Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-03 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINAL MARCH 3, 2004 9:00 A.M., MEETING ROOM 241 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 5. Consent Agenda (on next page). 6. Transportation Matters: a, Update on Route 795 (Blenheim Road) and Six Year Secondary Road Plan (deferred from February 11,2004). b. Jarman's Gap Road (Route 691 ) Alternatives, Request for Resolution of Support. c. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda. 7. 10:30 a.m. - Board to Board Presentation, School Board Chairman. 10:45 a.m. - Recess 8. 11:00 a.m. - Public hearing: Proposed FY 2004 Budget Amendment. 9. 11:15 a.m. - Update on Consolidation of Development Departments. 10. 11:30 a.m. - Discussion: Supplemental Funding Request- JAUNT. 11. 11:45 a.m. -Bdeflng on FY 2005 Operational and Capital Budgets. 12. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. 13. Certify Closed Session. 14. Appointments, 2:00 p.m. - Public Hearinq: 15. 8P-2003-081. Crozet Commons (Siqn #43). Request to allow residential use in commercial zoning district in accord w/Secs 22.2.2.6 & 18-2.1.3 of the Zoning Ord. TM 56A2, P 1-31 contains 1.37 acs. Znd C-1. Loc on Rt 240 (Throe Notch'd Rd) approx 1.2 mis from intersect of Rt 240 & Rt 250, The proposed master plan for Crozet includes this property w£~n the Development Area. White Hall Dist. 16. Update on North Pointe, 17. 18. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of March 3, 2004 March 4, 2004 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorder. All BOS membem present, Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, and Ella Carey. 4. From the Public: Mattem Not Listed on the Agenda, · Mr. Bill Puso requested the Board pave Route 666, Allen Road, under the Rural Rustic Road Program. · Ms, Nancy Dmsner requested the Board pave Route 640, Gilbert Station Road, as a pilot for the Rural Rustic Road Program, · Mr. Tom Sullivan, present for Route 795, Blenheim Road, Said he would allow VDoT to update the Board on this project. · Mr. Jeff Wiesett said safety should be a concern in considering the paving of Route 640, Gilbert Station Road. · Ms, Klm Innes said emergency vehicle access should also be considered in the paving of Route 640, Gilbert Station Road. 5.2 Proclamation recognizing Mamh 22 through Mamh 26, 2004 as the Tenth Annual Virginia Festival of the Book. · ADOPTED the attached proclamation. 5,3 Adopt resolution accepting landowners' offer to sell conservation easement. · ADOPTED the attached resolution accepting the landowners' offer to sell conservation easement to the County for the price specified and subject to the terms and conditions contained in the proposed deed of easement and AUTHORIZED the County Executive to sign the final deed of easement for the property. 6a. Update on Route 795 (Blenheim Road) and Six Year Secoeda[y Road Plan. · DEFERRED the Six Year Secondaiy Road Plan until Mamh 17, 2004, with the following revisions/ comments: o Remove Route 633, Heards Mountain Road from the priodty list. o Redo the project listing into two lists - one for roads to be paved and the other roads eligil~le for the rural rustic roads program, Rank the[ roads (include reason for ranking) and provide revised cost estimates based on type of proj~.ct. Before moving around priorities look at vehicle trips served for costs expended, o For roads being considered for rural rustic need ASSIGNMENT Clerk: Forward proclamation to Nancy Damon of the Festival of the Book (Attachment 1). Cie[k: Forward the attached resolution to the County Attorney's office and a copy to Ches Goodall to proceed as directed (Attachment 2). Plannin,q and VDoT staff: Proceed as discussed. -Page 1- to know percentage of trucktraffic because of the type of materials used on the mad, o Provide estimate of money to set aside for rural rustic roads. o Suggested piloting more than one project for rural rustic. o Provide new cost estimate for Gilbert Station and Allen Roads based on qualifying as rural rustic roads. o If Gilbert Station was actually put on a list in the 1970s, it was suggested that that be given some credibility in the ranking. Asked staffto review the history for accuracy. · David Bowerman mentioned the proposed improvements to Rio Road ~ Pen Park Lane (intersection improvement in the City to be funded by private source). The developer is willing to do the improvements but the property owner is not willing to donate the necessary right-of-way. If a compromise cannot be reached, it may mean a taking of the property. · VOTED, 5:1. to accept Mr. Sullivan's offerto pave a portion of Route 795, Blenheim Road. subject to VDoT approval. 6b. Jarman's Gap Road (Route 691) Alternatives. Request for Resolution of Support. - ADOPTED the attached resolution concurring with mod'itied Option A for VDoT to proceed with the design for public headng. 6c. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Ken Boyd: o Suggested the Board discuss and revisit its position on the Route 29 Bypass. Following some discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that staff schedule a work session to discuss transportation processes, i.e., various road plans, traffic flow in and around the County including neighborhoods, MPO, CHART Sally Thomas: o Said there will be another public session o~ Hydraulic Road/Route 29. She encouraged Board members to attend the presentation. o Asked aboutthe status of the County's grant application for the safety project on Hillsdale Drive. Juan Wade responded that he has contacted VDoT and is waiting for confirmation on the status of the project. Board to Board Presentation, School Board Chairman. Dennis Rooker asked that before the joint meeting with the School Board on March 17th, staff provide a chart which shows the County's teacher salary scale in comparison to Charlotteville's and Fluvanna's scale and some of the surrounding areas Clerk: Forward the attached resolution to Jim Bryan Attachment 3). County Executive's office: Coordinate work session for future agenda. School Board office: Provide requested infomaation. -Page2- · The Board recessed at 11:33 a.m. and reconvened at 11:45 a.m Public headng: Proposed FY 2004 Budget Amendment APPROVED the FY 2004 Budget amendment in the amount of $936,984.75 and APPROVED Appropriations #2004057, #200405g, ~'2004060, ~2004061 #2004062, ~r2004063, ~r2004064, ~2004065, #2004066, and #2004067 to provide funds for various General Government and School pmgrams. Clerk: Forward signed appropriation formsto MeMn Breeden and copy appropriate individuals. 9. Update on Consolidation of Development Departments. · RECEIVED. Clerk: Forward signed appropriation forms to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate individuals. 10. Discussion: Supplemental Funding Request - JAUNT. · APPROVED a supplemental allocation of $60,000 to JAUNT for the remainder of the current fiscal year. · It was suggested that a representative of CTS speak to the Board about the size and use of their buses, Roxanne White: Coordinate with CTS for presentation. 11. Briefing on FY 2005 Operational and Capital Budgets. · RECEIVED. 12, Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters, · At 12:13 p.m., the Board went into closed session to consider appointments to boards and commissions and to consult with legal counsel and staff pertaining to specific legal issues. 13. Certify Closed Session. · At 1:45 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and certified the closed session. Clerk: Prepare appointment letter, update Boards and Commissions book and notify appropriate persons. 14. Appointments · REPPOINTED Hollis Lumpkin to the Albemarle County Service Authority, as the Scottsville District representative, with said term to expire April 16, 2008. · APPOINTED Alan Collier to the Equalization Board, as the Rivanna District representative, with said term to expire December 31, 2004. · APPOINTED A. Scott Ward to the Equalization Board. as the Scottsville District representative, with said term to expire December 31,2004. · APPOINTED Jennifer Hallock to the Historic Preservation Committee, · REAPPOINTED Barbara Barrett to the Region Ten Community Services Board, with said term to expire on June 30, 2007. 15. SP-2003-081. Crozet Commons (Siqn #43). · APPROVED SP-2003-81, by a vote of 6:0, subject to the 11 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 16. Update on North Pointe. Clerk: Set out conditions of approval. (Attachment 4) Clerk: Schedule on agenda. -Pa.cle 3- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 25-02-04A03:43 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RCVD AGENDA TITLE: ACE Program: acceptance of landowners' offer to sell a conservation easement SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Adopt a resolution accepting a landowners' offer to sell a conservation easement STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Davis, Cilimberg, Kamptner AGENDA DATE: Mamh3rd, 200~ ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes/ / BACKGROUND: ACE regulations require each landowner who desires to sell a conservation easement to submit a written offer to the County to sell the easement for a fixed price, determined by an appraisal and subject to an adjustment based on adjusted gross income. Said easement is also subject to the terms and conditions containec in a proposed deed of easement negotiated by the parties. The regulations also require that, if the Board accepts Ihe offer, it must do so in writing and only after an action by the Board authonzing acceptance. The Board is not required to accept an offer to sell a conservation easement. Either the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority ("PRFA") or the Virginia Outdoors Foundation ("VOF") may be co-holders of the easements. Regulations also require the ACE Committee to recommend which parcels, from an initial pool of applicants, the board should invite to submit offers to sell conservation easements on In the event a higher ranked applicant(s) drops out of this initial pool, the Committee may slide down the ranking list and substitute another parcel(s) that is lower ranked provided it is still eligible. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 2.1 - "Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character". Goal: 2,2 - "Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources". DISCUSSION: At its December 3% 2003 meeting, the Board of Supemsors accepted offers to sell conservation easements on the Swanson. Crawford and Kindrick properties. On February 11t~, 2004, the Board of Supervisors accepted an offer to sell a conservation easement on the Henley Forest, Inc. property. All four (4) landowners are applicants from the 2002-03 application pool. On January February 16th, 2004. the County received an offer to sell a conservation easement from Philip Marshall, who owns tl~e following property consisting of two (2) individual tax parcels: Owner Tax Map-Parcel Number Price Co-holder Marshall TM 36, Parcel 19 91.651 acres $61.000 PRFA Marshall. TM 36, Parcel 19B 29.565 acres PRF^ Total 121.216 acres in the coming weeks, the County may receive an offer to sell a conservation easement on one additional property from the 2002-03 applicant pool - the Mehring Family Partnership. This is the last applicant from the 2002-03 applicant pool. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board adopt the attached resolution accepting the landowners' offer [o sell a conservation easement to the County, for the price specified and subject to the terms and conditions contained n the proposed deed of easement and authorize the County Executive to sign the final deed of easemen[ for the property. 04.026 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER TO SELL A CONSERVATION EASEMENT UNDER THE ACE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the County has received an offer to sell a conservation easement under the ACE Program from the owner of the following properties: Tax Map 36, Parcel 19 (Mamhall Property) Tax Map 36, Parcel 19B (Marshall Property) WHEREAS. the owner offered to sell a conservation easement on the respective properties to the County for a fixed purchase price, subject to terms and conditions set forth in the proposed deed of easement enclosed with the County's invitation to offer to sell: subject to any further revisions deemed necessary by the County Attomey and agreed to by the owner. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts the offer to sell a conservation easement described above, and authorizes the County Executive to execute all documents necessary for completing the acquisitions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the County Attorney to send copies of this resolution to the owner of the properties identified herein, or their contact persons. 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 six to zero, as recorded below, at a meeting held on March 3, 2004. Aye Mr. Bowerman X Mr. Boyd X Mr. Dorrier X Mr. Rooker X Ms. Thomas X Mr. Wyant X Nay Cler'kT'E-'~ard~f County Sup~rvis(~ PHILIP A. SHUCET COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLO~[ESVILLE. VA 22911 February 10, 2003 JAMES L BRYAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Project0631-002-128,C502. B612, B657 Meadow Creek Parkway From: Melbourne Road To: Norfolk Southern Railway Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Board of Supervisors 401' Mclnfire Road', CharIo~tesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: Enclosed is letter with the public hearing info that was sent to the property owners along the route of the proposed improvements on the Meadow Creek Parkway. Please provide this information to the Board of Supervisors members prior to the hearing on March 16, 2004. Also enclosed is a copy of the ad that will be in the local papers approximately two weeks prior to the hearing. Sincerely, Gerald G. Utz Contract Administrator TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY/ROUTE 631 ALBEMARLE COUNTY Open house Tuesday, March 16, 2004 5:00 p.m, to 7:00 p.m. Charlottesville High School 1400 Melbourne Road, in Charlottesville, Virginia. 