goals
are the following:
Academic Success - 70% or greater student success on
English, Math, Social Studies, and Science Standards of
Learning (SOLs) tests.
School Climate - Positive Sdhool Climate, Student
Responsibility for Actions, and Recognition of
Outstanding Student Achievement.
Parental Involvement - Parents Receive Curriculum
Informanon and Training Sessions to Support Parents
Working with their Children.
2000-2001 BUDGET UPDATE
The School Board Funding Request submitted to the Board
of Supervisors required $1.9 million. The Board of
Supervisors proposes funding the $1.9 million with $465,000
in projected savings from health insurance costs and $700,000
m one time savings projected from Virginia Retirement
System payments. In addition, 2 cents of a proposed 4 cents
tax increase would be earmarked for schools based on the
normal 60/40 split, which would yield approximately
$780,000 for schools. The other 2 cents would be designated
for the County's Debt Service Reserve. The Board of
Supervisors will hold a public hearing on the propose~t tax
increase on Wednesday, April 5. The Board of Supervisors
will adopt ks 2000-2001 Budget on April 12. The Board will
then be tasked to adopt its budget before'May I5, 2000.
GRADES 6-10 HEALTH TEXTBOOK
SELECTION AND ADOPTION
School Bo/rd Policy IIAA: Text_.k~ Sdection aMA doptior6
specifies that the Board adopt textbooks for use in the
Division based upon recommendations presented by the
Superintendent. Grades 6-10 Health Textbook
recommendations were presented to the Board on
February 14, 2000.
The recommended textbooks are listed belo~
1. Grades 6 and 7 Discover Health
2. Grade 8 Totally Awesome Health Course 3
3. Grades 9 and 10 Holt Health
4. Grades 9 and 10 (Self-contained and Collaborative CLasses)
Life Skills Health
These textbooks have been on display at the Albemarle
County Resource Center since February 16, 2000. A media
release on the ava/lability of the textbooks for review by the
public was sent out on February 17, 2000.
The Board approved the Grades 6 - 10 Health Textbooks as
presented.
HIGH SCHOOL SUMMER
PROGRAM RATES
Albemarle County Public Schools offers a high school
summer program for area students. Students attend the
program to either replace a grade earned during the regular
school session or to earn credits so as to make space for
elective classes in their regular school schedule. Courses are
offered in the core academic areas of language arts,
mathematics, social studies, physical education, and health.
The program is three to six weeks in length.
The high school summer program is a fee-based program.
The current fee is $175 for a three-week session for county
residentS and $350 for the six-week session. For non-county
residentS, the fee is $200 for a three-week session and $400
for the six-week session. These fees were established for the
1999 summer prograr~ Before 1999, the rates were $165 for
a three-week session and $330 for the six-week session for
county residents, $190 and $380, respectively. Rates were
increased at this time in ·order for projected revenues to meet
projected expenditures.
In order to meet the projected expenditures for the summer
of 2000, a rate increase is needed. The increase requested is
$10 per threerweek session or $20 for the six-week session.
The rates would rise from $175 for a three-week session to
$185 and from $350 for the six-week session to $370 for
county residents. For non-county residents, the fee increase
would rise from $200 to $210 for a three-week session and
from $400 to $420 for the six-week session. This is an
increase of 5.5%. The increase would be used to include the
salary of a program director, to increase staff salaries by about
3%, and to fund increases in other operational costs.
The Board received the High School Summer School
Program Rates for information. The Board will receive public
testimony and action at its April 10, 2000 meeting.
2000-2001 SCHOOL
DIVISION CALENDAR
A Committee chaired by Dr, Frank Morgan, Assistant
Superintendent for Support Services, developed a Draft
Calendar. The Committee included three parents, three
building administrators, four classroom teachers, and two
central office instructional coordinators. The Committee
developed an initial draft and distributed the draft to
Principals, central office staff, Parent Council, and Teacher
Advisory for feedback. This feedback was utilized bythe '
Committee to finalize the Proposed Calendar being presented
to the School Board.
In developing the Proposed Calendar, the committee
attempted to balance several areas of need identified by staff, '
parents, and others, including:
Providing schools time for planning and other activkies
related to School Improvement.
Providing structured time for central staff development
related to Division focus areas.
Providing time for teachers for individual work and
planning needs.
Planning for inclement weather without using Spring
Break.
Providing frequent short breaks for students throughout
the year.
At its February 14 meeting, the Board voted to request a
waiver from the Virginia Department of Education for a pre-
Labor Day opening and designated August 28, 2000 as the
first dayofthe 2000-2001 school year. This is reflected in the
Proposed Calendar. The Proposed Calendar includes the
following features:
180 instructional days
11 built-in weather makeup days
11 "School Planning Days.?' These days are structUred so
that up'to 50% 0f'tiie time would be used-at the
Principal's discretion for curriculum mapping and
planning and other activities related to School
Improvement Plans.
Specified times for Lead Teachers and other selected
teachers to meet with Instructional Coordinators.
2 Early Release days for central staff development on
Division focus areas. The Proposed Calendar also
designates 3 days within the 200-day teacher contract for
Staff Development that takes place outside Of contractual
time.
A holiday the day before Thanksgiving.
A Wrater Holiday which begins on Friday, December 22,
2000, with schools reopening on Wednesday, January 3,
2001.
The end of school by Friday June 8, 2001, unless more
than 6 days are missed due to inclement weather.
The Board will receive public testimony and consider
adoption of the Proposed 2000-2001 Calendar at the Board's
April 10 meeting.
For additional information about the Proposed Calendar,
please call 296-5877. The calendar can be found on the
division Website.
UPCOMING APRIL SCHOOL
BOARD MEETINGS
April 10, 2000 Regular Board Meeting, 6:30 p.rr~, .
Room 241.
April 14, 2000 Joint Meeting with Legislators, Room 235,
12:00 p.m.
April 24, 2000 Regular Work Session, Room 241,
6:30 p.m.
April 26, 2000 Special Meeting on Budget, Room 331,
6:30 p.m.
Subject: 2000-2001 School Division Calendar
Policy Reference: lC/ID
D~:-~h 27, 2000
Enclosures: 1
Reason for Consideration:
Action Information X
Background
Enclosure 1 provides a ~ 2000-2001 Calendar for the School Board's consideration. The
Draft Calendar was developed by a Committee chaired by Dr. Morgan that included three parents, three
building administrators, four classroom teachers, and two central office instructional coordinators. The
committee developed an initial draft, and distributed the draft to the Principals, central office staff,
Parent Council, and Teacher Advisory for feedback. This feedback was utilized by the Committee to
finalize the Draft Calendar being presented to the School Board.
In developing the Draft Calendar, the committee attempted to balance several areas of need
identified by staff, parents, and others, including:
· Providing schools time for planning and other activities related to School Improvement.
· Providing structured time for central staff development related to Division focus areas.
· Providing time for teachers for individual work and planning needs.
· Planning for inclement weather without utilizing Spring Break to do so.
· Providing frequent short breaks for students throughout the year.
At its February meeting, the School Board, voted to request a waiver from the Virginia
Department of Education for a pre-Labor Day opening and designated August 28, 2000 as the rum day of
the 2000-2001 scbool year. This is reflected in the Draft Calendar.
,/Administnative Consideration
The Draft Calendar includes the following features:
11 "School Planning Days." These days are structured so that up to 50% of the time would be used
at the Principal's discretion for curriculum mapping and planning and other activities related to
School Improvement Plans.
Specified times for Lead Teachers and other selected teachers to meet with Instructional
Coordinators.
2 Early Release days for central staff development on Division focus areas. The Drat~ Calendar also
designates 3 days within the 200-day teacher contract for Staff Development that takes place outside
of contractual time.
A holiday the day before Thanksgiving.
A Winter Holiday which begins on Friday, December 22, 2000, with schools reopening on
Wednesday, January 3, 2001.
The end of school by Friday June 8, 2001, unless more than 6 days am missed due to inclement
weather.
Recommendation
Receive PropOsed 2000-2001 Calendar for first reading. Provide direction as appropriate. With
the Board's concurrence, a Proposed 2000-2001 Calendar will be presented for public testimony and
possible adoption at the Board's April 10 meeting.
Prepared:
Reviewed:
Enclosure 1
ii,ii, i,iie
August
September
October
14-18
21-25
Novemi~er 3
7
22-24
27
December 22-29
January 1-2
3
15
ALBEMakRLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCEIOOLS
2000-2001 CALENDAR COMMITTEE - PROPOSAL
Mon.-Fd.
3-Day New Teacher Orientation (For Elementary: Mon. (8/14) - Wed. (8/16)
For Secondary: Wed. (8/16) - Fri. (8/18))
Mon.-Fri. School Planning Days (For Elementary on Tuesday (8/22) and Secondary on
Wednesday (8/23) PM is for Lead Teachers and
selected others to meet with Coordinators.)
28 Monday Schools Open - First Day for Students
4 Monday Labor Day - Schools Closed
10 Tuesday End of 6 Week Grading Pedod
(Parent conferences will be scheduled by November 10. Conference schedules for each school will
be listed in the Division Calendar Handbook. Conference schedules will include evening hours.
The number of hours scheduled for conferences will be equivalent to a normal contractual clay.)
Fdday End of 9 Week Grading Pedod
Tuesday · Election Day - School Planning Day
Wed.-Fd. Thanksgiving Holiday - Schools Closed
Monday End of 6 Week Grading Period
Fri.-Fd. Winter Break - Schools Closed
Mon.-Tues. Winter Break continues - Schools Closed
Wednesaay Class Resumes
Monday - a,, Lee-Jackson-King Day - School Planning Day and Reading Day for
Semester Exams (Lead Teachers and selected others to meet w/Coordinators.
Elementary - AM, Secondary - PM)
22 Monday · School Planning Day
22 Monday End of 6 and 9 Week Grading Period - End of First Semester
(Second semester parent conferences will be established by each school based on community
preferences and the level and organization of the school.)
February 19-20
21
March 8
29
30
April 16-20
27
May 28
June 6
7
8
8
11
Mon.-Tues. ·* President's Day Holiday - Schools Closed ^
Wednesday &* School Planning Day ^
Thursday End of 6 Week Grading Pedod
Thursday End of 9 Week Grading Period
Friday a~, School Planning Day
Mon.-Fri. Spring Break - Schools Closed
Friday End of 6 Week Grading Pedod
Monday :~ Memodal Day - Schools Closed
Wednesday TBA Graduation
Thursday TBA Graduation
Fric~ay TBA Graduation
Fdday End of Grading Pedods - Last Scheduled Day of School
Tuesday &~ School Planning Day
· = School closed for students, unless it is scheduled and used as a Make-Up Day (~).
* = Scheduled Make-Up Day. Make-Up Days will be taken in the following order. January 15, February 21, February 20,
February 19, March 30, May 28, June 11, June 12, June 13, June 14, June 15. Note:
Families and staff should plan accordingly.
^ = If February 21 is used as a Make-Up Day, then the scheduled School Planning Day will be on February 20. If
February 20 is used as a Make-Up Day, then the scheduled School Planning Day will be on February 19. Note:
Staff should plan accordingly.
Veteran teachers receive 5 days and new teachers receive 2 days for meetings, conferences and other teacher commitments.
School Planning Days: These days are for work in schools. At the principal's discretion, up to 50% of the day can
be used for meetings, curriculum mapping, planning, and other activities related to School
Improvement Plans.
Calendar Commiltee Proposal
311,4'00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee
(DISC) Presentation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Transmittal of Final Report to Board of Supervisors
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Echols, Benish
AGENDA DATE:
April 5, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION: X
INFORMATION:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
In early 1997, the Board of Supervisors appointed a committee consisting of representatives of various
neighborhood groups, business and professional organizations, interest groups and citizens at-large to address
the future of the County's Development Areas as identified in its 1996 Land Use Plan. DISC, as this committee
has come to be known, began its work in March of 1997 and has since worked continuously with the help of a
consultant, staff and the input of the general public to develop The Neighborhood Model and formulate
recommendations for the Board of Supervisors' consideration. The results of this work will be presented to the
Board at its April 5th meeting.
DISCUSSION:
This project is certainly one of the most significant undertakings in the history of the County's Comprehensive
Planning, especially regarding the Development Areas. Diligent consideration of the DISC products will be vital
to the success of the County's growth management efforts and future quality of life for its residents. As such, the
process of review deserves special attention to assure all elements of the DISC work are considered in an efficient
and timely manner. Staff believes a "route to success" can best be achieved by first developing a plan of action
that addresses: how the Neighborhood Model and associated recommendations should be used before their
adoption; prioritization and ordering of the DISC elements for review and adoption; and, how staff and the public
should be involved in the review process. Ideally, the plan of action should include a timeline with milestones for
vadous actions to be undertaken by the Planning Commission. It is recommended that a committee of staff and
DISC representatives, including the Board's DISC members, meet during the month of April to formulate this plan
of action and present it to the Board at its May meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the DISC report and charge a committee of staff (representing the County Executive's office, the County
Attorney's office and the Development Departments) and DISC representatives (DISC co-chairs, Board DISC
members and Planning Commission DISC member) to develop a plan of action for its review to be presented for
the Board's consideration at its May 3, 2000 meeting.
March 7, 2000
Ms. Elaine Echols
Department of Planning and
Community. Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntyre Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Ms. Kathy Galvin
712 Lyons Avenue
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
Dear Elaine and Kathy,
We the undersigned members of the Albemarle County Development Initiatives Steering Committee wish
to acknowledge that you, Kathy as Chairman, and you, Elaine as staff liaison, have performed in an
exemplary manner.
Your leadership and dedication should be a model for all Committees appointed by the Board of
Supervisors to follow.
Well done with special thanks!
O
BW/ns
cc:
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Robert Tucker - County Executive
Wayne Cilimberg - Director of Planning and Community Development
0087
March 30, 2000
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntke Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4035
Mr. Charles Martin, Chair
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Chairman Martin:
On behalf of the Development Areas Initiatives Steering Committee, DISC, we are pleased to
transmit our Final Report on the Development Areas. We hope that the information and
guidelines set forth by this report will assist the Board in its efforts to direct growth into the
Development Areas without compromising the "quality of life" in any one of the Development
Areas. As outlined in the Executive Summary, the Final Report is in three volumes. Volume 1
contains Part I of the Final Report, The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the
Development Areas. This part articulates the "vision" for a new pattern or form of development
in the Development Areas. Volume 2 contains Part II, Recommendations for Policy and
Regulatory Changes and Part III. Results of the DISC Workshop: Implementation Strategies.
Volume 3 contains the "supporting" documents produced by our consultant, Torti Gallas and
Partners. CHK, Inc. and the DISC Interim Report, February 1999. Although each part of the
Final Report is a discrete document, we hope the'Board will see the relevance of all components
of the Final Report and move towards their adoption in the very near future.
A great many people have contributed to the contents of this report. Above all, we wish to
acknowledge the life of David Tice. Without David's early leadership, this process would never
have gotten "off the ground." As the first chair of this committee, David charted the direction of
our work and established criteria for the selection of our consultant. Second, the cooperation and
genuine commitment exhibited by Elaine Echols, Sr. Planner for the County has been
extraordinary and truly appreciated. Simply put, this committee's work would not have come to
fruition without her. Third, we would like to thank our consultant, Neal Payton of Torti-Gallis.
CHK. Without Neal's expertise in architecture, architectural history and urban design, we would
not have "broken out of the box" and envisioned a new paradigm for development. In addition
to these principal players, we would like to thank David Benish, Chief of Planning and
Community Development for his historical perspective and technical understanding of existing
County policies and regulations. Likewise, Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney and Ginnie
McDonald, formerly of the Housing Office provided ongoing guidance and technical assistance.
Lee Catlin was invaluable in helping up plan and facilitate the January 29, 2000 workshop. We
would also like to thank each of the County department heads and staff members and Paul Shoop
of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) for lending their agency's perspective. We
also wish to acknowledge the staff of the Sutherland, Burley and Jack Jouett middle schools for
the use of their facilities during our public meetings and charrettes. We would also like to thank
you Mr. Chairman and Mr. David Bowerman for taking part in our deliberations, offering
guidance and sacrificing your already precious time.
Next on our list are the DISC members themselves. It has been an arduous three years of
constant deliberations and decision-making. That a 22-member citizen committee tenaciously
grappled with a seemingly endless array of complex, interrelated issues for so long goes "above
and beyond the call of duty." We would like to commend them all for their diligence and good
work. In particular, Steve Runkle of the Kessler Group contributed the use of the Glenmore
Community Building for an earlier workshop in August of 1998. Beth Meyer and Bruce Dotson
both of the University of Virginia, contributed their considerable expertise in the planning and
execution of the January 2000 workshop. Sherry Buttrick of the Sustainability Council, provided
insight and direction in the formulation of "sustainability indicators" for the Neighborhood
Model.
Finally, we wish to acknowledge the memory of David Tice. Many of you may recall that David
often began our meetings and charrettes with a pertinent saying from the past. In the spirit of
David Tice, we wish to close with a quote for the Enlightenment political philosopher and
statesman, Edmund Burke.
"The temporary possessors and life-renters in the commonwealth, unmindful of what they
have received from their ancestors, inevitably become unmindful of what is due to their
posterity."
The Final Report on the Development Areas is a painstakingly thorough expression of what we,
the Development Initiatives Steering Committee, believe to be due to our posterity. It is now up
to the Board of Supervisors to take what the DISC has accomplished over these past three years,
and use it to chart a prudent course for the future of Albemarle County. We have appreciated the
opportunity to serve Albemarle County in that endeavor.