2omc and see prelimL~ary plans for the proposed construction of Meadow Creek P ark~vay/Ronte 631, begjmfing 0.0037 mile (0.006 kin) north o£thc intersection of Melbourne Road to 0.466mile ~0.075 kin) north of the Norfolk Sou~:hern Railroad, in Albemarle Cotmzy~ Find out about tentative construction schedules, propem/impacts and Review the project i~ormafion at the public hearing or at the VDOT Culpeper District office Ioeated at 1601 Orange l~oad, in the Towr 0fCulpeper, telephone, 540-829-7500, or at theVDOT Charlottesville Residency office located at 701 VDOT Way, in the commenity of Shadwell, Virginia, telephone 434-293 -0011. You may also visit us on our Web Site: www. VirginiaD OT.o~g Give your written or verbal comments at the hearing or submit them. by March 26, 2004, to Mr. James Bxya~, at the Charlottesville Residency Office, 701 VDOT Way, Charlottesville, V~ 2291 i. VDOT ensures nondiscrimination in all programs and activities in accordance with Tiff, V1 of the Civil Rights Act o£ 1964. For special assistance or information call 434-293-0011 or TDD: 711. Virginia Department of Transportatien Project: 0631-002-128, C-502, B-612. B-657 ~WeKeep . ~rginia Moving· PHILIP A. SHUCET COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 70~ VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 February l0, 2004 JAMESL. BRYAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Public Hearing Project0631-002-128,C502, B612, B657 Meadow Creek Parkway From: Melbourne Road To: Norfolk Southern Railway Dear Property Owner: The Virginia Department of Transportation has scheduled a Design PubY~c Heating for proposed improvements to Route 631 (Meadow Creek Parkway) as described above. The he~ring is scheduled on March [6, 2004 between the hours of 5:00 p.m and 7:00 p.m. at Charlottesville High School located at 1400 Melbourne Road in Charlottesville, Virginia. Plans for the proposed project and other related information will be available at the hearing. This will be an open forum hearing with VDOT representatives available to answer questions you may have concerning the proposed improvement and to record any commems you may have. Yours Truly, Gerald G. Utz Contract Administrator TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY FAX (434) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Depadrnent of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road Room 227 Charlottesville. V~rginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (434'~ 296-5832 TTD (434) 972-4012 February 12, 2004 Michele Sheffield Roy Wheeler Realty 2643 Lindsay Road Gordonsville, VA 22942 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax Map 85, Parcel 35 (Property of Buck A. Clark) Section 10.3.1 Dear Ms. Sheffield: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorneys advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 85, Parcel 35 is comprised of two separate parcels. Each of these parcels contains one (1) theoretical development right. The location and size of these parcels must be determined by a survey. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows: Our records indicate Tax Map 85, Parcel 35 contains 3.570 acres and one dwelling. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 2399, page 577. The most recent deed for this parcel recorded prior to the adoption of the ordinance, December 10, 1980 is recorded in deed recorded in Deed Book 260, page 445 and dated June 21, 1944. This deed conveyed two parcels from Lacy E. Pugh and Nellie Pugh to Sophie Truslow. The parcels are described as follows: "All that certain lot or parcel of land lying in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, near Batesville, containing 2.17 acres according to survey of Hugh F. Simms made in July 1920. the metes and bounds of which are set forth in a deed dated September 8, 1920, of record in Deed Book 184, page 106, from John J. Stout to Lacy E. Pugh; also, that certain other lot or parcel of land supposed to contain 1.4 acres, located about one mile from the village of Batesville on the N.E. side of the Scottsville Turnpike and known as the Thacker lot and being fn all respects the same as that conveyed to L.E. Pugh by deed of December 10, 1918, of record in Deed Book 176, page 29." On the basis of this deed, Tax Map 85, Parcel 35 is determined to be comprised of two separate lots of record as described above. Deed Book 2399, page 577, dated March 6, 2003 conveyed two parcels from the heirs of Sophie Truslow to Buck A, Clark. The property is describee in part, as containing in the aggregate 3.57 acres, more or less, comprised of (1) a parcel containing 2.17 acres and (2) a contiguous parcel supposed to contain 1.4 acres, known as the Thacker lot; BEING the same I:\DEPT~BCZS\Determ~n of Parcert85-35 Clark.doc Michele Sheffield Februa~ 12,2004 Page 2 property conveyed to Sophie Truslow by the deed of Lacy E. Pugh and Nellie Pugh dated June 21, 1944 and of record in Deed Book 260, page 445. There have been no off-conveyances since this transaction. Based on this deed, Tax Map 85, Parcel 35 is determined to be comprised of two separate lots of record; one containing 2.17 acres and the other containing 1.4 acres. Each of these lots contains one (1) development right. These parcels are entitled to the noted development rights only if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots allowed to be created by right. The location and area of these parcels has not been determined. County real estate records contain a sketch of the 2.17-acre parcel, based on the metes and bounds description recorded in Deed Book 184 on page 106. However, no plat or description for the Thacker lot was discovered. Also, there are notes in the real estate records that indicate the Thacker lot was taken for the right of way of Route 691. It is assumed that the Thacker lot is or was located to the south of the 2.17-acre lot and adjacent to Parcel 36. The resolution of this matter will require a survey. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final anC unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Manager of Zoning Administration Copies: Buck A. Clark P.O. Box 372 Crozet, VA 22932 Carver, Real Estate Department l:~DE~ZS~Determin of Parcel\85-35 Clark.doc © © ? ~ o z ~ 0 Z n 0 0 0 ,,, ~ o 0 o Z m © O~ I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Developmem 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 14341 296 - 5823 Ext.3336 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Juandiego Wade Julie Mahon February 26, 2004 Blenheim Road - 795 Historic Resources Review The African-American cemetery located in the Blenheim Road area has not been previously surveyed by the Department of Historic Resources (DHR) nor evaluated for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Preliminary research conducted by this department has revealed the following: 1. The earliest legible date recorded on the grave markers located in the cemetery is 1879 CE, which indicates the site to be historic according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for evaluation. Fifty years or older is defined as "historic." 2. The cemetery has been associated with the Middle Oak Baptist Church [DHR #002-1161), which has been surveyed by the Department of historic Resources, but not evaluated for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 3. The inscription on the grave marker of Katherine Lewis, "A Memorial of Affection and Appreciation...Redlands 1840 -Blenheim 1928...Faithful Unto Death;" indicates a connection-- possibly a former slave~to Redlands, a Carter family plantation established ca. 1792. and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 4. Fieldstones used as grave markers, several of which are located in this cemetery, reflect a rural burial tradition typical of 18t~ and 19th century Central Virginia, often used to identify the graves of slaves. Consequently, there may be a link between this cemetery and Redlands and to the history of the Afi:ican- American community of the Blenheim area, which suggests possible historical significance at least on the local level. To be eligible for the National Register, a cemetery or burial place must be shown to be significant under one or more of the four basic Criteria for Evaluation. In other words, the cemetery must be associated ~vith (A) a significant event, (B) the lives of persons significant in our past, (C) be reflective of distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work ora master, and/or (D) has yielded or has the potential to yield information imporram to prehistory or history. Also the cemetery must meet special Criteria Considerations linking the site to a broader historical context. Without further investigation, it is impossible to determine whether this cemetery would meet the stringent requirements for listing on the National Register; however, local significance and ties to the existing African-American community of the Blenheim area should also be taken into consideration. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Six Year Secondary Road Plan Priority List- 2004-2010 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Worksession on the Six Year Secondary Road Plan for 2004- 2010 and County's Priority List for Road Improvements STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs.,Tucker, Foley. Cilimberg,Benish,Wade AGENDA DATE: Mamh 3, 2004 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes {~~~ / / BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the Six Year Secondary Road Plan Priority List- 2004-2010 on February 11,2004. The Board requested staff to gather additional information regarding Heards Mountain Road (Rt. 633), Gilbert Station Road (Rt. 640), and Blenheim Road (Rt. 795). STRATEGIC PLAN: 3.1 Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play. 3.3 Develop and implement policies that address the County's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County. DISCUSSION: Heards Mountain Road (Rt. 633)- Heards Mountain Road is a proposed paving project. It is currently paved from Rt. 29 to 1.35 miles west of Rt. 29. The paving request in the Draft Six Year Secondary Road Plan is from 1.35 west of Rt. 29 to the Nelson County line, a distance of approximately 3 miles. VDOT has reevaluated this project and determined that it is not eligible for the rural rustic road program (RRRP) VDOT reached this determination due to the steep terrain east of Route 634. This project will have to be done as a regular paving project and VDOT preliminarily estimates it could cost over $1,000,000. The project was originally listed to be paved from the Nelson County line to Rt. 634 (Heards Village), but the project had to be expanded because a paving project must connect to another paved section of roadway. Route 634 is unpaved and Route 633 is unpaved in Nelson County. Hence, the project was expanded from Route 634 to 1.35 miles west of Rt. 29 (where it is paved to Route 29). This project had been scheduled to be the first pilot rural rustic road project in the County. Staff will now focus on Beam Road (Rt. 769) Ihis summer or fall for the pilot program. Gilbert Station Road [Rt. 640) - The Board of Superv~sore requested staff to review additional information on the length of time this project has been on the Pdority List as a paving project. Gilbed: Station Road has three different sections for paving on the Priority List. According to County's files, the following is when sections of Gilbert Station Road first appeared on the County's Pdority List: From Rt. 784 to Rt. 20 = 1994 From Rt. 641 to Rt. 747= 1996 From Rt, 747 to Rt. 784 = 2003 AGENDA TITLE: Six Year Secondary Road Plan Pdority List-2004-2010 Page 2 VDOT did not have records (petitions and/or dght of way agreements) for any section of Gilbert Station Road. Doc{ore Crossing Road (Rt. 784) first appeared on the Pdority List in 1994. Staff did locate one section of Route 640 that was placed on the Priority List in 1982. This section is from Rt. 20 to one (1) mile east of Rt. 20. This section was completed in October 1986. Staff also researehed the paving projects above Gilbert Station Road (from Rt. 641 to Rt. 747) on the County's Priority List. There are two projects above this section of Gilbert Station Road; Mountain Vista Road (Rt. 737) and Secretary's Read (Rt. 708), both of which first appeared in 1990. The County does not base read priorities on the length of time a project has been on the Prior'~ List, but on the criteria set forth by the Board of Supervisom. However, once a project is placed on the VDOT SixYear Construction Plan, these projects remain the high priority projects unifi completed. Typically, new projectswill not move ahead of the projects on the VDOT Six Year Construction Plan. unless the existing projects cannot be completed. Blenheim Road (Rt. 795) - Staff investigated the historical significance of the cemetery on Rt. 795 and if there were alternatives to paving that could be utilized on this section of roadway. Cemetery: Staff determined there is an AfricamAmerican cemetery located in the Blenheim Road area that had not been previously surveyed by the Department of Historic Resources (DHR) nor evaluated for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Please find attached the preliminary researeh conducted by the Planning Department. Paving Alternative: Jim Bryan will be present at the meeting to discuss alternatives to paving. Local VDOT representatives visited the read binding pilot pregram in Loudon County. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the Six Year Secondary Road Plan Priority List- 2004-2010 after consideration of the above items. Attachments Count~ Draft Six Year Secondary Road Pdority Ust Memo on Historical Significance of Cemetery 2004-2010 04.031 Road_S~tabilization Page 1 of 1 ~ ;gt Louc~om~ Court,t, Yt .. j_ .~ AB'CDEF;Hm/ httn://matrix, vtrc.virvinia, e&~/698/ 2/20/2004 l,LI 0 LU 2,'-o o ffi a. --I m 0 [[ [[ [[ 8 u :5; o ]] Route 640 - Gilbert Station Road March 3, 2004 My name is Nancy Dresner. I spoke at the last Supervisor's road planning meeting on February 11th, and presented the Board with a history covering our attempts to get Route 640 paved. On Monday, when I read the Executive Summary for today's Board of Supervisors meeting, I was stunned to see that the Board's stated history for paving 640 was incorrect. The Board's researcher only checked the VDOT 6 year plan records that he had going back to 1982. The Board of Supervisors cannot make the fight decision regarding paving 640 without considering the evidence I am presenting today. I have supplied every member of the Board with an information packet containing clear proof that Route 640 was on the 6 year plan in March 1977 -- 27 years ago. Supervisor Minutes Book 15 contains the first piece of evidence. The 6 year road planning meeting was held on March 16, 1977. The first part of the road plan contains 9 road items for which allocations were made for the 1977-78 year. All of these road items have been completed. The second part of the report contains the rest of the 6 year plan. There are only 13 road items on that list. Route 640 l~om Route 20 Northwest is one of those 13 items on the 6 year plan. Following is the description for 640 in the 6 year plan: "Route 640 from Route 20 northwest is a gravel road which has a traffic count of 160 vehicles per day. This is the fifth highest volume non-hard-surfaced carder in the County." 11 of those 13 road items have been completed. Routes 640 and 712 have not been completed. It is likely that part ofthe Route 712 project was completed because bridge work was part of the project. 20 out of the 22 projects on the 6 year road plan were completed. Nothing was done on Route 640. In the following year, the 6 year road planning meeting was held on January 18, 1978. Route 640 is again on the 6 year plato In Minute Book t 6 the following description is very specific: "Route 640 from Route 20 to Route 784 - This project involves the widening and hard surfacing of an existing gravel road. The work wffi be undertaken by State Forces. The traffic count on this route is 160 vehicles per day and it is the 6t~ highest volume gravel road in the county. Estimated cost $246,000." In November of 1978 (the same year) I found a reference regarding State Fome projects ~ofwhich 640 was one). It says: RECEIVED AT BOS MEET!~iG gsenda ~tem #: ~ ... "the State Force projects not already financed be deferred ~o later in the 6 year plan." In that same meeting, Mr. Dottier disagreed with the path being set for the rural areas. The minutes of the meeting state: "Mr. Dorrier said he felt the rural areas will be left out in the dark next year with no paving projects. He did not feel the rural people are getting their fair share of the funds now and to get even less would be a mistake." Of the 22 roads which were on the 1977 road plato 20 of those projects have been completed. Route 640 has been deferred for 27 years. Tiffs is not a case where you would be bumping 640 ahead of other roads on the 6 year plarL You would be recognizing our historic position in line. At the last public mad meeting on February 11, an estimated 125 people appeared to show their support for paving 640 bemuse of serious safety issues. 191 petitions were presented. The support for paving 640 was universal. Nobody spoke against paving. The good news for everyone is that Chuck Proctor at VDOT has reviewed 640 and considers it to be appropriate for Rustic Rural Road paving. Mr. Proctor has stated that it is not necessary to get additional rights of way from all the people on the road. He also estimated the cost of paving the 2.1 mile section of Route 640 from Route 20 to Route 784 to be $200,000. This is a modest allocation given the current VDOT budget and allocations for other roads. We request that you make 640 your pilot Rustic Rural Road project. Nancy Dresner 3883 Brocks Mill Road Barboursvitle, VA 22923 (434) 974-9590 email: dedresner~aol.com March 23, 1977 (Adjourned from Marsh~ld, 1977 The Daily Progress on March 9 ahd March 16, 1977.) After Mr. Fisher had made his opening remarks, he introduced. Mr. D, S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, who in turn introduces the Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, Mr. Bryan )churn. Mr. Roosevelt read portions of Virginia Code Section 33.1-70 which se~s out the procedure for holding the annual highway hearing. Re noted that the Board must make written recommendations to the Highway Depar~men~ on expenditure of funds for work in the County. Mr. Roosevelt said he had recommendations ;o make for the 19Y7-78 year, based on the following four classifications: 1)Hard-surface roads of inadequase width, strength or alignment ~or the Traffic volume served; Non hard-surfaced roads of inadequate, width; strength or alignmen5 with a traffic count of ~ver 50 vehicle trips per day. 3)Non hard-surfaced roads of inadquase s~rength with traffic counts under 50 vehicle trips per day; end u~ Bridges of less than standard width or capacity. Mr. Roosevelt said 1973 was the last yea~ in which a thorough survey was made of Beeond~ System needs in Albemarle County. It was determined that ~19 miles of the 717 miles of Secondary System rbads which fall in the above four categories are in need of improvemen5 There are also 185 bridges that need improvements. Ln 1973 it was estimated that these needed improvements would cos~ $57,000,000. This coming year the County will be allocated about $2,00~,000 For the Secondary Sy$sem. Of that total, $1~000,00£ will be needed for maintenance, leaving about $900,000 fop improvements. Therefore,,priorities for work mus~ be se~. The Deparsmen~ gives priority to high volume hard-surfaced roads and .non- ha~d-surfa~ .cads with a coun~ of 50 vehicle trips per day. Emphasis is also given ~o improvemen5 of bridges. For low-volume hard-surfaced roads, they intent to use traffic signing and pavement markings ~o make these roads safer until money is available for improvemenms. Roads with a courts under 50 vehicle~trips per day will be ssrengthened with additional stone which is basically maintenanc.e. There are no low-volume hard-surfaced roads or low-volume non- bard-surfaced roads in the ~lan to be presented, Mr. Roosevelt then ~ecbfinuended allocatJohs be made in the next fiscai year as follows: ' 1).~- Route 631 North ,Rio Road) from the Southern Railway Tracts to the City limits; a length of about one mile This would a~locate f~nds for preliminary engineering on the project. This'road has a vehicle count of 3,~00 per day and is the third highest volume road in the Secondary System in Albemarle¥/ County. 2) Route-7~3 (Hydraulic Road) From Route 29 North ~o ~/10th of a mi~e wess of Route 631. A length of 2.25 miles, The allo~ation this year will fund the project adequately so construction'can be started. It is expected to be advertised in mid'-summer of 1978 The road will be four-lanes with ~'--~,/ curb and gutter and is 5o follow the existing roadway, anticipated that construction will begin this year, however, no rights of way have been obtained. 4) Route 665 between Free Union and Earlysville. This pro~eet is at the intersection of Route 667 and is a bridge replacement over Buck Mountain Creek. With previous allocations and funds from the district bridge fund, ~t is ~nticipated that ~-/ the ~rojec~ will be advertised later this year. 5) Route 6~ off of Route 29 South. This proJec~ is from one and one-half miles east of Route 29 So~th 5o two and one- ~alf miles west of Route 29 South. This allocation will fund a continuation of an improvement project on Route 633 which wilt eventually end at Route 712. This work will be' undertaken by State Porces and depends on right of way bging donated. The traffic count is 57 vehicle trips per day. The road will be taken from non~ha~d~su~fac~dtto hard-surfaced. 6) Route 601 from Route 81C to Mission Home az the Greene County line. This allocation will supplement funds already allocated in the current year's budget. The road will be hard-surfaced and a bridge whic~ is presently rated seven tons will be brought to s~andard. The vehicle count is 79 vehicles per day. 7) Route 643 from one-half mile ecs5 of Route 29 5o one and three-tenths miles easy of Route 29 South. This allocation supplements Frevious allocations for a project which will be . completed by State ~orces and is dependent on donated rights of way, This ro~d carries 200 vehicles per day and Ls the third highes~ ~on-surface road in the County. 8) Route 708 from Route 62~ ~o Route 795. This allocation supplements a previous allocation in the current year's budge5. The ~roje~t will De completed by State Forces and is dependent on donated rights of way. This road carries 67 vehicles per day. March 23, 1977 (Adjourned from March 16, 9) Route 636, a bridge over Mechum River. This allocation will finance the upgrading of the bridge from irs present rate of seven tons. Traffic ~ount is 92 vehicles per day. The additional allocation will be made to a counTy-wide fund for installation of new pipes, signs, seeding and preliminary engineering on the projeex co which allocations have not been made, plus allosations to the rural additional fund for upgrading of roads which meet the viewer laws. Mr. Roosevelt said the ~ctal of the above projects is ab'out $900,000, Dr. Iachetta asked if construction on Hydraulic Road is anticipated to begin in ~978. Mr. Roosevelt said ~he Deparsmen5 is surrently working toward an advertising date of June, 1978. However, a public hearing has not been held and the coma~enss received during that hearing will determin~ how soon rights of way san be obtained and what line the read wil2 follow. It is hoped the public hearing can be held by July, 1977. Mr. Perrier asked how many of the roads recommended for the 1977~78 year will be hard- sufaeed. Mr. Roosevelt said four Mr. Henley said some of the persons presen~ might have quesvions which would be answered if they knew the six-year plan for improYemen~s Mr. Roosevelt said the items in the plan are based pr{m'arily on traffic counts since it is felt that the roads,with the highesv traffic counts are more ~eserving of im~rovemenss Both Rio Road and Hydraulic goad appear in the six-year plan. The non- hard-surface roads appearlng in the plan are the ones based on traffic counvs taken last summer. Mr. Roosevelt then 'listed the following items: Route 601, the road from Charlottesville TO Free Unio~ goes allocated to that project, but it is felt that this project ~-~0~/ san be deferred until additional funds are allocated in some future year because of a slow-down in planned development. / ~ 2) ~mprov~ railroad signals on Route 731 in Keswick and Route 632 sodth of' Covesville. V.~' 3) Route 660. bridge. There is a 26[ foot long truss span on this road which goes ~o Earlysvills. Rio Road (Route 631 . There will be an allocation in nex~ year's budge~ for this proJecv which will hopefully Follow a new alig~ment so as to bypass the surves. However, even when this projee~ is completed, the bridge known as tbs "Park Street Brid=~e'' will need improvements because of the amount of local traffic using same. As a separate project, the. bridge will be widened and s~rengthened. ' 5) Rio Road (Route 631) wes~ of Route 29 North around Vd Hydraulic Road (Route v43) , 6] Route 708 from Route 7~0 northward is a non- hard-surfaced road which carries 225 vehicles per day .and is to be hard-surfaced. 7) Route 651 is a non- hard-surfaced road that ~oes across the railroad stacks north of Charlottesville. tt is the highest volume non- hard-surfaced carrier in'~the Couaty with 649 vehiete trips per pay. 8) ~Route 12 from Route 29 South to Route 692. This is the fourtb highest volume nob- hard-surfaced traffic carrier in the county. 