Sincerely,
Kathleen ~. ;alvi ln, -chak~
KMG
Eric Strucko, co-chair
Executive Summary March 30, 2000
Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC)
THE FINAL REPORT
Purpose of the Final Report
This Final Report establishes the rationale for changing the form of development in
Albemarle.County so that it can ultimately accommodate the densities outlined by the
Comprehensive Plan. It is also intended to serve as a guide for citizen groups, county
staff and future consultants on how to master plan the County's Development Areas.
Finally, the specific recommendations included in this Final Report provide a set of
design guidelines for future development and redevelopment.
Contents of the Final Report
This Final Report is in three volumes. The contents of each volume are:
Volume 1
Part I. The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas.
Volume 2
Part II. Recommendations for Policy and Regulatory Changes.
Part III. Results of the DISC Workshop: Implementation Strategies.
Volume 3
Supporting Documents and the DISC Interim Report, February 1999.
Volume 4, Sustainability Indicators (Part IV) and Marketing Strategies (Part V), will be
appended to this Final Report, once a formal presentation of the first three parts of the
Final Report has been made to the Board of Supervisors.
VOLUME 1
Part I. The Neighborhood Model:
Building Block for the Development Areas
The Neighborhood Model is a discrete document which outlines a new "vision" for
development in Albemarle County and details a set of guidelines to achieve that vision in
each of the Development Areas. The contents are as follows.
Section 1 :Introduction
In order for Albemarle County to preserve its rural areas and accommodate future
population growth in its designated growth areas (i.e. the stated goals of the
Comprehensive Plan) a new form of development that is ultimately more compact, is
required. The designated growth areas (herein referred to as the Development Areas) will
not succeed as repositories for growth, however, if they do not offer a high quality of life
for a broad spectrUm of the population. As expressed by the DISC Interim Report
(February 1999), "The form of development strongly influences the desirability of more
dense places. Consequently, short-term efforts by the County will be concentrated on
changing the form of development; long term efforts will promote the densities in the
Comprehensive Plan. The principle vehicle for effecting this change in development
practice for undeveloped sites and places where development has already occurred will
be the Neighborhood Model." The Neighborhood Model outlines the principles and
methods for achieving this goal for the Development Areas.
Section 2:Guiding Principles for a New Form of Development
Conventional development uses large tracts of land for typically single-use purposes.
The resulting settlement pattern, commonly referred to as "suburban sprawl," is
characterized by low residential densities, large building footprints, structures rarely
exceeding two stories and segregated land uses, accessible only by private automobile.
The product type and price range further distinguishes one residential development from
another. Under this scenario, the land available to accommodate projected population
growth (inclusive of home sites, places of employment and commercial/retail districts)
will more than likely be "built-out" before the year 2015. Pressure to develop the rural
areas will increase, traffic will become more congested and communities will grow more
insular. In contrast, the Neighborhood Model offers a more compact, vertical and diverse
form of development. The new guiding principles of this form are:
1. Pedestrian orientation.
2. Safe, attractive and convenient streets and paths
3. Interconnected neighborhood streets and regional transportation networks
4. Parks and open space.
5. Neighborhood centers.
6. Buildings and spaces of human scale.
7. Relegated parking.
8. Mixture of land uses.
9. Mixture of housing types and affordabitity.
10. Redevelopment rather than abandomnent.
11. Site planning that respects terrain.
12. Clear edges between the rural areas and the built environment.
Section 3:Fittin g the Pieces Together-The Transect
A new method of conceptualizing and planning the built environment is required in order
to accommodate these new principles of development. That new conceptual framework
regards the neighborhood as the fundamental building block of the Development Area:
The neighborhood, in turn, is described via "the transect." By definition, the "transect" is
a cross-section of a neighborhood which identifies a "continuum" of densities and uses
within that neighborhood. The neighborhood center marks the area of highest intensity
whereas the edge marks the outer boundary of a neighborhood often characterized by a
lower intensity of development. The edge of any neighborhood is either distinctly rural
or another neighborhood (be it County or City.) The distance from center to edge is ¼
mile or a 5-minute walk (the ideal amount of time for walking fi-om one destination to
another.) By extension, the ideal size ora neighborhood is a circle with a ¼ mile radius.
The "transect" offers a systematic approaCh for determining appropriate land use and
density for any given parcel in any given neighborhood, in accordance with the principles
of the Neighborhood Model.
Section 4:Building a Master Plan.
The eight steps to building a Master Plan for a Development Area are:
· Establishing a community visioning process.
· Assembling a group of stakeholders to develop the Master Plan.
· Identifying existing conditions and features.
· Identifying existing neighborhoods by locating centers.
· Assessing relationships between developed and undeveloped parcels.
· Determining desirable uses for undeveloped parcels.
· Creating a Development Area Master Plan.
· Providing implementation strategies.
As described in Section 3, the "transect" is a fundamental tool in' this process. The first
task in applying the "transect" is identifying the neighborhood center of an actual
geographic area. Although the center is the area of greatest intensity, the literal center
could be a park or civic plaza, framed by buildings. It is during the master planning
process that the degree of land-use mixing and density for any given category along the
"transect" (as it is applied to an actual place) is determined. It is also during the master
planning process that issues of concurrency are addressed (i.e. road improvements and
construction, school construction, expansion of service delivery relative to increased
development, etc.).
Section 5:Design Approaches.
This section provides a catalogue of design strategies which achieve the principles of the
Neighborhood Model for streets, open space, neighborhood centers, building scale and
orientation, parking, land use mixing, affordable housing, redevelopment, sensitive site
planning and edges. The options provided are not exhaustive. Developers and others in
the community are encouraged to suggest additional ways that individual projects can
similarly meet the objectives of the Neighborhood Model.
Section 6:The Neighborhood Model Applied.
The Neighborhood Model envisions a coherent set of neighborhoods within each
Development Area. However, unique site conditions in the County will pose challenges
during implementation. The Towers Land Trust site in the Community of Hollymead,
provided the opportunity to test the credibility of the Neighborhood Model. During a
public design workshop (i.e. a charrette), the "transect" (Section 3), elements of the
master planning process (Section 4) and several design approaches (Section 5) were
applied to this actual geographic area. The results of this public workshop (illustrated in
Section 6) reflect the effort of over 100 community participants.
Section 7:Strategies for Implementation.
This section'outlines the consultant's general recommendations for implementing the
Neighborhood Model. The remaining two parts of the Final Report address many of these
issues in more detail.
VOLUME 2
Part II. Recommendations for Policy and Regulatory Changes
Existing policies, subdivision and zoning ordinances in Albemarle County, inhibit and in
many ways prohibit the type of development envisioned by the Neighborhood Model.
This statement also holds true for policies and regulations of other agencies in the
Commonwealth, most notably the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT.) A
"neighborhood" option which incorporates the principles of the Neighborhood Model is
therefore, simply not available to the consumer within the County. This part of the Final
Report addresses the need to change existing public policy, subdivision and zoning
ordinances and agency regulations so that the Neighborhood Model form of development
is strongly encouraged, not simply allowed. Because of the speed with which the County
is growing, DISC believes these changes should take effect as soon as possible.
While staff is working on these policy and regulatory changes, the County should begin
the master planning process. As Master Plans are created, the County and its citizens
should carefully consider concurrency issues and the implications of making "by right"
land use designations compatible with a transect-based method of land use planning.
County staffwill be better able to assess the magnitude of change required to bring
existing zoning ordinances into conformity with the Neighborhood Model, once the
planning process is underway and the first Master Plan has been completed.
Part III. DISC Workshop Results: Implementation Strategies
On Saturday, January 29, 2000, DISC met for a full-day, facilitated workshop. The intent
of the workshop was twofold. The first goal was to strategize implementation measures
for both the master planning process and the development principles envisioned by
Neighborhood Model before master plans were completed. Among the many strategies
endorsed by DISC was the formation of a citizen committee (DISC II) to oversee the
implementation o f Master Plans and revisions to County ordinances. In addition, the
Board of Supervisors would have to actively negotiate with the Richmond VDOT office
and lobby the General Assembly to change existing street standards.
The second goal was to resolve contextual policy issues not specifically addressed by the
consultant. It should be noted that three broad policy issues have loomed large throughout
DISC's deliberations; Rural Are. a Protection, Development Area Boundaries and
Affordable Housing. The relevance of these interrelated issues to DISC's work was first
articulated by the consultant's Build-Out Analysis, Preliminary Report on Conflicts and
two Focus Group Reports and reiterated in the DISC Interim Report, February 1999. The
resolutions included within this section are the product of considerable debate in a highly
structured setting.
VOLUME 3
Supporting Documents & Interim Report
Throughout this three-year process, the consultant, Torti-Gallis. CHK provided DISC with
invaluable data and analysis. This information was used to formulate the Neighborhood
Model and identify major obstacles to its implementation. These documents include:
· . Conflicts Memo
· Summary Build-out Analysis
· Spreadsheets on the Build-out Analysis
· Focus Group Report 1
· Towers Charrette Report
· Pantops & Crozet Chan'ette Reports
· Focus Group Report 2
In addition to the supporting documents supplied by the consultant, this volume contains
the DISC Interim Report, February 1999. The Interim Report represents DISC's first
formal attempt to articulate critical policy positions and new principles for development.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The DISC will formally disband on May 3, 2000. Between now and that date, the DISC
will continue to formulate two more parts (Parts IV and V) which will be appended to the
Final Report as Volume 4. Part IV, "Sustainability Indicators," will measure the degree
to which the Neighborhood Model is successfully implemented and how closely the
Model's principles align with the "Vision of Sustainability" as articulated by the Thomas
Jefferson Sustainability Council. Part V, the "Market!ng Strategy" will outline steps to
promote the Neighborhood Model to the public and decision-makers and educate
practitioners, County administrators and planners on its application.
During the past three years, many diverse opinions were offered at the DISC meetings.
As the agendas and meeting minutes will attest, all of these issues were thoroughly
discussed and debated. Impassioned members articulated their concerns to the group;
however, at no time did the co-chairs have to resort to a formal vote in order to resolve an
imp'asse. The Final Report, therefore, reflects a myriad number of decisions reached by
consensus. It is a testament to the ability of a committee with competing interests to
resolve issues in the best interest of the community.
End of Executive Summary March 30, 2000
Agenda Item No. 11. Presentation by the Development Areas initiative Steering Committee.
THIS ITEM WAS SCANNED UNDER REPORTS.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Stormwater Control Program
SU BJ ECTIPROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Further Discussion of Program Alternatives
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Mawyer, Hirschman
AGENDA DATE:
April 5, 2000
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY: ~7
/
BACKGROUND:
The Board addressed the Stormwater Control. Program at its March 1,2000 meeting. The Executive Summary for that meeting
gave background on the program, recommended three items for Board approval, and sought Board input on management of
the program within the County's designated Development Areas.
The recommendations and Board direction from the March 1 meeting are summarized below:
1. Prioritize ClP funding for completion of regional drainage area studies as an integrated element of our land use
planning program. This item was approved.
2. Require all future subdivision and site drainage easements to be dedicated to Public Use. The Board requested
additional information on program and cost impacts on this item.
3. Continue to require property owners in areas designated as non-growth in the Comprehensive Plan to maintain
their own facilities. This item was approved.
Stormwater management in areas generally designated for development in the Comprehensive Plan. On this item,
staff provided two general options: (1) designate the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) as the program authority
with a comprehensive, user-fee based approach, or (2) designate the County Department of Engineering and Public Works
as the Program Authority with projects funded through public and private sources on a prioritized, case-by-case basis.
The Board requested further data on these two options, specifically related to program cost and management. The Board
also asked if the County could administer a user-fee based program for the Development Areas.
The purpose of this Executive Summary is to provide further information and clarification on items two and four.
DISCUSSION:
Dedication of Easements to Public Use
The staff recommendation that all future drainage easements (including stormwater basins) be dedicated to public use revolves
around the fundamental assumption that the County's stormwater program is maturing to the point where public responsibility
is' extending to the maintenance of our stormwater infrastructure. The County has based its current program on the premise
that private maintenance of this infrastructure is feasible. However, current experience and evidence from field inspections
indicates that this approach has not been effective in achieving County goals. In general, private interests, chiefly
homeowners' associations, do not have the technical nor financial capacity to maintain this complex infrastructure in a way
that adequately protects public health (e.g., flood control) and the environment. This problem will become more acute as the
County continues to grow and become more urban. Larger communities, such as Henrico and Chesterfield counties, currently
own and control the stormwater infrastructure.
The main question raised by this recommendation is that once the County accepts the easements, some public entity must
accept maintenance responsibility for these facilities. Initially, the workload would be light because the dedicated easements
would only apply to newly-approved subdivisions and site plans. In future years, however, the task will become more
significant, and will continue to grow into the future. Several issues regarding the dedication of easements to public use are
outlined below:
· Dedicated easements would clarify long-standing confusion about the ownership of drainage easements (drainage
easements are currently required on all development projects, but are not dedicated to public use).
· As the program matures, having the easements dedicated up-front would greatly reduce the staff time required to plat
and acquire (and perhaps purchase) new easements on land that has already been developed.
· Gaining control of these easements would allow for a more proactive stormwater program in that maintenance and
improvements for water quality or flood control could be addressed when needed and not after a lengthy process for
acquiring new easements.
· Easements would be dedicated to the County or ACSA, depending on who becomes the Program Authority charged with
stormwater management.
· Having easements dedicated would create an immediate public expectation of government responsibility for maintenance.
· Acquiring these easements would expand the "municipal system" that the program authority will be responsible for when
the new NPDES Phase II regulations become effective.
Staff believes that the benefits of requiring the dedication of easements to public use for all future subdivisions and drainage
easements outweigh the costs. While the program authority will have more responsibility then currently exists, staff believes
more public oversight of stormwater infrastructure is necessary. The initial workload which will result from public dedication
is not seen to be significant.
Pro|ected Stormwater User Fees
The main question raised by the Board at the last meeting was the potential user fee that would be assessed to the average
resident once a stormwater district was established. Costs have been estimated by both County and ACSA staff to ascertain
the magnitude of user fees that this program would entail. It must be stressed that these estimates are preliminary and only
provide a ballpark figure for program costs and user fees.
Based on review by both the County and ACSA, the stormwater program is estimated to cost approximately $1 million annually
by the end of a five year period within the designated service district. In the near term, program costs would be significantly
less and would accrue gradually each year.
Considering a $1 million estimate of annual costs and user fees based on an "Equivalent Residential Unit" (ERU = 2000 square
feet of impervious cover), fees would be $12-15 per ERU on an annual basis. Typical fees could be expected as follows:
· Residential -- $12-18 annually
· Small Commercial (0.7 acres of impervious cover) -- $200-250 annually
· Medium Commercial (3 acres impervious cover) -- $800-1000 annually
· Large Regional Commercial -- $11,000-13,000 annually
Several existing stormwater utilities in Virginia use variable rates for residential and commercial customers. However, the base
assumption usually carries that a property is charged commensurate with its impervious cover or contribution to runoff.
It must be stressed that the program outlined above would be only for the designated service district. Outside of this district,
predominantly in the Rural Areas, the County would still need to maintain a water resources and stormwater program attended
by some capital costs. These programs are fundamental to the County's goals of water supply protection and maintaining
water quality in the Rural Areas. Capital costs outside of the service district are estimated to be $50,000 to $100,000 on an
annual basis, it is assumed that these program costs would not be covered by a user fee, but would come from General
Revenue.
Service District Boundaries:
Two scenarios seem the most likely: (1) the stormwater management service district would follow the Development Areas as
designated in the Land Use Plan, or (2) the district would follow the jurisdictional area for ACSA water and/or sewer. The main
geographic difference between these two options is that #f2 includes areas outside of the Development Areas, namely sections
of Ivy and Scottsville. Several subdivisions in the Ivy area are '~vater-only" customers for ACSA, while the town of Scottsville
and some surrounding land are served by both public water and sewer.
With regard to stormwater management, staff believes that the service district should follow the Development Areas.
Stormwater services in this area can be seen as an important component to making these areas more livable, which is a major
objective of the Land Use Plan and DISC effort. Also, since these areas are more densely developed, issues of flooding,
drainage, and erosion are more acute. Finally, for parcels in Ivy within the jurisdictional area, there is nothing from a
stormwater management perspective that distinguishes them from their neighbors who are not on public water. Lots sizes,
housing types, and runoff characteristics are very similar regardless of water source. For this reason, including some sections
of Ivy in a stormwater district, and not others, may create a perceived equity issue or service disparity. The Town of Scottsville
could elect to become part of the service district, and this would be a reasonable addition to the district.
One main issue to be watchful for is not increasing the cost of living within the Development Area vis-a-vis the Rural Areas.
The Board should consider whether the cost of $12-$18 on an annual basis for a typical residential property is a reasonable
fee to provide public health and safety and environmental benefits associated with stormwater management. Department of
Engineering & Public Works staff perceives that these services are increasingly expected and demanded by citizens and
communities within the Development Areas.
Stormwater Program Authority
Below is information on the two options previously provided to the Board regarding recommended alternatives for the program
authority. Based on this information and that provided above, staff is seeking direction from the Board regarding designation
of a program authority.
Option 1 - Desi.qnate the Albemarle County Service Authority as the Program Authority· Represents a comprehensive approach, which would designate a specific service area or areas to receive stormwater
services (construction and maintenance).
· All of the stormwater systems within the designated service area would be dedicated to the ACSA unless owners of private
facilities chose not to dedicate their facilities.
· All properties within the designated area would be charged a user fee based upon a yet to be determined standard (possibl,.
"Equivalent Residential Units" (ERUs), defined as 2000 sf of impervious area per ERU).
· User fees would provide an additional source of funding not currently available
· Financing can be provided through revenue bonds which will not require voter approval through a bond referendum.
· Developer pro-rata shares could be utilized
· ACSA would make final determinations on project funding, priorities and timelines
Option 2 - Designate the County Department of En.qineering and Public Works as the Program Authority
· Projects would be handled on a case by case basis.