9) Route 719 carries ~9 vehicles per day and although no~ among the highest volume non- hard-surfaced carriers in the County, it is one the few roads on which rights ~f way have already been donated. ~10) Route 651 east of the railroad tracks runs through a subdivided area and is a gravelled road which carries 148 vehicles per day. It is presently the teeth highest volume non- hard-surfaced carrier in the County~ 1t) Route 637 (South of 1-64) from the end of the hardsu~face west toward Batesville. This is the eighth highest volume non- hard-surfaced carrier in the County and should be improved as should ~wo bridges which are of a very low capacity. I 12) Route 640 from Route 20 northwes~ is a g~avel road which has a traffic , count of 160 veh%91es per day, This is the fif~ highest volume non- . -, hard-surfaced carrier in the Countyj~__ 13) Route 671, a vruss span ay MillingDon. Thi's bridge had to be closed ea~lier this y.ear because of a collapse. The vehicle count is about ~50 per day. At this time, the public hearin~ was opsned. Route 717 'Sand Road) - Speaking were Mrs. Glenn Carter, Mr. A. P. DeBenedictis, Mr. Walter Waynes, Mr. Alonzo Jones, Mr. Gene Burton, Mr. Rey Barry and Ms, Sharon White. Ail agreed that the road is narrow, thus making it difficult Per cars ~o pass. Such a narrow road is dangerous for school buses~ and the road is extremely rough. Mr. Burton handed the Board a petition signed by 108 persons asking that the road be hard-surfaced. A questio] was raised as tm how the Highway Depar~menv could spend so mush money on small mainter~ance projects for this road, but could no~ use that ~ame money for hard-surfacing~ Mr. Fisher said he would ask Mr. Roosevelt to answer that quession later. Route Y08. Speaking were Ruth and Paul Rober~son and Mr Leslie Jones. Mrs. Robertson asked why the planned improvements saar~ at Carter's Bridge, ~hicb is a much better section, instead of starting a~ Blenheim which is very hazardous. Mr. Roosevelt said in order for April 13, 1977 (Regular-All Day ~eet~ and the Department agrees to accept these roads once they are constructed To s~andards. One section has been completed but needs final ins~ection. Discussion then followed on the construction of the dam and the road across same. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Schwak has agz~eed ~o investigate the dam, work on the roads built but not in the State System and the submittal of plans for Section 6 for a connection ye the other side of the dam once Section 6 is complete. Mr. Roudabush than suggested the mat~er be deferred to June 8 in order to check the construction of the dam and the status of the roads not in the system Mr. Schwab agreed. Mr. Roosevelt suggested someone on the Couhty Staff work wi~h the highway department and the developer. Mr. Agnor concurred and recommended this be someone from the County Engineer's office. Mr. ~gnor reviewed his recommendation regarding this matter (See Minute Book 15, pages llB-115) of March 23, (Mr. Fisher left at 10:08 A.M. to lay a wreath on behalf of the County on the grave of Thomas Jefferson.) Dr. Iachetta then read a letter into the record from Mr. Tom Bergin, President of the Four Seasons Condominiums Association, urging the Board to take necessary steps to have the Four Seasons Roads accepted into the State System. He felt the Board should take action now to have the roads accepted into bhe system because he felt the County had an obligation ~o.eorrect an error of the past. He than offered motion bo guarantee the necessary $10~000 and than at~emp5 t¢ recover the funds from the receivership. Discussion than followed on the use of revenue sharing Funds for this projec5. Mr. Agnor felt with the federal laws imposed on the use of revenue sharing funds, bhe project would be 5oo complicated for use of these funds~ Dr. Iachetta amended his motion to adopt the following resolution: BE tT BESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $10~000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 1SC.10 for repairs and construction of roads in Four Seasons subdivision. Mrs. David 5hen seconded the foregoing motion and sams carried b~ the following ~eeordad vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Henley: ~YS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Eachetta and Roudabush. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta authorizing the County Attorney to purse whatever legal means are available to recover the amount appropriated uo bring the roads in Four Seasons into the sta~e syssem. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYSL None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. Mb. H~ghway Projee~ Priorities for 1977-78. (A list of these projects was presented to the Board at their meeting of March 2~, 1977.) Mr. Perrier expressed his concern about Route 717 not being included in the six year plan. Mr. Roosevelt said the traffic couno is the criteria for.roads t¢ be included in the plan and Route ?17 carried only 51 to 69 vehicles per 'day, Many other roads in the County carry 100 vehicles or more a day. However, he was willing 5o defer or delay another proJec~ in order to include Route 717 if the Board so desired, After scme diacussion ~n different projects, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta so adc~5 the following resolution: BE I~ RESOLVMD that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Vtrgin~a~ does hereby concum with the following recommendations of the RestdBnt Highway ED~ineer for improvements to be made in the Secondary Sys5em fo~ the year 1977-78: l) Route 631 North Rio Road) from the Southern Railway Tracks ~o the City limits; a length of about one mile. 2)Route ?~3 (Hydraulic Road) from Route 29 north ~o ~/10th of a mile wes~ of Route 631; a length of 2.25 miles. 3) Route 68~ (Mint Springs RoadJ; s length of one mile Route 665 between Free Union and Earlysville~ a~ the intersection of Route 667 and is a bridge replacement over Buck Mountain Creak. Route 633 off of Route 29 South; from one and cna-half miles cas5 of Route 29 South 5o two and one-half miles east of Route 29 South. Route 601 from Route 810 to Mission Home at the Greene County line. Route 6~3 from one-half mile eas~ of Route 29 to one and three-tenths miles east of Route 29 South. 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Route 708 from Route 627 to Route 795. Route 636, a bridge over Mechum River. AND, FURTHER bhat the Board concurs in the recommendations of the Resident April 13~ 1977 (Regular-All Day Meeting) Highway Engineer for the six year plans for Albemarle County which ~ollow: 1) Route 601, the road from Charlottesville to Free Union goes across a long Truss span. 2) Improve railroad signals on Route 731 in Eeswick and Route 632 south of Covesvi!le. 3) Route 660, bridge. There is a 260 foot long truss span on this road which goes to Earlysvitle. 4) Rio Road (Route 631), beginning at the Vo-Tech S~hool to the city limits following the existing aligr~ment. 5) Rio Road (Route 631) west of Route 29 North around ~o Hydraulic Road (Route 743). 6) Route 708 from Route 710. Route 651, goes across the railroad tracks north ~f Charlottesville. 8) Route 712 from Route 29 South to Route 692. 9) Route 10) Route 651, east of the railroad tracks. ll) Route 637 (South of 1-64) from the end of the hard-surface west toward Batesville. 12) Route 640 from Route 20 northwest. 13) Route 67t, a truss span at Millingvon. Mr. Roudabush seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by th~ following recorded. .~otei AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush HAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 4d. Street Signs. Mr. Agnor noted request received from Mrs. Mary Miller for stree~ signs to identify Angus Court. Motion was then offered b~ Mr. Roudabush ~o adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, reques~ has been received for a street sign zo identify the following road: Angus Court (State Route 1426) a~ its intersection with Angus Road (State Route 1425) in Section ~ of Hessian Hills Subdivision; and WHEREAS, a citizen ~as agreed zo purchase this sign through the Office of the County Executive and to conform bo standards set by the State Department of Highways and Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED hy the Board of Supervlsors~ of Albemarle County, Virgini~, that the Virginia Hepar~menv of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street sign. Dr. Iachetts seconded the motion and same carried by the following reaorded vo~e: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Mr. Agnor noted request received from Mre. Jack Hdrzsh for s~reeo smgns ~o identi y roads in Key West ~nd Cedar Hills Subdivision ~6tion was then offered by Hr. Roudabush ~o adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS~ requeso has been received for street signs to identify the following roads in Key West and Cedar Mills Subdivision: Key West Drive (State Route L4~5] a~ its intersection with State Route 816; Key West Drive ~State Route 14~5) at its intersection with Blueberry Road (State Route 1449); Blueberry Road (State Route 1449) a~ its intersection with Juniper Lane State Route 1450)~ Key West Drive (State Route 1445) a~ its intersection with 3eorge Rogers Road (State Route 1446); Key West Drive (State Route 1445) at its intersection with ~orthwest Lane (State Route 1447); Bool<. 1 (o 041 January 18, 1978 Afternoon-Adjourned J~omj~uary 11, 1975) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 18, 1978, beginning at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Boom of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from January 11, 1978. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.~ Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. -- Officer Present: County Executive, Guy B Agner, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called To prder at 3:lA P.M. by the Chairman, M~. Fisher, who announced that he had received from the Virginia Electric and Power Company a notification of application and certifisatiom for approval o2 rebuilding the Charlottes¥ill to Remington Transmission Line. This is the first such application under a new law which permits the State Corporation Commission ~o have final approval of the structuresandin which he s~ructur do not have ~o comply with the County Zoning Ordinance regulatiohs. Since the line will go through ~he Rivanna District, the'order was handed ~ Mr. Roudabush for hisinformation. Mr. Fisher also noted receip~ of a copy of the annual repor~ for 1976-77 of the Virginia Depar~men~ of Taxation. This will be on file in the office of the Clerk ~o the Board. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Six-Year Highway Plan. Mr. Dan S Roosevelt, Resi- dent Highway Engineer, was presen%~ Mr. Roosevelt said that under Virginia Code Section 33.t-~0.01, which was adopted in 1977, the Board of Supervisors must meet with a represenva- tire of the Highway Department and prepare a Six-Year Plan for the improvement of the secondary road sys5em in ~he County. This is the subjec[ of this meeting today. Snofficial] the Board adopted such a plan last year and this plan to be discussed today incorporaves some of those projects, plus additional projecis. The plan was prepared as ordered by the Board ~ y the County Planning Office and the Highway Department. Emphasis was placed on high votume hard surfase roads and graveled roads with a traffic count of over 50 vehicle trips per day. A portion of funds also goes for the improvemen5 of brieges. Mr. Roosevelt then )resented the following list which is not in priority order for the Board to review. 1 Route 631 (Rio Road~ from the Southern Railroad tracks tc the North Corporative Limits of Charlottesville. Construct road along a new location. Mr. Roosevelt said a location hearing would be required on thfs projecv before it was begun. Includes a bridge over Meadow Creek. This project is to be tied in hnd con- structed w~h an adjoining section of road within the City of Charlottesville ~o give ~irect access ~o the Route 250 By-Pass. This pro~ecv will be structed by contract forces. The project is being financed For construction 5o begin in 1982 The improvement will be approximately one mile long, Estimated cost $1,200,000. This project is listed in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Houte 601 from 0.1 mile southwest of Route 829 to 0.q mile north of Route 678 - This project is approximately one mile long and will replace an ~xisting 5russ span bridge over'the Meuhum River with a new ~oncrete floor bridge. The new bridge will be a~ a new location and the roadway work will follow approxdmately the existing roadway. This work will be done by ¢on~rac~ forces and should begin construction in 1978. Estimated cost of construction $685,000 w~th ~164,325 from Federal Funds. 3. Route 74~ (Hydraulic Road - from Route 29 to 0.5 mile wes5 of Route 631 - This process is approximately 2 miles long and will involve widening and the installatdon of curb and gutter along the existing alignment. The construction will be done by conirac% and is anticipated ~o begin in 1979. Phis is the higheat volume hard surface road in Albemarle County. Estimated cost of construction $1,600,000. This ~oad is listed for improvemen5 in the County's ~omprehensive Pla~. 