· A priority list of projects would be developed based on a set of criteria designed to address regional, environmental or public
needs.
· Projects would be completed through the ClP as funds become available.
· Funding could be provided through a combination of developer pro-rata contributions and proffers and General Fund reven~
· User fees would not be available to fund construction or maintenance.
· Financing of major stormwater projects would most likely require voter approval through a bond referendum.
· Funding of stormwater needs will require raising additional revenues or large reductions in other capital needs
· The Board of Supervisors would make final determinations on project funding, priorities and timelines
The Board also asked if the County could administer a user-fee based program for the Development Areas. While the County
could administer such a program, it would essentially require what currently exists through the ACSA, without the ability to
finance major capital improvements without a referendum
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Require all future subdivision and site drainage easements to be dedicated to Public Use.
2. Designate the Development Areas, as designated in the Land Use Plan, as a stormwater service district.
3. Designate either the Albemarle County Service Authority or the County Department of Engineering & Public
Works as the Program Authority for implementation of the program.
00.066
APRIL 5, 2000
CLOSED SESSION MOTION
I move that the board .go into closed session
pursuant to section 2.1-344(a) of the Code of Virginia
· Under subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards and commissions; and
· Under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel
and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to
an interjurisdictional agreement and specific legal
matters relating to litigation concerning highway
Construction.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Laurie Bentley, C.M.C., Senior Deputy Clerk
March 31, 2000
Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
I have updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through
June 30, 2000.
In addition, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families Executive
Committee has recommended that you appoint Ms. Ruth Stone, Executive Director of Piedmont
Court Appointed Special Advocates, to the Commission on Children and Families (CCF). This
would be to fill the vacancy created when Mr. Jeffrey Sobel resigned as the joint City/County
private provider on the CCF. City Council concurs with the CCF Executive Committee's
recommendation and asks that Ms. Stone be appointed to a new three-year term effective the date
you appoint her (applications sent under separate cover).
cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis
Ch'ville Regional Chamber of Commerce
......................................... ~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Supervisors //~-~
FROM: Laurie Bentley, C.M.(~ ~ ~v
Senior Deputy Clerk ~
DATE: March 31, 2000
RE: Applications for Boards and Commissions
I have attached copies of applications for the vacancy on the Commission on Children and Families (please see
vacancy letter included in your Board packet). Thank you.
Attachments: 3
cc: Bob Tucker
Larry Davis
BOARD OR COMMISSION
NEW TERM
EXPIRE
DATE
APPLICANT/
INCUMBENT
Ruth L. Stone
Patri¢ia Burton
John M. Walters
INTERVIEW,
IF
SCHEDULED
David R Bowerman
Rio
Linctsay G. Dottier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphd$
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (8041 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel M~II~
April 18, 2000
Mr. Larry Miller
1706 Jumpers Run
Crozet, VA 22911
Dear Mr. Miller:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 5, 2000, you were reappointed to the
Commission on Children and Families, with said term to run from July 1, 2000 through
June 30, 2003. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/lab
Enclosure
cc: James L. Camblos, III
Larry Davis
Saphira Baker
Roxanne White
Printed on recycled paper
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Waiter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel HiEer
April 18, 2000
Ms. Cynthia Dupree
702 Tattershall Farm Ln.
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Dear Ms. Dupree:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 5, 2000, the Board appointed you to
the Rivanna Solid Waste Citizens Advisory Committee, with said term effective April 5, 2000
through December 31, 2001. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this Opportunity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/lab
Enclosure
CC:
James Camblos
Larry Davis
Arthur Petrini
Printed on recycled paper
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lind~y G. Dorrier, Jr.
S~ottsville
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Joue~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
P~vanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Mille~
MarCh 3, 2000
Ms. Cynthia Deupree
702 Tattershall Farm Ln.
Charlottsville, VA 22903
Dear Mr. Deupree:
This letter will confirm your interview with the Board of Supe~isors at 1:00 p.m.,
April 5, 2000, for a vacancy on the Rivanna Solid Waste Citizens Advisory Committee. The
interview, will last approximately ten minutes, and will be held in the fourth floor conference
room of the Albemarle. County Office Building.
Please feel free to contact me at 296-2843 should you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laurel A. Bentley, C.M.C.
Senior Deputy Clerk
Printed on recycled paper
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of Coun.ty Supervisors
401 M¢Intire Rbad
Charlottesv/lle, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITrEE
(please type or print)
Board/Commission/Committee .~;4:i~r,.~,~ tt~ ~X,)~ $aV' ~
Applicant's Name ~__~t_~,,,~ ~ "~-~.~X"*----~..- Home Phone
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located ~.,rwx.~..~ 1'~2.\
Employer ,a-~. Phone
Business Address
O=paaon/r
Years Resident in Albemarle County ~ Previous ResidenceS, At9
Spouse' s Name ~"~x4~,, ('~c~L,,~'~ pY~-- Number of Children
Education (Degrees and Graduation l~ates) fB.~. ~('~. ~ _ .~3c~[3r~-~'t~
Membership~ jla Fmtemal: Business: Church and/or Social Grqups
Public. Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or Interests
Reason(s) for Desire to Serve on this Board / Commission / Committee
The informa '~n provided on this application will be released to the public upon request.
Date
Return to: ~[l~rk, BqarjJ of County Supervisors
OApe. m, a.r Le. ~ ol4nw.
rtl ¢lnIlr K
~h~t~lto~ttes~i~le, O~ 22902-4596
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dottier, ,Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphds
,lack ,Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(8041 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Riuanna
Waiter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
April 18, 2000
Mr. Charles Gross
3867 Loftlands Dr.
Earlysville, VA 22936
Dear Mr. Gross:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 5, 2000, you were reappointed to the
Community College Board of Directors, with said term to run from July 1, 2000 through
June 30, 2004. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this'opportunity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/lab
Enclosure
cc: James L. Camblos, III
Larry DaviS
PVCC President
Printed on recycled paper
David R Bowerman
Lindsay G. Dorder, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire 'Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-$800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thoma~
~mu~ Miller
April 18, 2000
Mr. Robert F. German, Jr.
2370 Milnor Mill Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Mr. German:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 5, 2000, you were reappointed to the
Library Board, with said term to mn from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2004. I have enclosed
an updated roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/iab
Enclosure
cc: James L. Camblos, III
Larry Davis
John Halliday
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Scottsville
Charlotte Y. Hurnphris
,/ack ,/ouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntim Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Mille~
April 18, 2000
Mr. Peter L. Sheras
340 Cedar Bluff Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr, Sheras:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 5, 2000, you were reappointed to the
Region Ten Community Services Board, with said term to run from July 1, 2000 through
June 30, 2003. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/lab
Enclosure
cc: James L. Camblos, III
Larry Davis
James R. Peterson
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2000/01 Proposed Budget Public Hearing
SU BJECTIPROPOSALIREO, U EST:
Public Hearing on the Board of Supervisors' FY 2000/01
Proposed Budget
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messers. Tucker, White, Gulati
AGENDA DATE:
April 5, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION: X
IN FORMATION:
Yes
The Board of Supervisors approved a proposed FY 2000/01 operating budget of $161.6 million at its final work session on
March 22, 2000.
DISCUSSION:
Attached for your information prior to the public hearing on April 5 is a summary of the proposed changes from the County
Executive's recommended operating budget and a budget summary of the Board of Supervisors' proposed operating
budget that has been made available to the public.
Revenue Changes:
Revenue changes to the recommended budget total $3,094,162, and reflect the following: a proposed $0.04 real property
tax rate increase of $2,580,368, a $399,584 increase in state education funds and $114,210 in miscellaneous General
Fund revenues. One half of the proposed rate increase would be allocated to School Division and General Government
operational budgets, with the School Division receiving 60% ($774,221) for unfunded budget initiatives, and General
Government receiving 40% ($516,147) for Board funding priorities. The remaining $0.02, or $1,290,000, would be placed
in reserve for future capital facility needs. The $114,210 increase in other miscellaneous General Fund revenues consists
of the following: $155,115 in additional local revenue to offset the cost of General Government budget initiatives added by
the Board (including $81,490 in fund balance for one-time expenses); a $21,965 reduction in state revenues, reflecting the
net impact of lower than anticipated 599 funding for law enforcement; and an $18,940 reduction adjustment to the school
transfer for information services technology support.
Expenditure Changes:
Expenditure changes in the General Fund total $2.7 million, and include the following: a $774,221 increase in the School
Fund transfer (60% of the $0.02 rate increase for operations, a $1,290,000 debt service/capital projects reserve, and
$658,458 in funded additions to the recommended General Government budget. (The proposed General Fund budget
also includes a $139,124 reduction in operational costs, generally reflecting a decrease in budgeted insurance premiums,
as well as an offsetting $111,023 increase in the Board's contingency reserve) Funded additions to the General
Government budget include the following: a pay increase for part-time election officials (Registrar's Office); additional
salary stipends for Commonwealth's Attorney staff, a 0.5 FTE expanded Police Evidence Property Clerk (January hire); a
1.0 FTE Civilian Patrol Support Assistant (Police); 2.0 new Police Traffic Officers; additional operating costs in the Sheriffs
Office, Fire/Rescue training materials, a 1.0 FTE Volunteer Fire/Rescue Coordinator position, a 1.0 FTE Engineering
Inspector for Capital Improvement Projects; a 0.5 FTE expanded custodial position in Public Works (January hire); a
Geriatric Assessment and Intervention Team (GAIT) nursing clinic in Southern Albemarle County (JABA); Sunday hours at
Northside branch library; additional clerical staff at the Crozet and Scottsville Library branches; local funding for a Criminal
Justice Planner at the TJPDC; extended CTS bus service to Wal-Mart along Route 29; and a $200,000 increase in
budgeted funds for CSA. Ending Board of Supervisors contingency reserves total $203,897.
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2000/01 Proposed Budget Public Hearing
April 5, 2000
Page 2
School Fund expenditure changes reflect the $774,221 increase in the transfer from the General Fund, plus $399,584 in
additional funding from the State. These additional funds, when combined with the School Board's budgeted reserve of
$50,000, projected expenditure savings of approximately $461,537 due to reduced health premiums, and a $633,000 one-
time reduction in VRS retirement costs for FY 00/01, provide a total of $2.3 million with which to fully-fund the School
Board's budget request.
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached information is presented for the Board's information only. No action is required at this time. The FY 2000/01
Operating Budget and the FY 2000/01 Capital Improvement Budget will be adopted at the Board's meeting on April 12th,
along with setting the 2000 tax rates.
00.063
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING
JULY 1, 2000
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
RECOMM PROPOSED
FY 00-01 FY 00-01
General Adminstration
Judicial
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Development
Parks, Recreation and Culture
Community Development
Other
SUBTOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT
$ INC
EDUCATION
Regular School Operations
Self-Sustaining Programs
School Debt Service
TOTAL EDUCATION
6,503,771 6,468,745 (35,026)
2,618,983 2,654,086 35,103
13,611,497 13,827,150 215,653
2,672,293 2,715,951 43,658
9,387,869 9,572,345 184,476
4,238,739 4,266,979 28,240
3,808,793 3,856,023 47,230
573,534 573~534 ~
43,415,479 43,934,813 519,334
COUNTY/CITY REVENUE SHARING
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
GENERAL GOVT. DEBT SERVICE/RESERVE
DEBT SERVICE/CAPITAL RESERVE
E~OARD CONTINGENCY RESERVE
SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES
88,691,857 89,865,662
8,207,047 8,207,047
8,850,000 8,850,000
105,748,904 106,922,709
ESTIMATED REVENUES
6,093,101 6,093,101
2,397,000 2,397,000
750,000 750,000
0 1,290,000
92.1874 203,897
158,497,358 161,591,520
From Local Sources
From the Commonwealth
From the Federal Government
Self-Sustaining (School Fund)
Carry-Over/Transfers/Fund Bal. - Gen. Gov't.
Carry-Over/Transfers/Fund Bal. - Schools
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES
RECOMM PROPOSED
FY 00-01 FY 00.01
PROPOSED TAX LEVY
106,644,295 109,250,928
37,426,977 37,802,331
4,567,744 4,617,369
8,207,047 8,207,047
987,295 1,049,845
664,000 664,000
158,497,358 161,591,520
Real Estate and Mobile Homes ...............................
Public Service Corporations ....................................
Personal Property ....................................................
Machinery & Tools ...................................................
RECOMM PROPOSED
CY 2000 CY 2000
$.72/$100 $.76/$100
$.72/$100 $.76/$100
$4.28/$100 $4.28/$100
$4.28/$100 $4.28/$100
1,173,805
0
1,173,805
0
0
0
1,290,000
111,023
3,094,162
$ INC
2,606,633
375,354
49,625
0
62,550
3,094,162
3/28/003:58 PM FY01 budget public hearing executive summary attachment.xlsSheetl
:zooo
March 1 - County Executive's Recommended Budget Sent to Board of Supervisors
March 8 - Public Hearing on Recommended Budget
March 13 - Board }York Session
March 15 - Board Work Session
March 20 - Board Work Session
March 22 - Board Work Session
April 5 - Public Hearing on Board of Supervisors' Proposed Budget & Tax Levy
April 12 - Budget/CIP Adoption, Tax Levy Set
Why do we budget?
The major purpose of budgeting is to formally convert
the County's long range plans and policies into services
and programs. The budget provides detailed financial
information on the costs of services and the expected
revenues for the upcoming fiscal year. The budget proc-
ess also provides a forum for a review of progress made
in the current year and for a review of the levels of serv-
ice provided by local government.
What is the budget?
The budget is divided into three major parts, each with
separate documents and public hearings.
The operating budget is the total and complete budget
used to finance all of the day-to-day operations of local
government. It consists of several major sections includ-
ing general government operations, the transfer to
school operations, school debt service, capital outlay,
and the City-County revenue sharing payment. Fund-
lng for this budget is derived primarily from taxes, fees,
licenses, fines, and from state and federal revenues.
The school budget is used to completely describe the
operations of the County's schools. It is prepared by the
Superintendent's office and is approved by the School
Board. The schools have their own budget calendar
which is separate from that of other budgets. Funding
for the school budget is derived mainly from transfers
from the General Fund, fees, and inter-governmental
revenues (i.e. state and federal funding.)
The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is used to
purchase or finance the construction of capital goods
from the building of schools, parks, and roads to the up-
grading of computer and phone system equip-
ment. Funding for these projects is obtained primarily
from bond issues (long term debt Which is typically bor-
rowed for the building of school projects) and from
transfers from the operating budget.
What are the State Requirements?
The Commonwealth of Virginia requires that all locali-
ties meet certain budget guidelines, as outlined in Sec-
tions 15.2-2500 to 15.2-2513 of the Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended. According to these guidelines, all
localities within Virginia must have a fiscal year begin-
ning on July I and ending on June 30 and must approve
a balanced budget. The School Board must approve the
School Budget by May I or within 15 days of receiving
estimates of state funding, whichever shall occur later.
The Board of Supervisors must approve the operating
budget and set the tax rate by July 1 of each year. The
adoption of the operating budget and the tax rate re-
quires the Board to hold a public hearing and to adver-
tise this hearing no less than 7 days in advance. Al-
though these are the minimum state requirements, the
County traditionally has adopted the budget by April
15 in order to establish teacher contracts and to set the
personal property tax prior to the tax bill mailing date.
The official appropriation of funds takes place prior to
July 1 of each year.
When are the Budget Decisions Made and How can I
Participate in the Process?
The County's FY 2000/01 operating budget schedule
begins in October with the preliminary projection of
revenues for the coming year. On November 3, the
Board provided the County Executive with financial
guidelines for the development of the budget. In De-
cember, departments submit budget requests to the
County Executive's Office.
From the middle of December to the middle of January,
the executive staff reviewed budget requests and devel-
oped budget-related questions. From these discussions,
the executive staff developed recommendations ranging
from the funding of new programs to the reduction of
funding for current programs. In mid-February, the
School Superintendent submitted the school budget to
the County Executive and the executive staff reviewed
the school budget, At the end of February, the County
Executive made the necessary adjustments to balance
the budget and staff printed the County Executive's rec-
ommended budget. This budget was presented to the
Board of Supervisors on March 1, with a public hearing
on the County Executive's recommendation held on
March 8.
After the public hearing, the Board begins a detailed re-
view of each area of the budget and recommends spe-
cific cuts or additions to the County Executive's recom-
mended budget. After ail of the budget changes are
agreed upon, a public hearing on the Board of Supervi-
sors' proposed budget and the tax rate will be held. The
FY 00/01 public hearing is scheduled for April 5,
2000. On April 12, the Board adopts the operating and
capital budgets, and sets the tax levy for the coming
year. The budget is legally enacted through passage of a
Resolution of Appropriation prior to July 1.
Fiscal Planning Strategies:
There are several strategies and objectives upon which the
FY 00/01 operating and capital budget, and FY 00/01 - FY
04/05 Capital Improvements Plan are based:
· Basic services are maintained at current levels.
· The Personal Property tax rate is maintained at its current
level of $4.28/$100 assessed valuation. The Real Prop-
erty tax rate is proposed at $0.76/$100 assessed valuation,
a $0.04 increase over the current rate.
Current fiscal planning policies are maintained.
· Education and public safety continue to be high priorities
for the provision of services.
· Competitive employee compensation is provided includ-
ing a pay-for-performance increase and market sensitive
salary benchmark adjustments to ensure that General
Government and the School Division can attract and re-
tain outstanding employees.
· Local revenues are not automatically used to replace re-
duced or eliminated federal or state programs.
· Fiscal stability is maintained through an appropriately
funded General Fund Balance.
· Necessary infrastructure improvements are programmed
for implementation.
Budget Highlights:
Using the previous strategies/objectives as a guide, the budget
was balanced with the following items included:
· Local revenues for FY 2001 increased by $11.3 million
(11.5%) over the current year, reflecting the proposed
$0.04 increase in the real estate and mobile home tax
rates for Calendar Year 2000. One half of the proposed
rate increase would be allocated to School Division and
General Government operational needs, and one half
would be put in reserve for future capital needs. With the
increased rate, current real estate taxes are projected to
increase $5.7 million (13.8%) overall, which also reflects
one half of the estimated 2001 reassessment increase of
7% and $218 million in new construction. Current per-
sonal property tax revenues increased by $2.5 million or
12% over the current year; and meals tax revenues
creased by $0.2 million or 7.3% over the current year;
· State and federal revenues for FY 2001 increased by
$2.9 million (7.5%) over the current year, primarily due
to significant increases realized in state and federal in-
come tax growth and surpluses;
· School Division revenues increased by $2.3 million
(7.9%) from state and federal sources, and by $5.0 mil-
lion (9.7%) from the General Fund, for a total transfer of
$56.7 million;
· The revenue sharing agreement with the City of Char-
lottesville provides the city with an additional $239,307
for a total payment of $6.09 million;
· Debt service of $8.85 million for school construction
projects has been funded;
· A General Government debt service reserve of $200,000
is funded for proposed bonded capital projects and
$550,000 is budgeted for debt service on a new 800 MHz
Regional Communication System to be developed with
the City and UVA. An additional $1.29 million, or $0.02
of the proposed $0.04 tax rate increase, will also be
placed in reserve toward future County capital needs;
· Funding of the growth in mandated services for the Com-
prehensive Services Act Program increased by $450,000
over current year (consisting of $400,000 from General
Government and $50,000 from the School Division) for a
total local match payment of $1.77 million;
· Community agencies receive an average funding in-
crease of 3%;
· Albemarle County's share of the opening of the Regional
Jail's expansion and renovation project required an in-
crease of $1.0 million for debt service and additional
costs;
· The opening of the regional Emergency Communica-
tions Center 0gCC) will result in a $134,339 increase in
Albemarle's share of ECC operations over the current
year;
· General government operating base budgets are level
funded;
· Compression pay for long-time employees is in its third
and final year of funding, as directed by the Board of Su-
pervisors;
· School Division and General Government employees are
proposed to receive, on average, a 4% performance in-
crease. School teachers are proposed to receive a 4.25%
increase, and market adjustments for certain positions
will be made to help ensure that the County and School
Division attract and retain outstanding employees; and
· A Board of Supervisors contingency reserve in the
amount of $203,897 has been provided.
Judicial
Digital Imaging System for Document Management (100% State Funded) - Clerk of Circuit Court
Public Safety
1.0 FTE Crime Analyst - Police Department
Additional Operating Costs (New Facility) & CAD System - Emergency Communications Center (ECC)
1.0 FTE Fire Prevention Inspector ($5,355 Fee Revenue Offset) - Fire/Rescue
8.0 FTE Career Fire Fighters for New Southern Station (April, 2001 Hire) - Fire/Rescue
Funding for Operational Medical Director - Fire/Rescue
Additional C perating and Staff Costs Due to Facility Expansion/Renovation - Regional Jail
Additional Funding to Replace Expired Grant for Transitional/Employment Services - OAR
Engineering & Public Works
1.0 FTE Engineering inspector/Plan Reviewer-Water Resources - Engineering
Human Development
Consultant to Recover Additional Revenues for Dept. CAP ($40,000 Revenue Offset)- Social Svcs.
Contract Services to Develop Customer Surveys (100% Revenue Offset) - Social Services
1.0 FTE Account Clerk for Management (50% Revenue Offset) - Social Services
1.0 FTE Office Assistant IV for Management (80% Revenue Offset) - Social Services
1.0 FTE Social Worker (Adult Services - $40,522 Revenue Offset) - Social Services
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) Local Match Funding Increase - Social Services
Three (3) Additional Day Care Scholarships - United Way
1.0 FTE Substance Abuse/Mental Health Worker for Emp. Svcs. (100% Revenue Offset) - Social Svcs.
0.5 FTE Office Assistant Ill for Medicaid Unit (100% Revenue Offset) - Social Services
Additional Cost of Congregate & Home Delivered Meals - Jefferson Board for Aging (JABA)
New Agency Funding - Piedmont CASA
Part-Time Planner/Analyst Position - Commission on Children and Families (CCF)
Expanded Director Position (30 to 40 Hrs/Wk) - Commission on Children and Families (CCF)
Local Funding to Replace Expiring DCJS Grant at Juvenile Court Assessment Center - CCF
Parks/Recreation/Culture
Part-Time Gate Opener- Ragged Mountain Nature Trails
Additional Weekday Hours at Mont-AVV Computer Lab - Regional Library
Community Development
1.0 FTE ARB/Urban Design Planner (January, 2001 Hire) - Planning
1.0 FTE Planner for General Development Review (January, 2001 Hire) - Planning
Rent Expense - Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District (TJSWCD)
Regional Fair Housing (New Program) - Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA)
Camp Horizon Coordinator (New Program) - Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA)
Total County Executive Funded Priorities
* Total Cost Offset by Anticipated Additional Revenues and Use of Fund Balance for One-time Expenses
98,120
38,136
134,339
37,014
121,550
12,000
321,581
8,706
62,73O
10,000
15,000
34,630
38,412
45,665
200,000
9,360
45,674
19,510
9,160
2,000
10,725
8,367
3,101
3,340
9,000
26,832
26,832
2,000
5,000
31,225
1,390,009
ener f ot et nrnen[
Administration
Election Official Pay Increase - Registrar
Judicial
Local Stipend Increase for 5 staff members - Commonwealth's Attorney
Additional Operating Expenses - Sheriff ($5,825 Revenue Offset)
Public Safety
0.5 FTE Evidence Property Clerk Expansion (Jan. Hire) - Police Department
1.0 FTE Civilian Patrol Support Assistant - Police Department
2.0 FTE Traffic Officers - Police Department ($127,670 Revenue Offset)
Additional Funds for Training and Continuing Education - Fire/Rescue
Funding for Resale of Training Materials to Volunteers - Fire/Rescue (Offset by $2,900 in Sales)
1.0 FTE Volunteer Coordinator ($3 750 One-time Offset) - Fire/Rescue
Engineering & Public Works 1.0 FTE Engineering Inspector III for CIP ($14,970 One-time Revenue Offset) (Jan. Hire) - Engineering
0.5 FTE Expanded Custodian Position - Public Works
Human Development
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) Local Match Funding Increase - Social Services
GAIT Nursing Clinic - Jefferson Board for Aging (JABA)
Parks/Recreation/Culture
Additional Staff Hours for Scottsville & Crozet Branches - Regional Library
Funding to Provide Sunday Hours at Northside Library Branch - Regional Library
Community Development
Local funding for TJPDC Criminal Justice Planner
Funding for Extended Bus Service to Wal-Mart along Rt. 29N ~ Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS)
Total County Executive Funded Priorities
* Total Cost Offset by Anticipated Additional Revenues and Use of Fund Balance for One-time Expenses
5,200
8,490
27,669
8,546
30,142
143,354
12,500
6,OOO
54,850
40,389
14,349
200,000
5,190
11,500
28,500
13,849
47,930
658,458
FY 2000/01 Proposed Total County Revenues
Self-Sustaining
5%
Federal Revenue
3%
$161,591,520
Local Property
Taxes
46%
State
23%
Carry-Over/Fund
Balance
1%
Other Local
Revenues
22%
TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES
LOCAL REVEN U E
PROPERTY TAXES
OTHER LOCAL REVENUE
OTHER LOCAL - SCHOOL FUND
SUBTOTAL
STATE REVENUE
GENERAL
SCHOOL FUND
SUBTOTAL
FEDERAL REVENUE
GENERAL
SCHOOL FUND
SUBTOTAL
SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS
TRANSFERS/FUND BALANCE
GOVT: CARRY-OVER/FUND BAL
GOVT: TRANSFERS
SCHOOLS: CARRY-OVER/FUND BAL
SCHOOLS: TRANSFERS
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL REVENUE
FY 98/99
ACTUAL
63,546,991
30,905,227
652.088
95,104,306
5,612,481
27.296.032
32,908,513
2,687,988
1.057.083
3,745,071
7,664,059
0
106,893
1,238,016
50.000
1,394,909
140,816,858
FY 99/00
ADOPTED
66,173,400
31,262,273
552.819
97,988,492
6,887,847
28.453.747
35,341,594
2,986,826
1.148.000
4,134,826
7,397,890
419,065
235,575
790,000
174.000
1,618,640
146,481,442
FY 99/00
REVISED
66,173,400
31,272,684
575.737
98,021,821
6,956,338
28.454.747
35,411,085
3,021,165
1.148.000
4,169,165
8,082,771
1,517,303
247,022
799,286
174.000
2,737,611
148,422,453
FY 00/01
REQUEST
71,971,800
33,896,515
588.455
106,456,770
7,083,161
30.208.493
37,291,654
3,004,991
1.331.575
4,336,566
8,207,047
300,000
187,295
590,000
74.000
1,151,295
157,443,332
FY 00~1
RECOMM
71,971,800
34,084,040
588.455
106.644,295
7.218,484
30.208.493
37,426,977
3,236,169
1.331.575
4,567,744
8,207,047
800,000
187,295
590,000
74.000
1,651,295
158,497,358
· FY00/01
PROPOSED
74,552,168
34,110,305
588.455
109,250,928
7,194,254
30.608.077
37,802,331
3,285,794
1.331.575
4,617,369
8,207,047
881,490
168,355
590,000
74.000
1,713,845
161,591,520
8,378,768
2,848,032
35.636
11,262,436
306,407
2.154.330
2,460,737
298,968
183.575
482,543
809,157
462,425
(67,220)
(200,000)
(lOO.OOO)
95,205
15,110,078
12.66%
9.11%
6.45%
11.49%
4.45%
7.57%
6.96%
10.01%
15.99%
11.67%
10.94%
110.35%
-28.53%
-25.32%
-57.47%
5.88%
10.32%
46.14%
21.11%
0.36%
67.61%
4.45%
18.94%
23.39%
2.03%
0.82%
2.86%
5.08%
0.55%
0.10%
0.37%
0.05%
1.06%
100.00%
FY 2000/01 Proposed Total County Expenditures
$161,591,520
General Gov't
Operations
27%
Debt/Capital
Reserve
1%
Capital Program
1%
Revenue Sharing
4%
Self-Sustaining
5%
Debt Service
6%
General Gov't.
Miscellaneous
<1%
School Division
Operations
56%
TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS
ADMINISTRATION
JUDICIAL
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC WORKS
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SALARY ADJUSTMENT POOL
COMPRESSION RESERVE
SUBTOTAL
SCHOOL DIVISION
SCHOOL FUND OPERATIONS
SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS
DEBT SERVICE FUND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SUBTOTAL
NON-D EPARTMENTAL
CAPITAL PROGRAM - GEN. GOV'T.
CITY/COUNTY REVENUE SHARING
DEBT SERVICE - GENERAL GOVT
DEBT SERVICE/CAPITAL RESERVE
CONTINGENCY RESERVE
REFUNDS
S U BTOTAL
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
FY 98/99
ACTUAL
5,688,567
2,229,970
11,104,486
2,352,131
8,170,187
3,913,435
2,917,394
0
0
36,376,170
78,309,550
6,715,247
7,558,748
300.000
92,883,546
1,712,312
5,587,013
110,688
0
0
39.703
7,449,716
136,709,431
FY 99/00
ADOPTED
6,232,695
2,433,578
12,163,875
2,582,626
8,407,538
3,970,870
3,437,094
0
202.734
39,431,010
82,804,130
7,397,890
8,450,000
O
98,652,020
2,157,930
5,853,794
310,688
0
50,000
26.000
8,398,412
'146,481,442
FY 99/00
REVISED
6.275.369
2,442,378
12,317,710
2,771,199
8,533,356
3,970,970
3,826,820
0
202.734
40,340,536
82,837,334
8,082,771
8,450,000
0
99,370,105
2,521,330
5,853,794
310,688
0
0
26.000
8,711,812
148,422,453
FY 00/01
REQUEST
FY 00/01
RECOMM
FY 00/01 $ % %
PROPOSED INC INC TL
2,397,000 2,397,000 2,397,000 239,070 11.08% 1.48%
6,093,101 6,093,101 6,093.101 239,307 4.09% 3.77%
750,000 750,000 750,000 439.312 141.40% 0.46%
0 0 1,290,000 1,290,000 100.00% 0.80%
50,000 92, B74 203,897 153,897 307.79% 0.13%
34.300 34.300 34.300 8.300 31 92% 0.02%
9,324,401 9,367,275 10,768,298 2,369,886 28.22% 6.66%
162,698,846 '158,497,358 161,591,520 15,'110,078 10.32% 100.00%
91,010,199 88,691,857 89,865,662 7,061,532 8.53% 55.61%
8,207,047 8,207.047 8,207,047 809,157 10.94% 5.08%
8,850,000 8,850,000 8,850,000 400,000 4.73% 5.48%
0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
108,067,246 105,748,904 106,922,709 8,270,689 8.38% 66.17%
6,579,499 6,503,771 6,468,745 236,050 3.79% 4.00%
2,610,406 2,618,983 2,654,086 220,508 9.06% 1.64%
14,268,445 13,611,497 13,827,150 1,663,275 13.67% 8.56%
2,883,210 2,672,293 2,715,951 133,325 5.16% 1.68%
9,560,306 9,387,869 9,572,345 1,164,807 13.85% 5.92%
4,367,237 4,238,739 4,266,979 296,109 7.46% 2.64%
4,498,862 3,808,793 3,856,023 418,929 12.19% 2.39%
350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 100.00% 0.22%
189.234 189.234 189.234 (13.500~ -6.66% 0.12%
45,307,199 43,381,179 43,900,513 4,469,503 11.33% 27.17%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
FY98/99
ACTUAL
ADMINISTRATION
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 297,911
COUNTY ATTORNEY 418,991
COUNTY EXECUTIVE 586,422
FINANCE 2,374,917
INFORMATION SERVICES 1,519,349
HUMAN RESOURCES 299,476
VOTER REGISTRATION/ELECTIONS 191.500
SUBTOTAL 5,688,567
JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT COURT 73,100
CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT 507,627
COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY 485,833
GENERAL DISTRICT COURT 11,816
JUVENILE COURT 112,377
MAGISTRATE 16,380
SHERIFF 1.022.837
SUBTOTAL 2,229,970
PUBLIC SAFETY
CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD 3,979
EMERGENCY COMMUNIC. CTR 1,125,891
FIRE DEPARTMENT - CITY 652,192
FIRE DEPARTMENT - JCFRA 605,976
FIRE/RESCUE ADMINISTRATI ON 864,250
FIRE/RESCUE CREDIT 54,751
FOREST FIRE EXTINCTION 13,758
INSPECTIONS 625,084
JUVENILE DETENTION HOME 163,660
OFFENDER AID & RESTORATION 40,872
POLICE DEPARTMENT 6,372,487
REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY 354,435
RESCUE SQUADS - JCFRA 189,710
SPCA 37.440
SUBTOTAL 11,104,486
PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING 1,028,355
WATER RESOURCES MGNT. 77,601
PUBLIC WORKS 1.246.175
SUBTOTAL 2,352,131
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
AIDS SUPPORT GROUP 0
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB 7,000
BRIGHT STARS PROGRAM 177,616
CHARLOTTESVILLE FREE CLINIC 5,305
COMM. ON CHILDREN & FAMILIES 268,703
CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILY SVCS 36,147
DISTRICT HOME 32,835
FOCUS - TEENSIGHT 20,205
HEALTH DEPARTMENT 703,821
JAUNT 317,494
JEFFERSON AREA BD. FOR AGING 126,458
JABA - ADULT HEALTH FACILITY 14,400
LEGAL AID 18,579
MADISON HOUSE 4,700
(Continued on Next Page)
FY 99/00 FY 99/00
ADOPTED REVISED
322,388 337,388
438,913 438,913
633,800 648,349
2,526,740 2,527,889
1,718,296 1,718,296
385,680 386,856
206.878 217.678
6,232,695 6,275,369
75,126 75,126
546,016 551,316
510,564 510,564
15,330 18,830
119,934 119,934
19,355 19,355
1.147.253 1.147.253
2,433,578 2,442,378
4,170 4,170
1,246,614 1,246,614
666,535 666,535
735,060 735,060
1,038,652 1,045,031
70,000 70,000
13,800 13,800
715,137 737,407
123,037 123,037
42,507 42,507
6,875,774 7,000,360
403,281 403,281
189,993 189,993
39.315 39.915
12,163,875 12,317,710
1,132,674 1,279,267
115,126 115,126
1.334.826 1.376.806
2,582,626 2,771,199
3,260 3,260
0 0
223,460 223,460
5,570 5,570
304,469 304,469
39,080 39,080
0 0
21,215 21,215
746,050 746,050
330,908 330,908
136,639 136,639
14,400 14,400
19,510 19,510
7,200 7,200
FY00/01 FY0~01 FY00~I $ %
~ RECOMM PROPOSED IN(:3 INC
332,517 332,517 330,717 8,329 2.58%