4~ Route 684 (Mint Spring's Road) from .2 mile southeast of Route 788 to .8 mi&e northwest of Route ?88 - This project ms approximately one mile long and involves the widening of an existing surface ~reated read. The improvement wilt follow the existing atignmen5 and includesthe replacement and w~dening of two narrow bridges. This work will be done by contract forces and it is estimated -- struution will begin in 1978. Estimated cost of 2onstruction $~80,}0( of which $173,000 has been allocated from Recreational Access Funds. Route 665 - The approaches to and bridge over Buck M¢_~ntain Creek - This pro0ec~ involves the replacement of an existing truss span bridge and the widen~ing of approximately three quarters of a mile of approaches. There will be s~me location of the roadway from its existing alignmen5 This work will be done by contract forces and dt is expected consvruction will begin in 1978. Estimated cos~ ~486,000 with Sl00,0O0 being taken from the District Bridge Fund. 6. Route 601 from Route 810 to the Greene ]ounty line - This projecz is 1.9 miles !png and .inv,!yes ~he widening and hard surfacing of an existing gravel road. An existing bridge along the projec~ will be Widened and strengn~ened. Most of the right-.of way for th~s improvement has been obtained. The ~raffi~ count is 76 vehicles per day which makes it number 41 on the list of gravel roads in the ~ounty. Estimated eos~ of' constructibn 7. Route 708 from Route 827 ~o Route ~95 - Two-thirds of this improvemen~ has been completed. Ap~roximately one mile of roadway remains ~¢ be widened a~d hard surfaced. Right of way is being obtained on this section au this time. This proJec~ will be constructed by State Forces. The traffic count on this rumne is 67 vehicles per day which makes it number 61 on the list of gravel sections. Estimated cos~ of construction $275,000. January 18, 1978 (Afternoon-Adjourned from January 1t, 1978) 8. Route 731 au the C & £ Railroad - This proje¢~ involves the installation of flashers and gates bE railroad forces at the railroad crossing. Estimated cost $40,000, 9. Route 632 at the C & 0 Railroad - 1.4 miles south of Route 29 - This project involves the installation of a flashing signal and gates au the. railroad cross- ing. This work is to be lone by railroad forces. Estimated cost $40,000. 10 Route 633 - approaches to and bridge over the Hardware River - This projecv involves improvement only in the vicinity, of the river crossing, A bridge is anticipated to go on a new alignment and will be conwbructed by State Forces. The traffic count through this improvement is 57 vehicles per day. Additional right of way for this improvement will be necessary. Estimated cost of construction $70,000. Mr. Roosevelt ~aid this project was included several years ago, but there were right of way problems and the Board had dropped this project and transferred the funds to another project. However, the bridge improvement was set up ~s a Federal Safe~y Improvement and he felt the project should s5ay in the Six-Fear Plan for that reason. If for some unforeseen reason the Highway Department is ~nable to obtain the right of way for the bridge, then the project will be dropped. 11. Route 660 from Route 1530 to Route 662 - This prcjec~ involves the widening and relocation of the bridge and approaches over the Rivanna River. The bridge to be replaced is a 250 foot long truss span. This project will be undertaken by contrac~ forces and it is anticipated work will begin in 1982, District Bridge funds in the amounv of $100,]0£ are anticipated for this project Total cos5 of construction $62[,000. 12. Route 631 Rio Road) - approaches and bridge over Meadow ]reek - This work in- volves the replacement of the Park Street bridge. This work will be undertaken by oontract forces. Preliminary engineering is not sufficiently advanced 5o determine the ]Dcation of the new structure or the approaches. The projec~ is expected be less than a quarter of a mile long. The work will be done by contract forces with advertisement scheduled for 1980 or 81. Total cost $255,000. This project is listed in the County's Comprehensive 13. Route 631 'Rio Road from Route 29 zo Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) - This project involves the widening of this road along its existing alignment. It is antici- pated that the improvement will involve curb and gu~zer The work wilt be under- taken by contract forces and should be advertised in ~983. Estimated'cost $900,000, This section will complete the loop from Hydraulic Road at 29 around ~o Rio Road a5 29. This project is listed in the County's Comprehensive Plan. 14 Route 708 from Route 710 to 1.3 miles north of Route 710 - This work involves the widening and hard surfacing of an existing gravel road. This work will be undertaken by State Forces~ Some right of way is available along this route; however, additional right of way is necessary. The traffic count on this road is 225 vehicles per ~ay and it is the second highesv volume gravel road in the counEy. Estimated cos~ $154,000. 15. Route 651 'Eree~,State Road) from Route 1428 to a dead-end - This project is approximately a half mile long and involves the replacement of a 200 foot bridge over the Southern Railroad tracks. The bridge work will be done by ~on~rac~ and is tentatively scheduled for ~onstructio~ mn 1980. The roadway work will be done by State For~es and will involve the widening along the existing alignmen5 and hard surfacing. This road currently carries 649 vehicles per day and is the highest volume gravel road in the 8ounty. Estimated cost $315,000. 16. Route 712 ~rom Route 29 to Route 692 - This improvement involves the widening and hard surfacing of an existing gravel road and the replacement and strengthen- ing of a brid~e. This work will be undertaken by State Forces. The.vraffic couDt on this road is 198 vehicles per day and it is the fourth highest volume gravel road in the county. Estimated cost $147,000. 17. Route 719 from Route 715 vo Route 716 - ~is project involves the widening and hard surfacing of an existing gravel road. This work will be undertaken by State Forces. The roadway carries 89 vehicles per day and is number~2~-highest volume gravel road in the county. Right of way for this improvement has already been donated. This is the only link between Esmont and Route 29 at Crossroads which is no5 paved. Therefore, the ~ustification for this item being included. Estimated cos~ $107,]00. 18. Route 651 from Route 631 5o Route 1428 - This route has been included in the plan, but it is already financed for construction, No additional financing for this projec~ is anticipated. Mr. Roosevelt noted that this prooect had been included by error since no further financing is needed. 19. Route 637 from Route 682 to Route 689 - This project involves the widening of an existing gravel road along its existing alignment. The roadway will be hard sur- faced and two bridges within the project limits will be widened and strengthened. This work will be undertake~ with State Forces. The traffic count o~ this route is 14( vehicles per day and'it is the number 14 section in the county. Mr. Roosevelt noted that this is the extension of the Ivy landfill ~oad passed the landfill for about 1.6 miles. Estimated lost ~244,000. 20. Route 640 from Route 20 to Route 784 - This project involves the widening and hard surfacing or an exrstmng gravel road. The work will be undertaken by State Forces. The traffic 3oun5 }n ~his rouse is 160 vehicles per day and it is the sixth highest volume gravel road in the county. Estimated cosy $246,000. January 18, 1978 (Afternoon-Adjourned from~uary 11, 1978) 21. Route 67t - the bridge and approaches over the Moorman's River - This projecv involves the replacement of an existing truss span bridge and the relocation of the immediave approaches. The work will be undertaken by contracv~for~es and is currently estimated for construction in 1982. Estimated cos't $4%0,000. 22. Route 600 ay the C & 0 Railroad - This project will install a flashing signal and gates au the C & £ Railroad and will be done by railroad forces. Traffic count 138 vehiote trips per day. Estimated cost $45,000. 23. Route 625 at,'the C & O Railroad - ~his is a flashin~ smgnal and gates project ac be done by railroad Forces. Traffic count ~9 vehicle trips per day. Estimated cos~ $~5,000. 2~ Route ~a at the C & [ Railroad - This is a flashing signal and gates pro, eot ~o be done by railroad forces. Traffic coun~ ~29 vehicle trips per day. Estimated cost 25. Route S02 at the C & 0 Railroad - This is a flashing signal and ga~es project ~o be done by railroad forces. Traffic count 118 -~ehicle trips per day. Estimated cost 26. Route 627 (Warren] a5 the C & 0 Railroad - This is a flashing signal only project to be done by railroad forces. Traffic oount 68 vehicle trips per day. Estimated cos~ $3~,000. 27. Route 642 (Adjacent ~o Red Rill ©uarry at the Southern Railroad - This is a flashing signal only project to be done by railroad forces. Traffic counz 5~ vehicle trips per day. Estimated cos~ $30,000. 28. Route 68R from Route 250~1to Route 688 - This project involves the widening and hard surfacing of an existing gravel road. Phc improvemen~ will be made along the existing roadway alignment and includes the widening and ssreng~hening of a s~rucvure over Stockton Fork.. Right of ~ay for this improvemen~ has already been obtained. This work will be undertaken by State Forces. The traffic count on this rouse is ill vehicles per day and is the 16th highest grave% section in the counvy. Estimated ~os~ $217,000. 29. Route 6~ from 0.5 mile eas~ of Route 29 to 1.3 miles eas~ of Route 29 - This proJec~ involves the widening and hard surfacing of an existing gravel road. Right of way for this improvement is already available. This work will be undertaken by State Forces. The traffic count on this rou~e is 200 ~ahic]es per day and is the third highes~ volume grave2 road in the counoy. Estimated ~osv $141,000. 30. Route 727 from Route 627 to 1.0 mile south of Route 627~- ~his project ~nvolves the widening and hard surTa¢lng of an existing~gravel road, This work wiI] be undertaken by State Forces. Right of way has ~ot ye~ been obtained. The traffic count ia 157 vehicles per day and thistle the 8th highest volume grave% section in ~lbemarle County. Estimated eos~ $1~6,100. Route 64~ (Alrpor~ Road) from Route 29 ye Route 606 - This improvement is .85 of a mile long and is ~lanned as a widening of an existing hard surface road. Improvemen~ will be along the existing alignment. This work will be undertaken by contract ForGes and it is estimated the projee~ will be advertised in 198~. Truffle coun~ 8,890 vehicle trips per day. This is the 8th highest volume hard surface road in the county. Cost of construction $280,000. Route 631 (Stb Street Extended] from Interstate Route 6~ ~o south cT Route ~81 - This improvement will be approximately one mile long and will be constructed along a new alignment. The improvement will be mndertaken by contract forces and estimated t¢ begin construction in 1983. Estimated traffic count ~,C00 vehicle trips per da~. Cost of construstion $805,000. This project is listed in the Comprebensive Plan and is included mainly tc ge~ rid of a hairpin curve. Route 6~ from 1.3 miles east of Route 29 ~o Reuse 649 - This project involves the widening and hard surfacing of an existing gravel road. this work will be done by State Forces. The traffic count on thile route is 200 vehicles Der day and it is the third highest volume gravel section in the 'county, Estimated cost of construction $140,000 34. Route 6~0 from Route 6~1 to Route 747 - This pro0ec~ involves the widening and hard.s tracing of an existing gravel road. The improvement will be made by State crees. The traffic count on this road is 158 vehicles per day, which is the 7th highest volume gravel roan in the county. Estimated cost $85,000. 35. Route 656 (Georgetown Road) from Route 743 (Hydraulic Road' ~o Route 65~ (Barracks Road) - This improvement involves the widening of an existing hard surface road. The pro~ec~ will probably include the construction of curb and gutter. This project will be undertaken by aontract forces and will begin construction · sometime after 198~. Traffic count about 8,800 vehicle trips per day. It is the 5th highes5 volume hard surface road in the county. ~ncluded.in this Six- Year Plan are only enough funds t¢ begin preliminary engineering. Estimated cost of construction $550,000. This projecv is listed in the County's ~om~re- hensive Plan. Route 637 from Route 250 ~o Route 6~ - This wor~ involves the improvemen5 of this roadway along a new alignment. The improvement will be'done by contract forces and is currently scheduled for sometime after 1985. Estimated cos~ of aonstruction $638,000. January 18, 1978 (Afternoon-Adjourned from January 11~ 1978) Roosevelt also listed for the Board the following County-wide items: New ~lant mix involves allocations for plant mix on secondary roads not previously plant ysixed. Application of plant mix should be used for svrengthening or correct- ing roadway cross-sections. The Virginia Department ~f Highways and ~ransportation policy allows a maximum of 5% bf the County's construction allocation to be aside in a lump sum for th±s item. Specific locations for the use of this fund will be determined at the time the budget for the specific year is [repared. Allocated for this purpose over the smx-year period is 2. Rural additions - The Code of Virginia allows s maximum of 2% of the County's secondary allocation tc be used for the improvement of roads which are added to the system under the Rural Addition Policy. In the past~ $20,000 hasb~enaltocated to this item each year. If this money is not used for the improvement of rural additions during the budget year, the fund returns ~o the AIbemarle County Secondary Improvement fund for reallocation the following year. Set aside for this purpose over the six-year period is 2120,000. 