473,935 473,935 457,658 18,745 4.27%
682,440 682,440 680,559 46,759 7.38%
2,699,178 2,674,184 2,660,007 133,267 5.27%
1,642,679 1,642,679 1,636,902 (81,394) -4.74%
499,116 480,166 480,166 94,486 24.50%
249~634 217.850 222.736 15.858 7.67%
6,579,499 6,503,771 6,468,745 236,050 3.79%
76,810 76,810 76,510 1,384
562,583 660,703 659,925 113,909
547,406 535,742 545,469 34,905
12,830 12,830 12,830 (2,500)
122,167 122,167 121,567 1,633
18,995 18,995 18,995 (360)
1.269.61~ 1.191.736 1.218.790 71.537
2,610,406 2,618,983 2,654,086 220,508
0 0 0 (4,170)
1,066,031 1,066,031 1,066,031 (180,583)
654,427 654,427 654,427 (12,108)
732,960 732,960 732,960 (2,100)
1,522,423 1,302,678 1,369,128 330,476
75,000 75,000 75,000 5,000
13,758 13,758 13,758 (42)
750,194 727,694 723,794 8,657
145,000 145,000 145,000 21,963
52,400 52,400 52,400 9,893
7,532,665 7,245,958 7,399,061 523,287
1,480,491 1,363,000 1,363,000 959,719
202,096 192,096 192,096 2,103
41.000 40.495 40.495 1.180
14,268,445 13,611,497 13,827,150 1,663,275
1.84%
20.86%
6.84%
-16.31%
1 ~36%
-1.86%
6.24%
9.06%
-100.00%
-14.49%
-1.82%
-0.29%
31.82%
7.14%
-0.30%
1.21%
17.85%
23.27%
7.61%
237.98%
1.11%
3.00%
13.67%
0.28%
0.38%
0.57%
2.21%
1.36%
0.40%
0.19%
5.38%
0.06%
0.55%
0.45%
0.01%
0.10%
0.02%
1.01%
2.21%
0.00%
0.89%
0.54%
0.61%
1.14%
0.06%
0.01%
0.60%
0.12%
0.04%
6.16%
1.13%
0.16%
0.03%
11.50%
1,393,431 1,217,163 1,251,872 119,198 10.52% 1.04%
118,099 118,099 117,499 2,373 2.06% 0.10%
1.371.680 1.337.031 1.346.5~0 11.754 0.88% 1.12%
2,883,210 2,672,293 2,715,951 133,325 5.16% 2.26%
3,260 3,260 3,260 0
0 0 0 0
236,290 236,290 244,706 21,246
5,849 5,570 5,570 0
148,933 145,933 145,933 (158,536)
97,403 50,440 50,440 11,360
0 0 0 0
22,276 21,850 21,850 635
801,550 775,890 775,890 29,840
341,236 341,236 341,236 10,328
182,122 149,190 154,380 17,741
14,400 14,400 14,400 0
24,341 20,095 20,095 585
7,560 7,415 7,415 215
0.00%
0.00%
9.51%
0.00%
-52.07%
29.07%
0.00%
2.99%
4.00%
3.12%
12.98%
0.00%
3.00%
2.99%
o.0o%
0.00%
0.20%
0.00%
o.12%
0.04%
0.00%
0.02%
0.65%
o.28%
0.13%
0.01%
0.02%
0.01%
(Continued from Previous Page)
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
FY 98/99
ACTUAL
MENTAL HEALTH - REGION TEN 294,500
MUSIC RESOURCE CENTER 0
PIEDMONT CASA 0
SEXUAL ASSAULT RESOURCE AGCY. 20,190
SHELTER FOR HELP IN EMGCY. 64,173
SOCIAL SERVICES 5,834,343
TAX RELIEF -ELDERLY/DISABLED 152.158
UNITED WAY SCHOLARSHIP PGM. 63.025
SUBTOTAL 8,161,652
EDUCATION
PIEDMONT VA. COMM. COLLEGE 8,535
PARKS & RECREATION
ASH LAWN-HIGHLAND 0
BLUE RIDGE ESL COUNCIL 0
DARDEN TOWE MEMORIAL PARK 108.623
DISCOVERY MUSEUM 9.435
FIRST NIGHT VIRGINIA 7.000
LIBRARY 1.778.314
LITERACY VOLUNTEERS 15.050
MUNICIPAL BAND 0
PARKS & RECREATION 1.147.436
PIEDMONT COUNCIL OF THE ARTS 9,435
TRANSFER: TOURISM 831,142
WVPT PUBLIC TELEVISION 7.000
SUBTOTAL 3,913,435
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ALBEMARLE HOUSING IMPROV. 357,456
BUS SERVICE/ROUTE 29 48,100
ACQUISITION OF CONS. EASEMENTS 0
GE FANUC/ECON. DEVELOPMENT 150.000
MONTICELLO COMM. ACTION AGCY. 62.145
OFFICE OF HOUSING 392.708
PIEDMONT HOUSING ALLIANCE 85,000
PLANNING 1,066.648
PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 64.926
SMALL BUSINESS DEV. CENTER 0
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 41,399
VPI EXTENSION SERVICE 138,752
ZONING 510.260
SUBTOTAL 2,917,394
SUBTOTAL GEN. FUND OPERATIONS 36,376,170
PLUS SALARY ADJUSTMENT POOL 0
PLUS COMPRESSION RESERVE 0
TOTAL GEN. FUND OPERATIONS 36,376,170
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
TRANSFER TO CAPITAL FUNDS
GENERAL GOV'T DEBT SERVICE
DEBT SERVICE/CAPITAL RESERVE
CITY/COUNTY REVENUE SHARING
BOARD CONTINGENCY RESERVE
SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE
REFUNDS
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL GEN. FUND EXPENDITURE
TRANSFER TO SCHOOL DIVISION
SCHOOL TRANSFER - ONE TIME
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
FY 99/00 FY 99/00
ADOPTED REVISED
312,170 312,170
1,000 1,000
0 0
24,000 24,000
66,573 66,573
5,831,868 5,957,686
245,000 245,000
64.916 64.916
8,397,288 8,523,106
10,250 10,250
o o
o o
115,450 115,450
9.792 9.842
0 0
1,861,454 1,861,454
15,680 15.680
0 0
1,267,024 1,267,024
9,750 9,800
684,720 684,720
7.000 7.000
3.970,870 3,970,970
368,506 368,506
50.500 104,500
150.000 150,000
0 0
96,129 96,129
413152 420,312
85,000 85,000
1,421.241 1.749,807
84,184 84,184
0 0
46,562 46,562
158,756 158,756
~63.064 563.064
3,437,094 3,826,820
39,228,276 40,137,802
0 0
202.734 202.734
39~31,010 40,340,536
2,012,312 2,157,930 2,521,330
110,688 310,688 310.688
0 0 0
5,587,013 5,853,794 5,853,794
0 50,000 0
7,558,748 8,450,000 8,450,000
39.703 26.000 26.000
15,308,464 16,848.412 17,161,812
51,684,634 56,279,422 57,502,348
49,031,488 51.435.564 51.435,564
200.000 250.000 250.000
49.231.488 51,685,564 51,685,564
100,916,1211 107,964,986 109,187,912
FY00~I FY O0/01 FY00~I $ %
REQUEST RECOMM .PROPOSED INC INC
423,100 358,435 358,435 46;265 14.82% 0.30%
10,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 400.00% 0.00%
2,467 2,000 2,000 2,000 100.00% 0.00%
24,000 24,000 24,000 0 0.00% 0.02%
69,465 68,570 68,570 1,997 3.00% 0.06%
6,851,529 6,863,770 7,034,640 1,202,772 20.62% 5.85%
210,000 210,000 210,000 (35,000) -14.29% 0.17%
74.275 74.275 74.275 9.359 14,42% 006%
9,550,056 9,377,619 9,562,095 1,164,807 13.87% 7.96%
10,250 10,250 10,250 0 0.00%
8,000 0 0 0 0.00%
1,568 0 0 0 0.00%
119,362 119,362 119,362 3,912 3.39%
10,136 10,060 0 (9,792) -100.00%
0 0 0 0 0.00%
2,006,996 1,926,300 1,966,300 104,846 5.63%
20,073 16,150 16,150 470 3.00%
15,000 0 0 0 0.00%
1,328,137 1,309,637 1,305,437 38,413 3.03%
10,165 10,020 10,020 270 2.77%
840,000 840,000 842,500 157,780 23.04%
7.800 7.210 7.210 210 3.00%
4,367,237 4,238,739 4,266,979 296,109 7.46%
0.o1%
0.00%
O.OO%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
1.64%
0.01%
0.00%
1.09%
0.01%
0.70%
0.01%
3.55%
2,397,000 2,397,000 2,397,000 239,070 11.08% 1.99%
750,000 750,000 750,000 439,312 141,40% 0.62%
0 0 1,290,000 1,290,000 100.00% 1.07%
6,093,101 6,093,101 6,093,101 239,307 4.09% 5.07%
50,000 92,874 203,897 153,897 307.79% 0.17%
8,850,000 8,850,000 8,850,000 400,000 4.73% 7.36%
:~4.300 34.300 :~4.300 8.300 31.92% 0.03%
18,174,401 t8,217,275 19,618,298 2,769,886 16.44% 16.32%
63,481,600 61,598,454 63,518,811 7,239,389 12.86% 52.85%
55,899,334 55,899,334 56,673,555 5,237,991 10.18% 47.15%
0 0 0 (250.000) -100.00% 0.00%
55,899,334 55,899,334 56,673,555 4,987,991 9.65% 47.15%
119,380,934 117,497,788 120,192,366 12,227,380 11.33% 100.00%
44,767,965 42,841,945 43,361,279 4,133,003 10.54% 36.08%
350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 100.00% 0.29%
189.234 189.234 189.234 (13.500) -6.66% 0.16%
45,307,199 43,381,179 43,900,513 4,469,503 11.33% 36.53%
381,404 379,560 379,560 11,054 3.00% 0.32%
192,945 107,635 155,565 105,065 208.05% 0.13%
500,000 500,000 500,000 350,000 233.33% 0.42%
0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
190,686 142,220 142,220 46,091 47.95% 0.12%
428,805 428,805 426,105 12,953 3.14% 0.35%
191,900 91,050 91,050 6,050 7.12% 0.08%
1,695,319 1,271,675 1,263,427 (157,814) -11.10% 1.05%
91,087 76,410 90,258 6,074 7.22% 0.08%
10,000 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
49,982 49,982 49,682 3,120 6.70% 0.04%
165,664 164,586 164,586 5,830 3.67% 0.14%
601.070 596.870 593.570 30.506 5.42% 0.49%
4,498,862 3,808,793 3,856,023 418,929 12.19% 3.21%
SCHOOL DIVISION BUDGET
EXPENDITURES
SCHOOL FUND OPERATIONS
SELF-SUSTAINING OPERATIONS
SUBTOTAL
REVENUES
GENERAL FUND TRANSFER
OTHER SCHOOL FUND REVENUES
SELF-SUSTAINING OPERATIONS
SUBTOTAL
OVER/UNDER
FY 98/99
ACTUAL
78,309,550
6.715.247
85,024,797
49,231,488
30,293,219
7.664.059
87,188,766
2,163,969
FY99/00 FY99/00
ADOPTED REVISED
82,804,130 82,837,334
7.397.890 8.082~771
90,202,020 90,920,105
51,685,564 51,685,564
31,118,566 31,151,77¢
7.397~8~0 8.082.771
90,202,020 90,920,105
FY00/01 FY00/01 FY00/01 $ %
REQUEST RECOMM PROPOSED INC INC
91,010,199 88,691,857 89,865,662 7,061,532 8.53%
8.207.047 8.207.047 8.207.047 809.157 10.94%
99,217,246 96,898,904 98,072,709 7,870,689 8.73%
91.63%
8.37%
100.00%
55,899,334 55,899,334 56,673,555 4,987,991 9.65% 57.79%
32,792,523 32,792,523 33,192,107 2,073,541 6.66% 33.84%
8.207.047 8.207.047 8.207.047 809.157 10.94% 8.37%
96,898,904 96,898,904 98,072,709 7,870¢689 8.73% 100.00%
(2,318,342) 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
Budget Request
· The School Board's requested budget of $99,217,246 includes $91,010,199 in regular School Fund operations and
$8,207,047 in self-sustaining fund operations, for an increase of $9.0 million (10.0%) over the current year. This re-
quested budget exceeds available revenues of $96,898,904 by $2.3 million.
The major components of the School Board's budget request include:
· Funding for Growth, including 12.28 regular education teachers, 3.5 Special Education
teachers, textbooks and mobile classrooms to support 203 new students projected to
enroll in FY01;
· Funding to Maintain Competitive Compensation for teachers and staff members,
based on the recommendations of the Compensation Consultant; and
· Other Initiatives, including:
· 2.75 FTE Elementary Health Clinicians
· Funding for Gifted Education Services (Phase III)
· Increased Athletic Funding (Phase II)
· Increased Funding for Comprehensive Services Act Local Match
· Funding for the Orchestra Program (Phase II)
· Funding for a Literacy Program
· Funding to Address Individual Large Core Class Sizes (3.0 Regular Education FTE)
· Teaching Assistant Time for K-1 (4.17 Teachers)
· Textbooks
· Tuition Reimbursement Pilot
· Bus Replacement (Phase I)
· Virtual Governor's School
$978,230
$4,832,309
$2,607,558
County Executive's Recommendation
· The recommended School Division budget of $96,898,904 is balanced with available revenues and reflects a $6.7 million
(7.4%) increase over FY99/00. This recommended amount includes $88,691,857 for School Fund operations and
$8,207,047 in self-sustaining fund operations.
· Some additional funding for the School Board's requested budget is anticipated from the State in FY01, although the ex-
act amount will not be known until the State's budget is formalized in March. Additionally, $273,000 is available from
the General Fund Balance for the Board's discretionary use in funding school buses or other one-time school capital
items.
Board Action
· The Board of Supervisors proposes fully funding the requested School Board budget from a combination of $774,221
from a proposed $0.02 tax rate increase for operations, $399,584 in additional education funds from the State, the use of
the School Board's $50,000 contingency reserve, and $1,094,537 in one-time expenditure reductions due to reduced
health premiums ($461,537) and VRS retirement savings ($633,000).
FY 1999/00
Existing
Revenue
Available Additional Funds
Local School Revenue
State Revenue
Federal Revenue
General Fund Transfer
One-Time Loca Government Funding
Use of Fund Balance
ClP & Other Transfers
ITotal FY 1999100 Funds
552,819
28,453,747
1,148,000
51,435,564
250,00O
790,000
174.000
82,804,130
Revenue
Changes
Local Revenue Decrease
Increased General Fund Transfer (Recurring Funds from Local Government)
State Revenue Increase (Estimated ADM of 12,057)
Additional Federal Revenue
Less Local Government One-Time Funding
Less FY 1997-98 Carryover
Less CIP Transfer (FY99/00 was the last year of this transfer)
Include FY 1998-99 Carryover
35,636
5,237,991
2,154,330
183,575
(250,000)
(790,000)
(100,000)
590.000
ITotal Available New Funds 7,061,532
ITotal Anticipated Revenues 89,865,662
Expenditu~
Changes
41,356,565
Maintain
Competitive
Compensation
$4,832,309
School Board's FY 2000/01 Funding Request
Total FY 1999100 Adopted Budget
Plus, the following New/Expanded Programs;
IDecrease Lapse Factor to -$225,000
One-Time Item Reductions
Less Budgeted Board Reserve (FY 1999/00 Adopted Reserve)
Other Reductions
Reduction in Budgeted Health Premiums
One-Time VRS Retirement Savings
2.0% Classified Market Adjustment Pool
4.0% Classified Merit Pool
4.25% Teacher Scale Adjustment (eliminates bubble)
Consolidation of Steps 0-2 to increase starting teacher pay to $28,803
Funding for Final Phase-in of Compression Adjustments
Increased Dental Insurance (From $84 to $97 per person)
Increased Medical Insurance (From $2,608 to $3,035 per person)
Mandated Group Life Insurance Payments
Mandated VRS Rate Increase
Sub Teacher Pay Increase - $52 to $57
Teacher Step Increase
Continued on Ne~ Page
82,804,130
21,715
(200,000)
(53,915)
(29,828)
(461,537)
(633,000)
417,761
835,523
1,576,708
25,684
44,467
17,169
645,369
378,273
223,900
45,540
621,915
Funding for
Growth
$978,230
Misc.
Operational/
Maintenance
Adjustments
$2,607,558
Continued From Previous Page
100% Funding for Regular Education Staffing to Support Growth (12.28 FTE)
Additional Funds for ESOL Part-Time Staff & 0.4 FTE Teacher
Allocations to Schools (203 additional students)
Mobile Classrooms (required for growth positions)
Special Education Staffing to Support Growth (3.5 FTE)
Special Education Summer School Support
Textbooks for Growth
Alternative Education/Return II
Bus Replacement (first year of phase-in)
CATEC Additional Funding Increase (funds multimedia program & consumables)
Continued Funding for 0.5 FTE Employee Relations Coordinator
Contracted & Repair Services/Materials - Building Services Department
Elementary Health Clinicians (2.75 FTE)
Emergency Class-size Funding for large core classes (3.0 FTE Teachers)
Extended Learning Time (partial funding)
Fuel Price Increase
Gifted Education Services - Phase III
Human Resources Department Budget Adjustment
Increased Athletic Funding (Phase II of IV)
Increased Comprehensive Services Act Funding (partial funding)
Increased Custodial Overtime for Building Rental
Increased Early Retirement Payments
Increased Funding for CATEC Iincreased share of existing expenses)
Increased Long Term Teacher & Aide Sub Wages
Increased SRO Transfer
Literacy Program Suppor~
Orchestra (Strings) - Phase I
PREP Operational Increases
Reclassify Health Clinicians to LPNs
School Climate/Goal II Support
Special Education Legal Requirements
Teaching Asst. Time for K-1 (4.17 FTE Teachers, partial funding)
Textbook Fund
Tuition Reimbursement Pilot
Virtual Governor"s School
529,907
40,670
39,354
160,000
151,032
7,000
50,267
127,582
273,000
70,000
30,563
100,000
50,730
129,456
100,000
77,500
131,556
55,608
106,153
50,000
32,295
126,845
44,411
19,915
19,625
223,000
37,606
154,978
32,591
70,000
34,200
179,944
200,000
30,000
100,000
ITotal Proposed New Expenditures
7,061,532
Reserve
School Board Reserve
ITotal Reserve
Total FY 2000/01 Funding Request 89,865,662
· $0.02 Rate Increase Funds Operational Needs of School Division & General Government
,,/ $774,221 (60%) for School Division
,/ $516,147 (40%) for General Government
· $0.02 Rate Increase ($1,290,000) to be Held in Reserve for Future County Capital Needs
The Board's Proposed Budget fully funds the School Division's requested budget in the following manner:
Total School Shortfall (After Additional Revenues from State)
· Additional Revenue from $0.02 Rate Increase
· Use of Budgeted School Board Reserve
· Use of Operating Budget Savings (Health & Retirement Reductions)
Remaining Unfunded School Board Budget Initiatives
1,918,758
(774,221)
(50,000)
(1,094,537)
0
ale 9ncrease?
· Election Official Pay Increase (Registrar's Office)
· Commonwealth's Attorney Staff Stipends
· Sheriff Operational Needs
· Expanded Police Evidence Property Clerk Position (January Hire)
· Full-Time Police Civilian Patrol Support Assistant
* (2) Full-Time Police Traffic Officers
· Training Materials for Fire/Rescue Volunteers
· Full-Time Volunteer Fire/Rescue Coordinator
· Full-Time Engineering Inspector for Capital Projects (January Hire)
· Expanded Custodial Position (Engineering & Pubhc Works)
· GAIT Nursing Clinic (JABA)
· Sunday Hours at Northside Library
· Additional Staff at Crozet and Scottsville Library Branches
· Continued Funding for Criminal Justice Planner at TJPDC
· Extended CTS Bus Service to Wal-Mart Along Route 29
· Additional Funding for CSA Local Match
$5,200
$8,490
$27,669 *
$8,546
$30,142
$143,354 *
$18,500 *
$54.850 *
$40.389 *
$14.349
$5. 190
$28.500
$11.500
$13.849
$47.930
$200.000
* Total Cost Offset by Anticipated Additional Revenues
· Attend the Public Hearing on Board of Supervisors' Proposed Budget & the Public Hearing
on the Proposed Tax Levy for 2000 on April 5, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in County Office Building
· Go Online and review the Proposed Budget Online at www. albemarle, org.
· Etnail the Board of Supervisors at AskAl~lbetnarle. org with your comments.
· Call or It/rite the Board of Supervisors at:
County of Albemarle, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 (804) 296-5843
Strategic Directions for
FY 2000/O 1
A Closer Look at
Albemarle County's
FY 2000/01 Proposed
Operating Budget
How We've Grown
1987 1999 +/-
· Population
· Police Calls for Service
· Children in Organized
Sports
· Number of Schools
· Number of School
Students
· Children in Foster Care
· Debt Service
61,502 81,600 33%
19,202 40,555 111%
6,100 10,000 64%
17 24 41%
8,927 12,205 37%
32 130 300%
$1.9mill $9mill 347%
Cost of Inflation & Growth
Total County Budget: FY 90191 - FY 00/01
$180.000.000
$160,000,000
$140,000,000-
$120,000,000-
$100,000,000-
$80,000,000.
$60,000,000-
$40,000,000-
$20,000,000-
$0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Fiscal Year
A Closer Look at
FY 2000/01 Revenues
FY 2000/01 Total County Revenues
$161,591,520
Other Local
22%
State
23%
Property Tax
46%
Federal
3%
Self-
Sustaining
5%
Carry-
Over/Fund
Balance
1%
A Closer Look at
FY 2000/01 Expenditures
School Ops.
56%
Self-
Sustaining
5%
FY 2000101 Total County Expenditures
$161,591,520
Debt Service
6%
Capital
1%
Debt/Capital
Reserve
1%
Revenue
Sharing
Gen. Govt. 4%
27%
How is the Proposed Budget
Different from the Recommended?
[] $0.04 Real Property Rate Increase for
Operations & Capital Reserve
[] School Budget Fully Funded
[] Additional General Government Budget
Initiatives
;0.04 Real Property Rate Increase
from $0.72/$100 to $0.76/$100
[] $0.02 Rate Increase for Operations - $774,221 (60%) to Schools
- $516,147 (40%)to General Government
[] $0.02 Rate Increase ($1.29 Million) to be
Held in Reserve for Future County Capital
Needs
What Capital Projects Would the
Capital Reserve Address?
[] Court System Expansion/Renovation
[] Unfunded School Capital Projects
[] Fire/Rescue Stations - North & West
[] Urban Infrastructure - Sidewalks, Streetlights,
Neighborhood Improvements
[] New Library Facilites
[] Athletic Field Development
4
School Budget Fully Funded
[] Total Shortfall (After Additional
Revenues from State)
- Additional Revenue from Tax Rate
Increase
- Use of School Board Reserve
- Use Budget Savings: VRS & Health
Remaining Unfunded Initiatives
[] 1,918,758
- $774,221
- $50,000
- $1,0941537
$o
Additional General Govt.
Initiatives
[] Total New General Govt. Initiatives
- Less Additional Revenue from Tax
Rate Increase
- Less Offsetting Revenues
- Remaining Unfunded Initiatives
[] Remaining BOS Reserves (After
adjustments, budget savings & tax
rate increase)
[] $658,458
- $503,343
- $155,115
$o
$2O3,897
Public Comment
Hi, my name is Emily Vancho. I am a junior at Albemarle High
School, and I am here to support increases in teacher salaries. I
have been in this school system since first grade, and have had many
wonderful teachers along the way. All my life my teachers have
made my courses challenging and interesting. I feel that all of my
classes, including the ones I'm currently in, have prepared me well
for college, and for a life as a responsible citizen.
Through my interaction with these great teachers, I've learned
that truly good teachers do not just teach students information they
could pick up from any textbook. Good teachers challenge their
students and inspire them to learn, not only about the material the
class covers, but also about the world around them. Good teachers
instill into students a love of learning that stays with them long past
the high school years. Good teachers demand much from their
students and encourage them to give back much more than they
ever thought possible.
Unfortunately, many of the best teachers I have ever had are
now looking at other school systems, where they can get a better
salary. This will not directly affect me, since I only have one more
year before college, but it will cheat younger children terribly. It
just does not seem fair to sacrifice their futures for money.
We the students consider our future more important than four
cents on the hundred dollars. Are we willing to spend thousands on
sending our kids to college, but unwilling to give a few dollars more
every year to help our kids build the strong foundations to succeed
once they get to college?
Good teachers are in demand these days, but they will not
teach where they cannot afford to stay. Are we not willing to
contribute to the future of our nation7 We are your future. Now is
when we gain the tools we need to keep the future bright. Thank
you.
~Written by Rongrong Fan, Karen Rembold, and Emily Vancho
Albemarle High School students
My name is Karen Rembold, and I am currently enrolled in the 10t~ grade at
Albemarle High School I wish to appeal to you on behalf of some 10,500 county
students, over- ~ ofwhomhave signed this petition requesting better salaries for
our teachers. Albemarle High cannot possibly be the only County school currently being
affected negatively by the low salaries our teachers are paid. At the moment, Albemarle
High is witnessing an exodus of some of its very best teachers. Some have already
accepted better-paying jobs elsewhere; others are seriously considering offers. A survey
that appeared in teachers' mailboxes last week queried them as to whether they were
~._"-";-~-~, .v '.ea;'e; a startling q7 ~ answered inthe affirmative~VBut county school~
are not 6reply losing percentage points: they are losing teachers who taught students how
to think. On a practical level for the county, these are the teachers who coached students
to high scores on Advanced Placement tests, teachers who pushed whole classes to do
well on the SOLs. But most importantly, they are the teachers who cared enough about
their students to give them a quality education.
It is tree that one becomes a teacher not for money, but for love. However, it is
important to remember that the loves of knowledge and education are not loves that
confine themselves to one county's borders. One excellent and well-loved teacher can be
quoted as saying that teaching, while his favorite, was by far his most expensive pastime:
in order to afford it, he has been compelled to take on several additional part-time jobs.
While this may seem a daunting proposition, it ceases seeming daunting and begins to
seem overwhelming when one considers the inordinate amount of time teachers are
coml2elled to work outside of school. I feel that the proposed tax raise is a necessary tool
in the attempt to support deserving teachers, and essential to the quality of Albemarle
County's educational system
April 5,2000
TO: County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Co-President of the Meriwether PTO, Concerned Parents and Faculty
Board of Supervisors tonight you will hear from many groups including the Conservative Coalition. I
address you as Co-President ofthe Meriwether Lewis PTO and on behalf of concerned parents. We
know first-hand the necessity of this tax increase.
We ask;
-How many of the Conservative Coalition members volunteer in the schools or are teachers?
-Why? .WHy. do we want them to volunteer? So they can see first-hand that the class size is too large,
that there are too few teacher assistants, that there are not enough reading specialists, and that this
county has not funded a nurse for our school in the past and will not next year without this increase.
There is no fat in the budge_t!
We have all seen how numbers can be manipulated to represent different points of view. This year
MLS had 470 students and 22 classroom teachers. Ifyou do the math it appears that there are 21.~
students per class. This, of course is not true. It assumes that there is an even distribution of students
in each grade level and there is not.
The Conservative Coalition has paid for TV and newspaper ads which claim that taxes will be raised
by 16%. Again these numbers are misleading. In reality ONLY less than 'A the county's residents
MIGHT MIGHT pay a 14%-16% tax increase, IF and ONLY IF a .04 tax increase is combined with
a reassessment of 8°/o.' Since the county has not yet derided on the assessment percentage, this is
.ONLY one possible scenario!
As parents who voltmteer, we know that our schools need and demand more than the current
funding. This county must not rely on volunteers to take the place of professional teachers. It is
essential that you vote for this tax increase.
We tell our children it is difficult to do the right thing. It certainly is difficult to raise taxes. We ask
you to do the right thing.
Good Evening, my name is Christopher Lee and I live in the
Scottsville District of Albemarle Co. I speak to you as a
representative of the Chamber's Budget Subcommittee and a
parent of 2 children in Albemarle County Schools. I will build on
the remarks made by Bob Moorefield. We wOUl'd like to address a
solution for the school budget shortfall without triggering a tax rate
increase.
Albemarle's school population growth has been 2.3% annually
over the last five years. In the same time period the budget has
increased approximately 7% annually. The large budget increase
for this year is only justified by the need for competitive salaries to
maintain our core of teachers.
We have found in excess of 1.9 million dollars in other parts of the
budget to cover the school boards entire wish list. We
recommend the use of 700,000 relief from the Virginia Retirement
System and 465,000 savings from the health insurance
renegotiation. Then, by using up to 800,000 of the 1 million
allocated for the Acquisition of Conversation Easements (ACE),
you eliminate the entire shortfall. This affirms that public
education is a higher priority than the purchase of development
rights.
We wish to acknowledge that this one-year solution is built on 1.5
million dollars of non-reoccurring funds. While this is not ideal, it
is far more ideal than under funding education or subjecting your
citizens to a creeping tax rate.
And, don't forget that there is a projected surplus of about 2.8
million, which remains untouched and available to replenish the
800,000 from ACE. This plan bridges us from now until a budget
cycle when the County's coffers will once again be flush with
reoccurring funds from a tax re assessment projected to be in the
neighborhood of 7 - 10%.
The recent rhetoric is too simplistic when it suggests that we are
locked in a contest between public education or a tax increase.
Let's get the discussion back on track as a discussion of budget
priorities. For this year we can use other monies targeted for
much lower priority items to bridge the gap.
The chamber believes that a good education is the foundation of
our excellent quality of life in Albemarle. We urge you to consider
the appointment of a Blue Ribbon Fiscal Commission to consider
the county budget and to weigh the county's budget priorities,
including the 60-40 split between schools and general
government. For this year we need to use any available
resources to close the gap in school needs and place our priority
with the schools.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our interests!
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Budget Public Hearing
April 5, 2ooo
Good evening Board and communify members. My name is Mafia Muntner, and
I'm here tonight as a tax payer, a concerned citizen, a school employee, and, as
president of the Albemarle Education Association, I am speaking to you as an
advocate for public school's.
I'm here, happily, to say thank you.
Thank you for your vision. Thank you for looking ahead to the future, and not
simply looking longingly at the past. Thank you for realizing that our schools are
changing, and that our growing and changing population, our increased
technology requirements, underfunded state mandates, and an ever competitive
job market all require precious resources to ensure the success of all Albemarle
County students.
Thank you for realizing that retirement projections, results from surveys of
school employees, testimony to.you from teachers and other school staff, and the
experiences of principals and Human Resources staff when recruiting, all point to
the .same conclusion clearly stated in the Albemarle county Recruitment and
Retention Report which says, "the highly publicized teacher shortage. As a very
real crisis. School districts...are finding themselves in bidding wars..Albemarle
County...has already begun to feel the effects of this national, state and local
teacher shortage crisis." All the evidence nationally and locally points to the
same conclusion, and other districts throughout the country are already
responding.
Meanwhile, our community has a problem to fix. Combine the effects of what'has
long been recognized as the~.second highest cost of living in the state with our
teacher pay scale, and it's clear why we have a problem. Some would like you to
believe that our teacher.pay is in the top ~o% of Virginia school systems. Well,
here are the facts according to the Virginia Department of EdUcation:
~ank oiA16em~rle Coi]ht~ ~i'~aeher Pay for BA Degree, x999-:~ooo
as compared to other Virginia School Divisions according to. # years experience
o yrs. S yrs. lo yrs. 1.q yrs. 20 yrs. 25 yrs. 3o yrs. max.
70 40 30 30 38 48 46 57
As you can see from your chart, the rank of Albemarle County teacher pay when
you compare it with the other x32 districts in Virginia ranges from 7oth to 3otb
depending upon where you look on the pay scale. Our benefits are in line with
other districts and comparable professions. Nowhere on our pay scale are we in
the top ~o%. Nowhere. In fact, ironically, the only place I can find that
Albemarle County even comes close to being in the top xo% in anything is in our
capacity to pay for schools as determined by the Virginia Department of
Education, where we rank x6th from the top of the ~3~ districts in Virginia. I've
included a chart with more detail on this in the lobby and with my statement. It
shows clearly that there is a significant and growing gap between our
community's wealth and our effort toward schools.
In light of all of this, I'd like to thank you for exhibiting leadership. Thank you for
leading our community as it experiences growing pains. I'm not just talking
about population growth, but also I'm talking about growth as change, and
progress.
The Albemarle Education Association hopes our community can work together to
make the most sound investment in our future possible. Invest in our schools.
Invest in our youth. They are our future.
Tha~u.
How does Albemarle County education funding
compare with funding from other VA districts?
Virginia's
50 wealthiest
school districts
0
10
20
30
40
50
Albemarle's capacity
based on wealth
to support schools
'90/'91 ~961'97 '97/'98
This chart compares the 50 wealthiest school districts in Virginia. The top line shows the rank of
Albemarle County's capacity to pay for education. The bottom line shows the rank of the county's
effort toward education.
Capacity:
1990-91 = 20th wealthiest
1996-97 = 16th wealthiest
1997-98 =16th wealthiest
Effort:
1990-91 = 31st from top
1996-97 = 35th from top
1997-98 = 46th from top
All data from the Virginia Department of Education.
My name is Jeff Douglas. I am a property owner, a taxpayer, and
an employee of Albemarle County of some 25 years' duration. I have
been a mathematics teacher for 28 years. At least one school board
member thinks I was over the hill 17 years ago.
We have heard from the usual gang of malcontents and
namecallers who like to call themselves "conservatives". I thought it
was a bedrock conservative principle to pay your bills and to take care
of your responsibilities, not to shirk them and expect someone else to
suck it up. And I thought that conservatives were proud of telling the
truth.
So we are told in newspaper ads and a website that the average
teacher Compensation in Albemarle County is $51,000, apparently by
totaling all costs of employment including not only salary, but social
security, Medicare, retirement, health and unemployment insurance.
Nobody, not eVen the IRS, counts the total cost of employment as
salary...that would be pretty misleading.
But when they compare that figure to other localities' salary only
and they know they're comparing apples to oranges when they say
we're in the top ten per cent...well, then that's just a lie.
These self-styled "conservatives" have termed this board "the
gang thatcan't say 'No'". Actually, that's a bum rap, because saying
"no" is something this county has been quite good at, at least in the
recent past. You've said "nO" to the children's needs for school
buildings and arts programs and music education and maximum class
sizes and all the other needs caused by growth.
But you still wanted excellence. And excellence is what you got
for years and years, at least until the state defined "excellence" as a
score on a test. We're still doing far better than most divisions in the
state, even on the SOL trivia tests..
And you've been saying "no" to. your emplOyees for years, content
to let them work the second jobs and live in other localities where they
can afford housing. In recent years the superintendent has been
charged by the school board with the task of robbing the senior,
experienced, career teachers to. pay for new buildings, lower class sizes,
and technology, things the county wanted but didn't want to pay for.
Recently, the school board.passed up a chance to help a group of
experienced teachers who have been espeCially hard hit by this practice
(they're known as the "bubble" teachers); one school board member
wished this problem"would just go away".
Well, going away is just what they' re doing. Because they are
leaving for other localities, for other jobs, and for retirement, which
usually means another job, since few can live on the state retirement
alone. ! don't see a lot of quality people waiting in line to replace
them, either. If you think that a 4.25 per cent raise is going to have
good people beating a path to your door, you need a reality check.