3. County wide and unforeseen incidental i~ems - Department policy allows a maximum of 13% of the county's secondary construction allocation to be allocated to county wide traffic services (signs and signals), new pipe installation, preliminary engineering, seeding,and fertil&zing, and for unforeseen incidental construction projecvs. Historically it has taken approximately $30,00[ ~o cover costs of the specific counzy wide items. This would leave the remainder Df this money for the unforeseen incidental items. Departmenz policy does indicate that this money budgeted as alums sum in the Six-Year Plan must be allocated to specific projects at such time as the budget is prepared for each specific year. Allocated for this purpose over the six-year period is $i,110,200. Mr. Dottier asked why improvements to Route 717 were not included in this Six-Year Plan. He said he had sperm many hours trying ~o obtain the necessary rights of way. Mr. Roosevelt said this was because other roads in the County have a higher priority. Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Dorrier continue no obtain the right of ways and d~ some other project,for an unforeseen reason is dropped, Boute 717 would then have a chance of re- placing sucb project. Mr. Lindstrom noted that no improvements were scheduled ~¢ begin on Georpetown Road Route 656) until after 1985. He felt benause of the traffic volume that improvements are heeded much sooner than that. After a short discussion, Mr. Lindstrom ~ffered motion to transfer $60,)0( from the last category (traffic services) vo improvements for Route 656 so that preliminary engineering could begin immediately. The motion was seconded by Mr Roudabush and carried by the Following recorded vo~e: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to advertise for a public hearing on the Six-Year Highway Plan for Rebruary 22, 1978~ at 7:30 P.M. in the 3ourthouse. The motion carried by the folldwing recorded vove: AYES: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Iachetta~ Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. At 5:47 P.M the meeting was adjourned. February 22, 1978 (Adjourned from Februamy 15, 1978) Hr. Gleason then noted that the State Bicentennial Commission had contacted him regard- ing plans for 198] which is the 2OOth anniversary of the victor3 at Yorktowm~ Since Albemarle County and Charlottesville played a major role in this part of history, the State has quested that some planning be done in this area. He asked that the Board peadtlvate a committee on behalf of the eonm~unity. Mr. Fisher requested that Mr. Gleason continua to handle negotiations with the State And when he had an idea of what will be involved then bring a ~eeommendation rc the Board about a committee. Not Docketed: Mr, Fisher reported on several recent visits to Richmond. With representatives of General Electri3 Company To appea~ before the State Highway Con~nission regarding Industrial Access Funds, He said that this ma,%er was referred roa committee which will not meet for another month. That is the reason he had consented to let the General Eteetrle appeal of their site plan be placed on tonight's agenda. Mr. Fisher gave ~ short report on the Michie bills on annexation, at the end of which Iaehetta offered motion To adopt the following mesolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board Df Supervisoms of Alberaarle County, Virginma, hereby urgently requests that the language agreed upon by the Virginia Mtmleipal League and the Vimginia Association of COunties be restored in House Bill and %hat any language ineonslstent with this agmeement be removed from said bill. The fomegoing motion was seconded b~ Mr. Lindstrom and married by the fo]lowing recorded AYES: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley~ Iachetta, Lindstmom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr. Fisher also noted that he had attended a House Appropriations Committee meeting mo discuss a bill ~o provide more deputies to counties which have a high tourist population. He had asked that Albemarle County be included in this bill. Agenda Item No. 2, Public Nearing: Six-Year Highway Plan. Mp, Dan Roosevelt~ Resident Nmgh~ay ~ngmneer~ was present and maGe snomt openmng remarks'~agarding new legislation enacted in tg77 (House Bill 1041) and the purposes of this public hearing. At 8:18 P.M., the public hearing was opened. Bimst mo speak was Barbara Arnold speaking for a mesident of Westover Drive who requested that the last 129 feet of Route 1701 be added ~¢ the State High- way System and made a~ official cul-de-sac. She said this road is being used by public vehicles, school buses, highway trueks~ ere. even though it is not maintained by the Highway D~partment and it is deteriorating from this use. People use pmivate driveways fop turning around. Mr. Fisher said it sounded as though this problem was caused ~y approvals on the Subdivision plat and requested that same be placed on the March 8th agenda imm discussion, A gentleman from ~nnisfee Village presented the following letter for the record: "Innisfee is a con, hungry of fifty people ~m the foot of Pasture Fence Mountain nea~ ~hite Hall. The Village is a privately-funded, non-profit facility provid- ing lifetime r~sidential services To mentally-handicapped adults. Our staff, composed of single adults and fa/allies whose children a~rend county schools, ame volunteers who live and work in the village. 0um work activities in the woodshop, weavery~ bakery~ gmeenhouse~ and gardens~ not only pmovide meaningful work but also help us tows~d grreater economic stability. Our baked good~ are detivemed sevemal times a week to retail outlets and mes~aurants in the city and county. We are hems tonight to request improvements on Route 668 which connects Innisfree and sevemal other farms and mesidenees ~o the hard surface of Route 810. 888 is a dimt road, which for some stretches, partieulamly the first rise fmom 810 ms very rough and deteriorated. The Highway Department is very diligent about grading and maintaining this moad~ but its very nature, and the extent of runoff which continually eu~s the roadbed: have convinced us that the only real solution would be a hard surface at least for the first: vemv r~ stretch. The recent bad ~eather has emphasized how dangerous such a road servl~ can he ~o~3Dined with ice or mud. We don~t expeo~ ~o have the ice much longer, but we are looking toward a difficult spring with the road already Putted up mo the a~les of our cams. Often this wlnte~ we have had mo use our own equipment ro clear the roads for emergency access and exit~ because of the namure of Bmr potulatlon~ it is important that we always be sure of being able ~o gar ou~ and for emergency ~ehieles ~o be able mo get ~o us. Even in the best of times we have frequent medical ~nd bakery obliga- tions, there are three school busses which use the road~ and because we are an alternative therapeutic model~ we have frequent visitors fmom the University and from facilities all over the country. The fifteen licensed vehicles associated with Innisfree take s real beating from the road, and the high maintenance ~osrs due ro the rough conditions would be better applied To more diree~ human needs. We mealize the many priorities which must be answered in such decisions, but as ~um own community has grown so much in the last six years: we do 5o~ look forward ~o another six without some real impmovemenr in the roads which lead to and from Innisfree.- Mr, Herb HakimS: a resident at 2115 Hydraulic Road: asked if the prope~y owners will be ~ble to see plans before the improvement ro this road takes place. ~r. Roosevelt said there should be a design hearing held in the Spring. With no one else rising ~o speak, a~ 8:~0 P.M. the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fishel asked about Route 668. Mr Roosevelt said it ranks 35th on the gravel road improvements list. ~9:t BoOK l O F~bruary 22~ 1978 (Ad~our~ed from ~ebruary 15, 1978) Ra estimate~ that hard-surfacing the first section of this road would cost $200,000. Me ~ recommended that the six-year plan as presented tonight be adopted with the understanding tha~ money for an improvement such as this will be taken from that money allocated for "unforesean~ Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier t¢ adopt the Six-Year Highway Plan as presented l_~. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carmied by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dormier, Fisher: Henley: Iaehetta: Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. At 8:q5 P.M. the Board recessed and reconvened at 8:55 P.M. Agenda Item 2a. General Electrie's Site,Plan. Mr Fred Lan~ess, was present To represen G.E. Ne said because the State Highway Commission did not act and there will not be a repom back 5o that Co~mission until next month, it pu~s General Electmie in a sepious time bind They have re-negotiated their grading conmrac~ and it is Ten percent highe~ than it was in December. He felt the Board should talk abou~ what would be done if Industrial Access Funds are not granted for the upgrading of Route 606 ~nd Route U68. Me suggested three ways ro handle this situation: 1. There ms s provision in State Code which p~ovides that a County can pum up Revenue Sharing Funds and the Highway Deparrmen~ would then have ~o ~atch those funds. The highway funds are not chamged against Secondary Road funds allotted to the County. 2. General Electric is Willing ~o advance the funds necessary To build the road to required standards. There is a provision in State Code which allows for the prepayment of t~xes. 3. ~enerat Electric has a lot of frontage on Route 29: a road which mee~s all s~andards. An access road could he built ro 29, no% using the secondary road as their princi~ al means of access. However: General Electric does not think this is a good plan: although it i's a way to get out of this dilemma. Mr. Landess said g. E. does have an approved site plan with the condition that the road be improved. Wherever the funds are coming from, it is non at G. E.~s control as to whether the moad will be built this year or at some point in the future. He did not want General Electric put in the position that they cannot get a building permit because whatever is to be done to the road has not been done b~ whoeve~ is going ~o do if He sa~d General Eleetr~ needs to gem started and cannot do this as long as this co~dltion' is on the site plan. Mr. Fisher said the Board wants mo help but the precedent that wodld be set under the first two alternatives would have to be discussed by the Board. Be hoped they would be able mo do this and make a response at the February 2~th meeting. The State ~ighway Commission was interested in urying to ~ork with General Electric, but also in regtrietinE'aeeess ~o 29 South of the General Electric property on ~9: there is a strip of land ths]~ is zoned B-1. At the northern end of that strip is where the General Electric proper~y is located. There is an existing cross-over where these two properties meet. Mr. Fish~ ~aid h~ 'told the Highway Co~nission that when this B-1 property was developed: it would h~ the Board's intention To try and have it developed with a reverse frontage road, using this n~oss-over as primary access rom the enmire strip of land The Commission was impressed withthe fact that the Board is aware of the problems and trying ro ~o something about them. Ne said the Board would try To have some decision by Friday. Agenda Item No Sa. Appropriation. CETA Program. Mr. Agnor noted memo from Ray B. Jones stating February 17: 1978. "This special appropriation is needed as the result of an audit on the CETA Program, Theme was one person employed in the Recreation Department that did no~ qualify because all persons musI be unemployed for four weeks p~ior ~o qualifying. This person missed ~hat time length by one day. The other person was not' receiving health insurance for a period, and the County was erroneously refunded for the premiums. The audit report was rebutted but these two charges were no~. An appropriation of $~,~67.$1 is needed.' Motion was than offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Hr. Lindstrom, mo adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County~ Virginia, that $5:367.51 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to ]-1014 for refund of CETA overpayments. The motion carried by the following recomded vote: AYES: Messrs, Domrier: Fisher, Henley~ [achetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 3b. Appropriation. 2onsultant's-Zoning Ordinance. Mr. ~gnor noted the the consultants on the Comprehensive Plan were awarded a new eontrac~ and there was some ex~r~ work done over and above the origmnal eon~ract on a per diem basis. The contract and ex~ra work amount to approximately $21,SB0. Motion was offered by Hr. Roudabush: seconded by Dr Iachetta: ~o adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County: Virginia, that S21,500 be: and the same hereby is: appropmiated f~om the General Fund and coded To i0E-252 - Contract Professional Services. The motion carried by the following recorded yore: AYES: Messrs. Domrier, Fisher, Henley: Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. RAYS: None. IV Age,da Item No. 11. At 11:20 P.M.~ motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Do,tier, To adjourn th~s meeting ~o November 29, 197~, au 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded Henley AYES: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher,/Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Ndvember 29, 1978 (Adjourned fro~ Nov. 15' An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 29, 1978~ beginning at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Eoom of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from November 15, 1978. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom'and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta. Officers pre,eat: County Executive, Guy G. Agnor, Jr. and Count~ Planner, Robert W. Tuckgr, Jr. Agenda Item No. lo The meeting was called ~o order at 3:10 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Six-year Highway Plan. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, was present. He said this meeting was requested to d~seuss the Highway budget for the ]979-80 fiscal year and the Six-Year Highway ?lam. Cost estimates prepared for the Hydraulic Road (Route 743) public hearing indicated that he had underestimated the cost of this project. Therefore, he had sprained more detailed estimates on projects which are planned for advertise. ment in the near future and found that an additional $1;600,000 will be needed to financ~ these projects. As of this date, it appears that approximately 81,000,000 in financed State Force construction remains to be done. Based upon paso experience, Mr. Roosevelt said his forces can only accomplish about $500,000 worth of work each year. He, therefore, requested that no new State Force work be scheduled for the 1979-80 year. Mr. Roosevelt said a reaen~ review of the Secondary System for resurfacing needs indicate. that there are approximately 13 miles of secondary roads in the County which should be resur- faced using plant mix. The estimated cosz for this work is approximately $4~5~000, which is $360,000 more vnan had been set aside for the fiscal year 1979-80. He then mad~ the following suggestions: - 1. That the con~ra¢~ pro~ec~ schedule be revised ~o finance ~he currens 2. That the State Force projecvs nov already financed be deTerred to later in the Six-Year Plan. 3. That the additional ~esurfacing needs (for the 13 miles of Secondary roads~ be financed in the Fiscal Year 1979-80. Mr. Roosevelt then hande~ out a chart showing possible plant mi~ locations for Secondary System in priority order: the Number Route From To Lensth Traffic Count Cost ~. 676 ~01 2. 614 676 835 1.10 1324 36,600 ~. 601 250 855 .80 2123 18,600 4. ~80 631 Char .53 2354 12,000 5. 601 676w 829 1.?0 1672 70,000 6. 656 743 654 .90 -oo0 20,900 7. 81( 2~0 789 1.00 2922 18,600 8. 663 743 664E 2.05 2443 84,400 9. 708 ' 29 .8 mi E .80 947 18,600 10. 691 2~0 I20q .12 I708 2,500 11. 1~0~ 591 1205 .08 1577 I:900 12. 614 678W 766 2.90 108~ 106 200 13.0U 8) November 15, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) NOW THEREFORE SE tT RESOLVED-that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby requests the Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Litter Control, to consider and approve the application and program for cal- endar year 1979, said program being in accord with Regulations governing use and expendi- ture of said funds. Mr. Agnor recommended adopt ion of the resolution as presented to the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dottier, to adopt the resolution as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 5- K~y West Drive, report on. Mr. Agnor su~arized his memorandum of October 18, 1978, which is set out in the minutes of a meeting held on that date. He recommended that the County engage a contractor to complete the small amount of work remaining on the roads and gev same into the State system before the onset of winter. Mr. Eoudabush said he regretted the action, but did concur with Mr. Agnor's recmmMendazion. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion authorizing the County staff to take whatever action they deem necessary to complete the roads to State standards with the funds available to them Motion was se- conded by Dr. Iachetta'and carried by the following recorded rose: AYES: Messrs, Dottier, Fish,r, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Rouda~msh. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No 6. Approval of Minutes: June 14 and June 21 (night), 1978. Mr. Fisher said he read the minutes of June 14 and noted that only a few vypographicat errors were found; a list of which he presented to the Clerk. Mr. Roudabush said he read the minutes of June 21 and Found no errors. Motion so approve the minutes as presented was effete, by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded bp Dr. ~achetta, and ~arried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetts, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. ?. Appointments: A. Planning District Commission B. Welfare Board. No Board members had any nominations for either con~mittee, and Mr. Fisher suggested this item be carried over ~o the next meeting. Agenda Item No. 9. ~hange public hearing date for proposed Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Agnor requested the Board change the status of the meeting scheduled for November ~0, 197~, from a public hearing on the proposed revised Zoning Ordinance, ~o simply a "presentation". This will not give the impression that action will be taken by the Board thai same night. Motion accepting Mr. Agnor's recormmendation was offered by Dr. tachetta, ~econded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: M~ssrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NA~S: None. Agenda Item NO. 10. Other matters which are nov on the agenda. A. Mr. Ltndstrom said he received comments that none of the Board of Supervisors meetinl places are accessible by wheel chairs. He requested that Mr. Agnor lo. ok into having ~emporary wooden ramps constructed for both the Courthouse and the~ County Office BuildinE. Mr. Fisher recommended that the City of Charlottesville Historical Committee be notified as they must approve any building face changes. B. Mr. Lindstrom said he received a request fro~ the Piedmont Environmental Council for suppor~ of House Bill 997 which will be called the Virginia Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation and is to ensure vhat farming remains a viable industry in the State. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom that'the Board adopt a resolution in support of this legislation; further supporting the concep~ of land use taxation with an increase of percentage charged on roll back ~axes. Motion was seconded,by Dr. Eachetta. Mr. Fisher said this support could' be telephoned to ~he Piedmont Environmen~al Council in time ~or their meeting tomorrow night. Roll was then called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Eenley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAGS: None C. Dr. Iamhetta reported that the Seminole Trail Fire Department has received the plans for the new fire house and is cormmencing a fund drive to offset expenses. D. Mr. Roudabush reported on the Zoning Ordinance Stearin8 0o~mittee meeting held earli, in the day. He said it was ehe consensus that the public has ri'ct been given enough time to review the draft. It was suggested that stummaries and eormments be placed in the margins af th, draft ordinance ~o simplify meanings for the oublic. Mo~t Board members agreed that even they were not completely aware of the details of ~he docmment. Mr. Lindstrom said the public must be made aware that the document being presented is the consultants proposal to the Board, not the Board's proposal to the public. 062 November 29~ 19'78 (Adjourned from November 15, 1978) saying that one particular road had such a glaring problem that it should take precedence over all other projecbs in the County, then everything would be pushed aside and all work would go on that one road. Hr. L~ndstrom said because of the density of population on Georgetow~ Road; because the road feeds into one place containing three County schools; because children have to walk to school along this road which has no sidewalks or curbing; he feels it is a dangerou situatfon. He 'said that squeezing out only $10,000 to $20,000 a year for engineering is just a token measure and asked if there is anyway to speed up the process. Mr. Roudahush said he would be willing 5o use some of the County's allocation of Highway funds t¢ pay for eng~neerin if the Highway Department cannot get it done. He felt the money saved on f~ve years of ~nflat~on could pay for the engin~ring needed on some of the projects on the list. Mr. Roose~ it said it has been done in Northern Virginia. The engineering costs more, but it is finished faster. Mr. Henley said he has a.similar problem in his district; children walking from Sunrise Acres to Crozet. Mr. Roosevelt said he has a six-year old study which shows that there are in road needs in Albemarle County and the County only receives $1,500~000 a year t¢ correct Mr. Lindszrom said recognizing the fact that Georgetown Road will be improved in six or seven years, is there anything that can be done on a Temporary basis to solve the problem wl~ pedestrian traffic. Mr. Roosevelt did nos believe Highway Funds can be used to correct problems with pedestrian traffic. He said if such an improvemen~ were made a part of a total construction project, use of Highway funds might be acceptable. Mr. Lindstrom said the right- of-way will have to be purchased and the sooner, the cheaper it will be. Mr. Roosevelt said the allocation, for Route 656 in the current budge~ is to try and get the plans to a $Iace where the right-of-way can be obtained, or used by the County 5o get the right-of-way donated as properties along this road are developed. Mr. Roudabush said the Highway Deparoment's schedule will not gev any better and he felt some of the minor projects on the list, which already have completed plans, should be contracted out. Mr. Roosevelt said it still takes tw~ or more years to develop the minimum plans needed for contract purposes. 'With State Force p~ojec~s, as soon as it is known what the project will be and the right-of-way is obtained, I1 only takes a year or two for complete construction. On contract work, it takes two years to get something ready 5o advertise. Mr. Roosevelt said the Board had gotten off of the subject of today's meeting. He asked two things: l) To revise the contract schedule in order ~o finance contract projects without taking any money from State Force projects to do this work; and 2) Because of the work load o] State Forces and she need for resurfacing (which is contracted out) to put the money fca State Force projects for 1979-80 into the resurfaeing budget. Mr. Robert Tucker~ Director of Planning, was present. He agreed with Mr. Roudabush abou the possibility of contracting out some of the engineering work. He said the County has lost several opportunities to obtain donated right-of-way when proper~y was being developed i~ one of the growth areas hecauee plans for the road were not available. Also, several times an applicant has agreed to insta&l sidewalks, but it was not ~easonahle to require same because of the lack of plans. Mr. Roudabush suggested taking $60,000 ~¢ $?0,000 from resurfacing funds and putting same into a design fund so consultants could be hired for this work. Mr. Henley ddsagreed, saying that roads are not resurfaced before it is needed. Mr Roosevelt said the money that is spent on plant-m~x work g~ves the County as much for the dollar as anything else on which it could be spent. The work thtt was done on Hydraulic Road and Rio Road has greatly improved the riding quality of these roads and reduced the need for maintenance. The project listed for Route 61~ will surface that road from the race ~rack almos5 to White Hall. It is a prmme need and will put off any major improvements to that road for eight to ~ine years. Mr. Lindstrom said if there were anyway he could have those funds transferred ~o Georg~5own Bead -he would do so because improving the riding quality of that road or putting off maintenance o~ same for a few years will not improve the safety problems on Georgetown, which he feels are more obvious. Mr. Dottier said the average citizen may see the repaying of roads as somethin~ that is done more for convenience than necessity, when there are dirt roads that need pa~ing. He asked if it were necessary to resurface all 12 of the listed roads. Mr. Roosevelt said they could hay6 a tar and gravel treatment applied, but it would do nothing to protect the road from breaking up in two or three years and. do nothing for the riding quality. Mr. Eoudabush said if some of the projects sehedule~ for the urban area do not get going, then th~ projects further out in the County will never happen. The new Comprehensive Plan for the County suggests funnelling growth into the urban ring and several communities. The County is i~ the process of adopting a new Zoning Ordinance and the road work is getting further behind He said the work on Stony Point road was a tremendous improvement, but he wo61d still like ~o think about taking a couple of the rural projects each year~ having the engineering work done and then pubzing same out ~o con~ract. He said if that is the only way the work will be done he would like for the Board to think abou~ that possibility. Mr. Roosevelt said if that is the desire of the Board, same of the plant-mix work can be deleted from the Six-Year plan, an~ -- he will cheek to see what can be done. Personally he feels that the ~435,000 of plant-mix work will give more value for the dol~ar than anything else on the list. There will be 13 miles of roads that will be relatively safe for travel for six to eight years, with reduced Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the $23,500 shown as "Unforeseen Items" be realtocated to engineering work for George~own Road thereby accelerating that pro, eat. Mr. Roudabush said h~ had no problem going to