You've reached the end of the line for balancing the budget on the
backs of the children and your employees. The rubber band only
stretches so far before it breaks.
Do the right thing. Take even this small step in the right direction.
Vote yes for 4 cents.
A Local Affiliate Party of the Libertarian Party of Virginia
P.O. Box 274
Free Union, VA 22940
(804) 831-1058 (804) 973-5958
TO:
FROM:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
James w. Lark, III
Secretary, Jefferson Area Libertarians
(804) 973-5958
SUBJECT: Comments at the Board of Supervisors meeting, Wednesday, April 5, 2000
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Board this evening. My name is
Jim Lark. I live in the Buck Mountain area of Albemarle County. ! serve as the
secretary of the Jefferson Area Libertarians. On behalf of my Libertarian colleagues, I
urge the Board of Supervisors to cut taxes and spending this year. At the very least,
the Board should not raise taxes.
From what I have ascertained, county government spending has increased
tremendously since my return to Albemarle County in 1986, especially when compared
to the growth in population. County government engages in all manner of activities
that are unrelated to the only appropriate role for government: protection of the life,
liberty, and property of the citizens. The acquisition of conservation easements is an
outstanding example of a very costly activity that is not appropriate for government.
I realize that it is not always easy to resist the pleas of the petitioners and
supplicants who call for government spending and regulation. However, that is what
you must do: resist the urge to tax and spend, spend and tax.
In summation, ! ask the Board to cut taxes and spending now. However, if you
cannot find the courage to do the right thing for the taxpayers of the county, at least do
no harm: Do not raise taxes! Thank you for your courtesy and consideration.
To the members of the Board of Supervisors:
My name is Ann Etchison. I am a parent, a taxpayer, a former school
employee and a current consultant and supervisor of student teachers at the
University of Virginia. Two months ago I e-mailed a letter to you and
members of the School Board outlining my support for a significant raise in
teacher's salaries. Tonight I am here to reiterate and add to my masons why
I feel this county is at a critical point with respect to compensation for
teachers---to the point where a tax increase would be completely justified.
The problem is two fold. First of all, the school system must offer a
competitive salary for beginning teachers. Students graduating from schools
of education this year and beyond sit in the driver's seat. Those looking for
jobs in Virginia alone receive offers from other school divisions that are
significantly higher than what Albemarle County currently pays, often
accompanied by other perks and incentives. Out of state salaries, in some
systems, are almost double what Albemarle County teachers earn. Last fall,
I worked with nine fifth year students at the Curry School of Education who
will graduate this May with master's degrees and will be qualified to teach
middle and high school social studies. One of out the nine has applied for a
job in this school system. To me, that is not an impressive statistic. Two of
them are applying to Virginia systems in areas where the cost of living is
similar to our own, but the starting salaries are over $32,500. Clearly, the
Blue Ridge mountain views are no longer attractive enough to make up for
significant differentials in starting salaries---especially not in the current
economy.
Secondly, we risk losing some of the best veteran teachers out there.
Without them, who will mentor and offer the support 'our new teachers so
desperately need to be successful and stay in the profession? Without them,
who will work with student teachers to insure well-trained educators in the
future? Many of the veteran teachers with whom I have been associated are
the best the education profession has to offer. They dispense knowledge,
they counsel students, they work with parents, they serve on committees,
they attend classes, they provide leadership within and beyond their
buildings, and they go home in the evening with stacks of papers to grade
and additional planning to complete. In the past two years, these are the
teachers who have provided the necessary leadership to map the curriculum
and make recommendations intended to improve SOL scores. Their hard
work is responsible for gains this county has made. It wouldn't have
happened without them. They model what is good about education for our
novice teachers. They model what is important about learning for our
children. If we lose them, we lose the strength and heart of our schools.
The quality of education in this county is at stake, and we cannot
continue to deny teachers the raises they deserve. As one taxpayer, I urge
you to support the minimal increase. Let's support our teachers; let's
support our children; let's support the future of this county.
GOOD EVENING AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF A
.04 CENT TAX INCREASE TO SUPPORT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS. I AM A
SENIOR CITIZEN AND A TAXPAYER IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY. I HAVE 2 CHILDREN WHO
GREW UP IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 1N ROANOKE COUNTry, WHICH HAS A TAX
RATE OF $1.13 AND ROANOKE C1TY HAS A TAX RATE OF $1.21. THEY RECEIVED, I
BELIEVE, A TOP-NOTCH EDUCATION BECAUSE OF THE SLrPPORT OF MY PARENTS AND
OTHERS PROVIDED THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AS TAXPAYERS. AS A SENIOR CIT[72E. N AND
TAXPAYER, IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THE SAME FOR THE ADLILTS OF TOMORROW,
OUR STUDENq'S IN THE ALBEMARLE SCHOOL SYSTEM. t AM ON A LIMITED BUDGET AS
WELL AS SOCIAL SECURITY. I KNOW THAT MY_SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS ARE
SUPpLEqV~TED BY PAYMENTS BEING MADE ~ EMPLOYEES INCLUDING WORKING
PARENTS. SINCE MY INCOME IS BEING SUPPORTED BY THESE WOI~J~NG PARENTS, WHY
WOULD I NOT BE WILLING TO SUPPORT THE EDUCATION OF OUR FUTURE LEADERS.
THESE LEADERS OF TOMORROW WILL BE OUR DOCTORS, LAWYERS, AND ONE DAY
POSSIBLY, OUR PRESIDENT. AREN'T THEY WORTH THE ADDITIONAL $70 A YEAR THAT
THIS TAX INCREASE ENTAILS? FOLKS, THAT'S LESS THAN $6 PER MONTH OR A TRIP TO
MCDONALDS.
To: Board of Supervisors
From: Marjorie Shepherd, teacher, parent, homeowner in Albemarle County
April 5, 2000
There is a little exercise you can do in teaching fractions, of walking halfway to a wall, then
halfway again, and again - to show that no matter how many times you do this, although you will get
closer, you will never reach the wall. You will always be halfway there.
In the Albemarle County school budget, we can do a similar exercise, but with a twist. The wall
takes three steps back every year- one for inflation, one for growth, and one for unfunded state .mandates.
The Board of Supervisors and Mr. Tucker offer one step forward, so that every year we move' one
step forward and two steps back, and every year, we are a little farther away from the wall. I applaud the
Board's proposal to move ahead with finding tax revenues for basicS, another half a step, maybe -'and I
would hope that you work to find even more, to keep us from stepping back even farther.
It is exasperating year after year to have to figl3._t t%m_ov._e_al~egd fc/i: excellence in this county and
finding that instead, in terms of real money, we ar~two steps behind.
It is fi'ustrating to be lambasted by radical conservatives who call teachers Socialists just because
they don't want to let go of one thin dime, no matter what, especially when ~y-~am more in stock
dividends every year than I do in a salary. It does not mean they represent or even care about the heart and
soul of Albemarle 'County.
It does not matter how big and' expensive their display ads, or how frequent the TV ads are running
misinformation about schools - it does not make the figures real. No matter how or where it is said, I don't
make $51,000 or $68,000, nor does any other teacher in this county. And while wasting time arguing these
points, we are steppin~tx*o steps back, and not dealing with what is real.
Real is that at my school, we will lose one teaching position this year, not because we will have
fewer kids - we will have more kids - but because revenues are not keeping up with growth and mandates
and inflation. Real is that my department money and my team money arid my staff development dollars
have been frozen for nearly ten years - not because the cost of books or classes or anything else has gone
down, but because revenues haven't kept up.
I am sure you know all of this, because you see the figures, and the real costs of buildings and paper
and gasoline, and insurance, and you know of decreased state revenues paired with increased state
unfunded mandates, and you know the increased size of the county population, but you still chose to move
one step forward, and two steps back. All I'm asking is that you look at what is real, and what is important,
and what is at the heart of the excellence of this county, and to do what is necessary to move us forward.
When you step backwards, as we have been for years, you can't even see where you're going.
To the Board of Supervisors
When you vote on a tax increase to fund the School Budget, I want you to be very clear that a vote to
not fully fund the proposed school budget will be taking necessary programs away from the majority
of Albemarle County's children. You should support the School Boards budget includes additional
teachers, a virtual Governors school, a strings program, and a teacher raise.
Yes, the overall school budget has dramatically increased over the last ten years, however, a large
portion of the increases in the budget has been consumed by a small number of special education
students, not the majority of the students. I am not arguing that we should not provide for Special
education, I support it. Federal law mandates it. We must pay for special education. However, we
have a duty to teach the rest of the students. Any cut in budget will hurt the education of the majority
of the students. They are the taxpayers of tomorrow (in fact, their social security payments will
support Peter Way and his conservative coalition).
I went over the 1999 school budget in detail to demonstrate my assessment. The published student
to teacher ratio is 1:13. How many parents have a child in a classroom of 13. However, when I
surveyed the number of teachers at the primary grades, the actual student to teacher ratio is 1:21. If
PE, music, gifted, and art teachers are included the student to teacher ratio is 1:17. The discrepancy
is special education. Overall one fifth of teachers and one third of teacher aids are involved in special
education. The large increase in the school budget has been caused by an increase in special
education.
Since special education is federally mandated, a policy that limits increases in the school budget will
result in a decrease level of funding to the rest of the ordinary students, i.e. the future taxpayers of
tomorrow.
The Board should understand that a less than fully funded budget will cut the Virtual Governors
School program. This program will cost $130,000 in the first year only. In subsequent years, extra
state funding of $2500 per child for the Governors School program will result is a overall cost savings
to Albemarle county. This is a program that saves money. The teachers not needed for the Virtual
Governor's school can be used to decrease class size for other students.
The fully funded budget also includes teacher pay raises that are deserved.
It also contains additional teachers to further decrease class size for the majority of the students.
Less than a fully funded budget will likely cut the year old strings program, a program with large public
support and proven ability to reach students with diverse abilities (see the effect at Charlottesville
High).
Finally, the conservative coalition complains that a 4 cent tax increase will increase their tax bill by a
couple of hundred dollars. Let's do the math. For a $200 increase in tax, property valuation would be
a half a million dollars. I think anyone with property valued at over half a million dollars can afford to
ensure the quality of tomorrow's children. Do not consider increases in property assessment as tax
increases since assessments but reflect inflation, not real tax increases.
Therefore, please support Albemarle county's school and the future of its children.
Chris Rembold
We, the undersigned, wish to protest the substandard salary of teachers in
Albemarle County. The 21~t century will be filled with oppommities- for those
who have a good education_ Superior teachers are the key to a superior education.
Plo_se protect our future.
10.
12.
14.
16.
15.
17.
20.
24.
26.
30.
32.
27.
42. ~/~ /q:a3o, m. 43.
44. g~&~, 4s.
54.
56.
60.
62.
64.
66.
47.
49.
51.
53.
55.
57.
59.
68. lz, a~ ~-h~ 69.
~. ~~~ ~1.
~7-6. t~v-¢~rn~'~ ~_~,t~ 77.
~8: ~~ ~~. 79.
82. ~/~ ?~
.
86 c~ A~c_¼ ~_~ ~
90. 91.
92. 93.
94.~~~~ 95.
96.~ ~~ 97.
98. ~¢"~0 99.
67. ~ ~ ,t.,~ .....
100.
102.
104.
106.
108.
110.
112.
124.
130.
132.
105.
128.
34.
~4o~
142.
144.
150,,..~L~ c~
15:
117.
119.
121.
123.
125.
127.
129.
131.
133.
/
We, the tmdersigne~ wish to protest the substandard salary of teachers in
Albemarle County, The 21~t century will be filled with opportunities-- for those . ''~
who have a good education. Superior teachers are the keyto a Superior education.
Please protect our future.
j
33. ~9~ ~
35.
32.
37.
39.
41.
34.
36:
40.
42.
4i5.
47. ~CZ. (,D/~IG'fCT 48.
49. ~I,D ?(Yc~;! I50~
53.
cd~ ~ e ~ 54.
55, g~J ~r ~ ~,G' 56.
s'7. 4~~? ,,,'58., '"~,,~(~ ~~,
s9. ~~; A~~ 60.
63''. ~&~ ~~ ._
65. ~,
67. ~,~,:, ~
69. ¢x.c~a,,~,, %.~d~_~
77:_~ ~
79.~~
102.
i04.
i05,
107.
109.
111.
I.
1
!25. ~~~~~
129. &,~: ~
137~ ~&~
141. do~dc~ -'~e~_TM
108.
I 10.
112.
1 i 8.
12o.
122.
124.
2
!6.
!34.~~)~
i42.
143. $]~a,M /-q,,,b 144.
145. ~'" 148.146'
1'.47.
We, the undersigned, wish to protest the substandard salary of teachers in
Albemarle County. The 21~t century will be filled with opportunities-- for those
who have a good education. Superior teachers are the key to a superior education.
Please protect our future.
18.
20.
22.
24.
26.
37.
45. ~ ~¢a'~
46.
48.
50.
52.
54.
56.
58.
47.
49.
51.
55.
57.
61.
63,
65.
67.
71. ,..~.0.~.,¢' ~~ ......
85
9~.
93.
122.
124.
126.
3o.
132.
!34.
146.
148.
123.
12:
127.
129.
13i.
135.
137.
1.39.
141,
143.
14.5.
147.
149.
150. 151.
We, the undersigned, wi'sh to protest the substandard salary of teachers in
?Albemarle CounW. The 21 st century will be filled with opportunities-- for those
~ who have a good education. Superior teachers are the key to a superior education.
Please protect our future.
32. ~
34.~
36.
38., ~,~
40. ~m.~. 3.t~ZWa~,--
44~ 7'~~'
46.
_52.
56.
60,
62.~
64.~h~
68. {~ ~:4~
70.
72.
76.
88.
9o.~
943~~
96.
98.
'100
123.~ ~~ ~
102.
,I 04.
106.
108.
~i0.
112.
114.6~~(~
116.
118.
!22:
124.
126.
128,
138.
140.
142,
144,
146.
148.
150.
i5i. 152.
We, the undersigned, wish to protest the substandard salary of teachers in
[Albemarle County. The 21st century will be filled with opportunities-- for those
_.who have a good education. Superior teachers are the key to a superior education.
Please protect our future.
1. --¢' 2
12.
14
16.
18.
5.
22.
~46.
48.
50.
'52.
54.
56.
58.
60.
62.
64.
66.
68.
70.
72. ?~
74. vj~q
76. /~'~' ~
47.
49.
51.
53.
55.
57.
59.
61.
63.
65.
67.
69.
71.
73.
75.
101.
103.
105.
107.
oo. D C
108. 109.
110. 111.
112. 113.
114. 115.
116. 117.
118. 119.
120. 121.
122. 123.
124. 125.
126.
127.
128. 129.
130. 131.
132. 133.
134. 135.
136. 137.
138. 139.
140. 141.
142. 143.
144. 145.
146. 147.
148. 149.
150. 151.
We, the undersigned, wish to protest the substandard salary of teachers Ln
Albemarle County. The 2? century will be filled with opportunities-- for those
w'no have a good education. Superior teachers ar,e the key to a superior education.
Please protect our future.
!1.
13.
15.
17.
19.
16.
18.
20. 21.
28. ~ 29.
32. ~ 33~
36."?)a/~_ '~':N.~rLma'~ '' 3'7~'
40...
.42.
.........
49.
51.
53.
55.
57.
59. ~~, ,f~
63.
73. ~ ~
75.
77.
78.
82.
79.
81.
83.
84.
901
92'.
85.
87.
89.
91.
93.
94.
96.
98.
100.
102. g;?~)o) ~, ~ ~v~~ 103.
106. ~-' ~ :~'?'?' / 107.
i08."~ ~ i09.
110. ~,,sae~ ~{~ 111.
112. ~og~ -A~ed 113.
I 14. ~~ ~&~ 1 i 5.
116.
.i i7.
118. Toe 77a~.b 119.
122. ~ ~ax/ 123.
124. 125.
126. 1
128.
129.
i38. x{t~ // 139.
142.~},~,3~F~~) -- 143.
144. 145.
1487 &~~~ - 1~:
tO
we, the undersigned, wish to protest the substandard salary of teachers in
Albemarle County. The 21~t century will be filled with opportunities-- for those
who have a good education. Superior teachers are the key to a superior education.
Please protect our ~
6. 7__
8. .9.
10. 11.
12. 13.
14. 15.
16. 17.
20.
22. 23.
44.
37. ~ 3~ ~
39. ...
41. ~
43. ~; ~.~~-~
36.
40.
42.
It
58.
60.
62,
64.
66.
68.
70.
8:.
.8,3° ~ i ~¢
87.
89. - [ z .........
93.
95.
97.
84.
72.
74.
76.
78.
80.
82.
100.
102.
104.
106.
108.
114.
116.
118.
120.
122.
109i
113 /4ah;~v,,A.~. ..
117. f~
~, · t.
123.
126. 127.
128. 129.
130. 131.
132. 133.
134. 135.
136.
138. 139.
137.
140. 141.
142. 1,43.
144. 145.
146. 147.
148.
150.
We, the undersigned, wish to protest the substandard salary of teachers in
Albemarle County, The 21~t centuW will be filled with opportunities-- for those
who have a good education. Superior teachers are the key to a superior education.
Please protect our future.
3~(~ ~o.~.
~~ 10.
11. ~%~c~ ~. ~~m ]2.
13.~~ ~C 14.
15. 16~
17. 18.
19. 20.
21. 22.
23. 24.
25. 269
27. 28.
29. 30.
31. 32.
33.. 34.
35~ 36.
37. 38.
39. 40.
41. ' 42.
43. 44.
45. 46.'
75*
49.
50.
52.
54.
56.
60.
62.
64.
66.
68.
70.
72.
74.
76.
78.
80~
82.
84.
86.
-. 88.
89. ~.~ ~~ 90.
91. ~ ~,,¢f~~ 92.
93. ~,v~- ~ 94.
95.~~'~' 96.
97. t~'~ ~,}~, ~x~ - 98.
99. ~ X~m~/ i00.
i01.
103.
105.
107.
109.
' i02
~ ~, 104
~.,~,,..~,.~ ~,~h.,,~,~ ~ ! 08.
.; ~ 110.
,, ] ,: ), . ,:,~ , ~ .....~'~ ..... :.:,';. /' .(....,;, ,,~
· ¢~o~-,~ ~.~ 112.
113..Dee '0avis 114.
115. ~liTtC~eth qt~,l:.~ 116.
117. 1'18.
119. 120.
121. !22.
123. 124.
125. !26.
127. 128.
!29. 130.
!31. 132.
133. i34.
i35. 136.
137. 138.
139. i40.
14i. 142.
I43. 144.
~A~ 146.
147. 148,
149, 150.
151. i52.
' We~'the:Qnde~ign~,.~sh to p~te~ the s~bstandard sala~ of t~chers in Albe~de Ooun~.
~e 21~centu~ ~11 be fill~ w~h op~un~ies for those who have a g~ ~u~t~n.
Superior teache~ are the key to supedor ~ucation. PL~SE prot~t our future.
~ ~ We, the undemigfl~, wish to protest the substanda~ sal~'~ of t~dhem in Albe~e Count.
~e 21st centu~ ~11 be fill~ w~h op~Aun~ies for those ~o havea g~ ~u~tion.
Supedor teachers are the key to supedor ~ucation. PL~SE prot~ our futura.
16
37
36
We. the undersi~nedi' wish to protest'tl~e Substandard salary of teachers in Albemarle County.
The 21st century will be filled with opportunities for those who have a good education.
Superior teachers are the key to superior education. PLEASE protect our future.
26
28
3O
32
34
36
38
37
We, the undersigned, wish to protest the substandard salary of teachers in Albemarle County.
The 21st century will be filled with opportunities for those who have a good education.
Superior teachers are the key to superior education. PLEASE protect our future.
12
14
16
· 18
2O
22
24
29
31
33
35
37
30
32
34
36
38
We, the undersigned, wish to protest the substandard salary of teachers in Albemarle County.
The 21st century will be filled with opportunities for those who have a good education.
Superior teachers are the key to superior education. PLEASE protect our future.
4
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
3O
32
34
36
38
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
REMARKS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -APRIL 5, 2000
We have all heard many comments tonight. I hope my remarks will provide a
broader perspective to the many points of view expressed during this hearing.
Certainly, the needs of the schools received a great deal of attention this
evening. We heard many of these comments at our Public Hearing and have
tried to address all of their questions in our budget sessions. This year, we
presented you with a Request for Funds that did NOT include any unfunded
requests. Yes, we considered many initiatives, some which have been on our
unfunded list for several years. However, we reduced the request to those
essential educational programs that support our vision, through an organized
strategy continuing the successful progress made by our students.
As School Board Chairman, I must re-emphasize what we have done to keep
our costs down. We work on the budget year-round by examining existing
programs and weighing expenditures for these programs against other needs.
I offer the following brief examples as testimony to what the School Board has
done over the past five years to reallocate existing funds:
Two years ago, the School Board adopted a revised operating schedule to
reduce transportation costs, which make up 7% of the school division budget.
Obviously, transportation is a major cost issue in a 740 square-mile County.
Because of the revised schedule, the number of bus routes actually
decreased even as enrollment increased and a new high school was opened.
Three years ago, the school division implemented a staffing formula, which
reallocated existing resources to provide additional assistance to schools with
significant high-risk populations. This hasn't been easy; however, it is a
strong example of the School Board utilizing existing funds to address
achievement issues.
School and department operating budgets received increases in only two out
of the past seven years. Given even a 2% yearly.!nflation rate, this has
resulted in a de facto decrease over that period at a time when service
demands have increased. It is a significant tribute to the Superintendent and
his staff that these budgets have continued to be creatively and efficiently
stretched to meet the increased demands. For example, we are now required
by the State to administer 37 Standards of Learning tests instead of the 11 we
administered previously. The cost to do so is astonishing, and we have
absorbed many of these costs internally.
~ We are fully aware of the current teacher and classified salary disparities.
Part of the reallocation of funds puts us in a position of "catch up" with
compensation - a significant effort in the Request for Funds for next year.
However, our proposal only addresses keeping up with other school divisions
in the local Central Virginia area.
The schools are not the only aspect of the County that struggles with growth.
All County services have been stretched; the schools are simply the most
obvious example. I must commend the Board of Supervisors for managing
growth this long, based on a 62-cent tax rate, which is what we effectively
operate on because of revenue sharing with the City.
It's a credit to the skill of the County Executive and your leadership that a tax
increase has not been on the table before this year. I believe the overwhelming
majority of County citizens understand the need for this tax increase and will
support it, and support you. The School Board stands with you on this. Thank
you!
Charles M. Ward
Chairman
Albemarle County Schools
Petition for an Annual Albemarle County
Citizen Taxpayer Opinion Survey
The purpose of this poll is to encourage every citizen of Albemarle County to
participate regularly in their government .An annual survey is a convenient, efficient, and,
effective process that can make this possible. Former Congressman L.F.Payne of the 5th
district of Virginia used annual constituent surveys as a basis for his congressional decision
making. He was very popular with his constituents because he made their opinions,
desires, and, needs heard in Washington. Like many great leaders he encouraged us to
participate in the decision making process. Informed individuals can make good decisions
for themselves about public issues and when they have reached a decision a means such as
this survey is a conveinent,economical,and effective way to make these decision known to
their government for discussion, deliberation, and, implementation.
Thefollowing questions are offered as a suggested guide to initiate this process. Some
questions such as those concerning taxes, schools, budgets, capitol improvements, and,
major expenditures should always be present on the survey while others can be added as the
need for them arises.
Petitions that have three hundred or more signatures could be offered to the rest of
the citizens of the county for their consideration and input.
The current real estate property tax rate of 72 cents per one hundred dollars should:
. remain unchanged increase .. decrease
How much should the tax rate decrease increase
1% 3% 5% 7% 10% 15% 20% 25% or more
What percentage of our taxes should be used for:
% schools % fire protection __ % police protection
% government administration % parks and recreation
% water and sewage % social services %
Do you favor or oppose reversion to town status by the City of Charlottesville? favor
oppose
Do you favor or oppose closed door meetings of the Board of Supervisors and the School
Board? favor .. opposed
Do you think that the salaries paid to the department heads of our county government are?
too low too high OK
Do you think that the salaries of employees of Albemarle County are? too low L to
high OK
DO you think that teachers salaries are? . too low too high . OK
Should county taxpayers who use little or no county services such as schools, water, and
sewage be ~ven a tax break ? yes no
ShoUld county taxpayers who use little or no county services such as schools, water, and
sewage be given a tax break ? yes no
What tYpe of taxatiOn do you prefer? Real estate property taxes ~
PerSonal income tax
Sales tax
Personal property tax .
A combination of taxes
Do you think that at some point taxes become counter productive? ~ yes ~ no
What percentage of your income would you be willing to spend for taxes? J 1% _._2%
__3% __4% __5% __6% __7% _8% _.9% J 10% %
Do you want the county government to cOnsult with you about deciSions and issues by
means of yearly official opinion surveys similar to this survey ? yes . no
Who should conduct this survey?
The County of Albemarle under public scrutiny.
The Board of elections
A public service organization such as the League
of Women Voters.
Newspaper
Other
If a petition gathers 300 or more signatures should it appear on this survey yes no
Other issues of importance and public interest should appear on these yearly surveys Tax,
school, and, elected official approval Questions should always appear. The results of these
surveys should made public as soon as they are tabulated.
We the undersigned citizens of Albemarle County Virginia petition the Board of
Supervisors to develop and conduct an annul survey as suggested in this petition.
NAME ADDRESS VOTTING DISTRICT
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
Recommended operating Budget for FY 2000-2001 and/or
Proposed Tax Rates for Calendar Year 2000
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
Recommended operating Budget for FY 2000-2001 and/or
Proposed Tax Rates for Calendar Year 2000
~J3
4~4
103
104
105
106
107
108
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
Recommended operating Budget for FY 2000-2001 and/or
Proposed Tax Rates for Calendar Year 2000
)(, 47
~ s2
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
Recommended operating Budget for FY 2000-2001 and/or
Proposed Tax Rates for Calendar Year 2000
X
//,4.
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
Recommended operating Budget for FY 2000-2001 and/or
ProPosed Tax Rates for Calendar Year 2000
NAME (Please print clearly) PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional)
~ ~~~'~i oI ?.~.~~%~ ~~
~~ ~¢~. ~¢~s' ~~ ~2~ ~_ ~,~
V~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGEN DA TITLE:
Public Hearing on Proposed Tax Rates for Calendar Year
2000
SUBJECTIPROPOSALIREQUEST:
Public Hearing on the Proposed Tax Rates for Calendar
Year 2000
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messers. Tucker, White, Gulati
AGENDA DATE:
April 5, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION: X
INFORMATION:
The Board of Supervisors approved a proposed FY 2000/01 operating budget of $161.6 million at its final work session on
March 22, 2000.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed tax levies for Calendar Year 2000 are shown in the table below, and reflect the proposed $0.04 rate
increase for real estate, mobile homes and public service corporations included in the Board's proposed operating budget.
Levy CY 1999 CY 2000 (Proposed)
Real Estate & Mobile Homes $0.72/$100 $0.76/$100
Public Service Corporations $0.72/$100 $0.76/$100
Personal Property $4.28/$100 $4.28/$100
Machinery & Tolls $4.28/$100 $4.28/$100
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached information is presented for the Board's information only. No action is required at this time. The FY 2000/01
Operating Budget and the FY 2000/01 Capital Improvement Budget will be adopted at the Board's meeting on April 12th,
along with setting the 2000 tax rates.
OF SUF'gI ¥ISO RS
00.064
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
Albemarle County School Properties
ROUTE 29 BYPASS
State Project Number: 6029-002-F22. PE 101' RUVA-002-001, PE 101
Federal Project Number: NH-037-2 (130)
Albemarle County. Virginia
Prepared bx'
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
and
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT ()? TR.\NSPORTATION
Ism
The proposed project involves construction of a new four-lane, limited access bypass to the west of
existing Route 29 to relieve congestion on existing Route 29 and to facilitate the movement of
through traffic. Included in the project is a new access road into the North Grounds of the University
of Virginia. This Section 4(f) Evaluation addresses the project's effects on Albemarle County
School Properties that have been identified as Section 4(f) resources.
Federal Highway Administration
FINAL SECTION 4(0 EVALUATION
CONTENTS
Pa~e
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................ 4
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Earlier Studies ..................................................................................................................... 5
Base Case ............................................................................................................................ 5
Route 29 Corridor Study .................................................................................................... 6
Modifications to Alignment of Selected Bypass Alternative ............................................. 8
Elimination of Grade-Separated Interchanges .................................................................... 9
Additional Design Modifications ........................................................................................ 9
Current Status .................................................................................................................... 10
D. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT ......................................................................... 10
E. OVERVIEW OF SECTION 4(0 INVOLVEMENTS ............................................................... 16
DESCRIPTIONS OF SECTION 4(0 PROPERTIES ............................................................... 17
1. Albemarle County School Complex ................................................................................. 17
2. Agnor-Hurt Elementary School .................................................................................... :...22
G. RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER SIMILAR PROPERTIES .................................................... 22
He
IMPACTS TO SECTION 4(0 PROPERTIES .......................................................................... 26
1. Albemarle County School Complex ................................................................................. 26
2. Agnor-Hurt Elementary School ........................................................................................ 33
AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................... 35
1. Overview of considerations in Evaluating Avoidance Alternatives ................................. 35
2. Previous Alternatives from FEIS ...................................................................................... 41
3. Other Location Alternatives .............................................................................................. 56
4. Modifications to Current Design ....................................................................................... 58
J. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM ........................................................................................ 61
COORDINATION ........................................................................................................................ 65
1. Coordination with local officials after identification of new 4(0 involvement ................ 65
2. Coordination with local officials before identification of new 4(f) involvement ............. 66
3. Public Involvement ........................................................................................................... 71
L. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 72
APPENDICES
Appendix A Resolutions of the Commonwealth Transportation Board
Appendix B Coordination with Local Officials
Appendix C Comments on Draft Section 409 Evaluation
Appendix D U.S. Department of Interior Comments on Draft Final Section 4(f) Evaluation
i
Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(0 Evaluation
FIGURES AND TABLES
No. Title
Page
Figures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Project Location ................................................................................................................... 2
Proposed Project Alignment ................................................................................................ 3
Candidate Build Alternatives from FEIS ............................................................................. 7
Albemarle County Land Use Plan ..................................................................................... 11
CATS Plan Roadway Improvements ................................................................................. 14
Traffic Data ........................................................................................................................ 15
Albemarle County School Complex .................................................................................. 18
Typical View of Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School ......................................................... 20
Agnor-Hurt Elementary School ......................................................................................... 23
Public Parks and Recreation Areas .................................................................................... 25
Privately Owned Trail Resources ...................................................................................... 27
Historic Properties ............................................................................................................. 29
Impacts to Albemarle County School Complex ................................................................ 30
Impacts to Agnor-Hurt Elementary School ....................................................................... 34
Agriculmml/Forestal Districts ........................................................................................... 37
Constraints & Previous Alternatives .................................................................................. 40
Alternative 6 and Darden Towe Park ................................................................................. 43
Alternative 6 and Pen Park ................................................................................................ 44
Alternative 6B and Ridgeway Historic Property ............................................................... 45
Alternative 7A and McIntire Park ...................................................................................... 47
Alternative 11 and Schlesinger Farm Historic Property .................................................... 49
Alternative 11 and the Barracks Historic District .............................................................. 50
Alternative 12 and Schlesinger Farm Historic Property .................................................... 51
Alternative 12 and Darby's Folly Historic Property .......................................................... 52
Altemative 12 and Crenshaw Farm Historic Property ....................................................... 53
Grade-Separated Interchanges ........................................................................................... 55
Eastern Design Alternative to Avoid Albemarle County School Complex ....................... 59
Western Design Altemative 1 for Albemarle County School Complex ............................60
Western Alternative 2 to Avoid Albemarle County School Complex ............................... 62
Measures to Minimize Harm ............................................................................................. 64
Tables
1 Other Section 4(0 Parks and Recreation Properties in the Study Area ............................. 24
2 Section 4(f) Historic Properties in the Study Area ............................................................ 28
3 Projected Year 2022 Peak-Hour Noise Levels on School Complex .................................. 31
4 Summary of Alternatives ................................................................................................... 75
ii
Route 29 Bypa.~. Final S~ion 4(0 Evaluation
A. INTRODUCTION
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303(c)) states that the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project
requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, state, or local
significance only if:
(1)
(2)
there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and,
the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park,
recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.
The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and
FHWA's regulations (23 CFR 771.135) specify the procedures for implementing Section 4(f) on
federal-aid highway projects. The regulations identify the historic sites that are subject to Section
4(f) as those that are on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), except for
archaeological sites that are important chiefly for the information they may contain. The regulations
also provide procedures for evaluating Section 4(f) involvements that are discovered late in the
project development process, as occurred with this project.
The proposed Route 29 Bypass is located in Albemarle County as shown on Figures 1 and 2. A
Final EnvirOnmental Impact Statement (FEIS) approved in 1993 discussed the environmental effects
of the proposed bypass. A Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) approved in 1995 discussed the
environmental effects of changes to the proposed bypass termini locations. The current design of
the Route 29 Bypass, adopted in 1997 after detailed design work and a design public hearing, would
involve the use ora portion of property identified in 1998 as Section 4(f) property. The property is
the Albemarle County School Complex. As designated by Albemarle County, the Complex
encompasses the recreational areas at Albemarle High School, Jack Jouett Middle School, Greer
Elementary School, and the Piedmont Regional Education Program (PREP) School, as well as the
school buildings, parking lots, bus maintenance facilities, and other appurtenances, and also the
wooded areas surrounding these facilities. Although FHWA is charged with determining the
reasonableness of applying Section 4(f) to the entire parcel, it has not done so in this case because
impacts would be limited to recreational trails and wooded areas on the northern edge of the
property. However, based on comments received from County officials upon circulation of the Draft
Section 4(0 Evaluation, the entire property encompassing the School Complex is being treated as
a Section 4(f) property. The total area of the School Complex property designated by the County
as a park is approximately 218 acres. A more complete description of the property is provided in
Section F, Descriptions of Section 4(f) Properties. Another County school property adjacent to the
project, Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, also has been identified in its entirety as a Section 4(f)
property. A more complete description of it is also provided in Section F. The current design of the
bypass does not require the use of land from the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School property.
Studies conducted in support of the FEIS (see discussion in Section C.3., Route 29 Corridor Study)
examined the effects of the proposed bypass on public recreational facilities on public school
property at the Albemarle County School Complex. These facilities were not discussed specifically
as Section 4(f) involvements because, although the bypass would involve wooded land along the
1
Route 29 Byp~qs, Final Section 4(0 Evaluation
Loca' ion
COUNTY
?~'ojec'~ Loca'~ion
Figure
Source: Route 29 Corridor Study FEIS Fig. I-1
Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101
RUVA-002-001, PE 101
Albemarle County, Virginia
29BP002
Section 4(f) Properties '
AlOng Project Alignment
FroFose~l Frojec~, Alignment,
Figure 2
Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101
RUVA-002-001, PE 101
Albemarle County, Virginia
SCALE (FEET)
o 1250 2500
Reference: USGS Quadrangles, Charlottesville West, Charlottesville East