public hearing with Mr. Roosevelt's suggestiens, reallocating the $23,500 as suggested~ After discussion by the Board as to possible dates for a public heari~ -- motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom ~o se5 January 24, 1979, a~ 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, as the date for a public hearing on the 1979-80 Highway budget, reallocati] $23 500 shown in the bud et for "Unforeseen n was sec~n~e 6 6 for ~_~n~er~ g making a iota o~ ~3 500 ~vailabl~ ~orgt~s work ~be mot~ems'' to R u ~ g November 29, 1978 (Adjourned From November 15, 19783 Mr. Roosevelt then handed to the Board a proposed 1979-80 budget as follows: Item 6-Yr Plan Revision 631 McIntire Extension ~ 50,000 $ 50,000 601 Mechum River Bridge 157,500 743 Hydraulic Road 400,000 600,000 727 Hard Surface 98,100 631 Rio Road (To 743) 40,000 40,000 631 Park Street Bridge 130,000 130,000 651 Bridge-Southern Railroad 120,000 37,000 671 Millington Bridge 50,000 50,000 656 ~eorgetown Road 20,000 20,000 New Plant Mix 76,600 435,000 Unforeseen Items 179,300 23,50f 712 Prora 29 t¢ Route 692 147,000 600 Railroad Crossing 5,000 45,00£ New &dditions 20,000 665 Buck Mountain Creek Bridge 83 000 Total $1,533,500 $1,533,500 Mr. Roosevelt made the following suggestions relating to the 1973-80 budget: Funding for the Mechum River Bridge not be continued in the 1979-80 budget since this project is still'six months From construction. Financing can be picked u~ again in the 1980-81 budgeT. An additional $200,000 be added to the Hydraulic Road project to ~over some of the underestimate. That Route [27 be dropped from the Six-Year plan because of right-of-way problems. This $9~,000 can then be transferred to other projects. That the pro~ect for the brid~e over the Southern Railway tracks on Route 651 (road comes out of Northfields Subdivi~ion) be deferred for three years mn order to get some of the larger construction projects completed. Funding for planning would be left, but~ there would not be enough money for construction. ThattDhe projecv on Route 712 from Route 29 to Route 692 be deferred. No attemp5 has been made a~ this time to get the necessary right-or-way, but it is not felt it will be a problem because of the number of complaints received abou5 the condition of this road. Because there is already about $1,1000,000 in State Force work funded, and only $500,000 of this work can be completed in any given year, that no new State Force work be added during the 1979-80 fiscal year. Instead, the money which would have been used for State Force work could be transferred ~o the category "New Plant Mix" Mr. Dottier said he has received many calls asking why Routs 727 has not been paved. Re knows there is a right-of-way problem, but he did not feel the project should be dropped completely because one person, who does nov even live in the community, will no~ cooperate. Mr goosevelt said there are ~wo persons involved, M~. Friedman who lives at Blenheim will no~ donase right-of-way for this road project. Mr. Dottier said the Scottsville District has many aeeds For roads. He was concerned that of the 12 projects listed for plan5 mix, none were in his district. Mr. Roosevelt said Route 780 is in the Scottsville District. Also, the roads in the Scottsville District do not carry the traffic volumes that the roads on.this list carry. Mr. Dottier said he felt that basing priorities entirely on traffic counts is being unfair to the people in the far reaches of the County. He suggested that instead of dropping 727 completely, that the road be hard-surfaced from Route 795 at Blehheim up 5o within 300 feet of Route 627 where the right-of-way problem starts. This would hard-surface about 95% of that road. Mr. Roosevelt said the right-of-way has not been obtained on that section yet. A Mrs Pat5erson is working on that but has no5 contacted him recently. Mr. Dorrier said it is hard 5o get a road in the Six-Year Plan and to drop it completely is tragic for the people who live on that road. Mr. Fisher said when these projects are deferred, prices escalate~ Hydraulic Road has already taken about 26~ of the entire County budget for the current year, has taken signifi- can5 amounts in pas5 years, and will do Dhe same for some years into the future. This new estimate takes that 26~ up to about 40% of the entire County budget. To puv other projects )n the "back-burner" is exasperating t¢ people who live in the rural areas. Because of the money situation, the chance of having any rural roads upgraded looks bleaker each year Mr. Rooseve] said the County's allocation increases four or five p-ercens each year, while inflation goes up eight 5o ten percent. Inflation is having the same effect on the Secondary SysEem as it is having on individuals Mr. Roudabus~ said mos5 of the people in the rural areas would settle for something less than a mai. or project; a way to keep down dust and mud and some5hing hard to drive over. 5~. Roosevelt said the citizens are satisfied today with something less, but when the edges break off and the ditches cannot be malntained: they become dissatisfied. The State Highway Commiss~ recognized this back in the 1950's and said that any improvement being made from that time forward would have vo be ~o a standard that could be maintained. There are 2us5 as many complaints from people living on hard-surfaced roads without shoulders and ditches as there are from those living on graveled roads. Just as soon as a road is paved, the vraPfic volume and the speed increases~ Mr. Lindstrom said he can sympathize with everybody, but the need for improvements ~o correct safety problems on ~eorgetown Road is critical. The road should be widened, straighte~ with bicycle paths added, but it does not need ~o be four-laned. He asked how long it would take ~o do the engineering work and obtain right-of-way if money were no object. Mr. Roosevel~ said it usually takes about five y~ars because this is only one Residency in the ]ulpepe~ District and has to fight for a place on the schedule. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that time aspec5 is beyond the control of the Board. ~r. Roosevelt said if the Board went on record March 15, 1979 (Adjourned from March 14, 1979) Mr. Roudabush said Mr. Roosevelt had menti)ned that it is difficult to keep the ]itches open and control drainage. Mr. Roudabush said that, to him, this is a good indication that the road should be considered eIigible for improvement If it was eligible five years age, conditions can only have gotten worse. Mr. Lester Hoel was presen~ to speak about the allocation For Route 656 (George~own Road) He said that at the [resent time, there are serious problems because of traffic volumes and poor alignment. There are no pedestrian Facilities, although there are many school children in the area. Re suggested that the allocation ce used for immediate improve- ments and that the four-laning of Georgetown Road not be considered as a viable alternative, Mr. Donald Spencer spoke about Route 618 He asked what happens to the funds allocated to a project when the right-of-way is not obtained. Mr. Fisher said the funds are reallocated ~o other pro~ec~s Mr. Roosevelt said, earlier in the year, he had listed for thc Board several projects which are not in the adopted Six-Year plan, bul on which the right-of-way has been dedicated. Two of these routes were: Route 6t8 at a cos~ of $208,000~ and Route 729 at a cost of $180,000. He did not recommend that these routes be included this year because of the backlog of gtate Force work. However, when the Six-Year plan is revised, these routes should be given consideration For inclusion. He quoted'from a letter written vo Mr. Spencer in June, 1978: "Although the two routes involved ~i%~.~or the minimum~ they have relatively low priority when the entire County is examined. It is possible, however, that these priorities c~utd change with the development of these routes and because of the availability of right-of-way. Please see that each property owner understands thc5 dedicating the right-of-way does not mean that the roads wil] be improved in the short future, nor will the Department undertake minor improvements along ~he roadways until auch time as the prooect is set up.' Mr Roudabush said he has received correspondence on the following roads: Route 685 near Keswick Rou~es 746 and 807 near Stony Point Routes and ~00 and 600 Route 647 near Cobham Route 640 in the Stony Point area, Mr. E. B Snyder asked why there is a need To reconstruct the Park Street Bridge (Route 6~1) if McIntire Road is to be extended out ~o Rio Road. Mr. Roosevelt said that when the McIntire construction is completed, there will probably still be 1000 cars a day using the bridge which is only 17 feet wide. It is the narrowest, high-volume bridge in the County. Mr. Amato asked if property owners could receive some kind of 5ax credi~ if they under- took to upgrade roads at their own expense. ~Lr. Fisher said he had no answer to this questio~ Mr. Dottier said he has been working with citizens for two years trying to obtain the necessary~ right-of-way so that Route 717 can be improved. That right-of-way is now available, Since Routes 618 and 729 also have dedd~a~ed right of way, these people have overcome a significant hurdle. Re feels the Board should offer eneouragemen~ ~o residents along some of these roads by adopting a policy giving priority treatment vo roads where the right-of-way has been donated. Although traffic counts should be taken into consideration, safety should also be considered. Mr. Dottier then mentioned that he had received letters from Rbck W. Harris, Diane E. Kyser, Nelly H. Ellinger and Rey Berry, all in reference to Routes 618 and 729. At 9:2~ P.M, with no one else from the public to speak, bhe public bearing was closed. Dr. Iachetta requested that the Board again discuss improvements to George~own Road. He Felt that for a modest amount of money, the situation for vehicles and pedestrians can be greatly improved. Mr. Lindstrom felt that a pedestrian walkway is more needed than straight- enlng the curve, but the Highway Department will not spend money on sidewalks unless a four~ lane highway is constructed. He understands that the Highway Department will allow the County ~o put pavement in the right-of-way, if no~ too substantial a. ssruc~ure is built. If the Board decides to use the $50,000 for a lesser project, the Board musv realize that a commitment of County funds will be required for this projecs. Mr. Fisher said he was no~ prepared to vote on spending Tunds for a pedestrian walkway~ but if the money can be used to alleviate the more obvious problems immediately, instead of waiting many years for major improvements, h? feels it would be a worthwhile project. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the $~0,000 in this proposed budge~ for Route 656, plus the $10,000 allocated for this project in the last fiscal year, be used for spot improvements at the intersection of Ingle- wood Drive, consisting of realignment and acquisition of right-of-way. The motion was second~ by Dr, Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vo~e: AYES: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom~and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Mr. Roosevelt said the County's allocation for FYS0 may be $1.2 million instead ~f the estimated $1.5 million. Since it would be hard to delete any of the 15 recommended improvemen he suggested that Hydraulic Road be placed as the lowest priority on the list, taking no~e of the fact that if this happens, additional funds will be needed for Hydraulic Road in future years. Mr. Fisher asked what affect this would have on the Hydraulic Road project. Mr. Roosevelt said it will not slow down the planning, only affect the amount of money that will have to be allocated to this project in the next two or three years. Mr. Byron Coburn, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, said if the Hydraulic Road pr¢3ect is placed at the bottom ~f the list, it will not delay the project. If any other project is pu~ a~ the bottom PAVING OF 640 - GILBERT STATION ROAD 50 YEARS OF PETITIONING WITH ZERO RESULTS The following excerpts were taken from the official minute books which record the meetings of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Book 4 - August 19, 1953 ......... >> 50 YEARS AGO Page 243 ...Petition was received requesting hard surface of the Gilbert road (Route 640 ~ and construction of a new bridge on same. Mr. Shields advised that the bridge is now under construction but there are no current funds available for hard surfacing this road .... Book 7 -- June 15, 1967 ......... >> 36 YEARS AGO Page I46 ...Mr. Thraves [County Supervisor] also stated that there is a great demand for hard surface on Route 640 between Routes 641 and 20. Mr. Warner [resident highway engineer] made no commitment in this regard but advised that the road is being given consideration due to increase in the traffic count... Book 15 - March 23, 1977 - - -->> ON "6 YEAR PLAN" ---->> 27 YEARS AGO Pages 112-113 ...The Department gives priority to high volume hard~surfaced roads and non-bard-surfaced roads with count of 50 vehicle trips per day... ...Route 640 from Route 20 northwest is a gravel road which has a traffic count of 160 vehicles per day. This is the fifth highest volume non-hard-surfaced carrier in the County... Page 136 ...recommendations...for the six year plan...which follow...Route 640 from Route 20 Northwest... Book 16 - January 18, 1978 - ->> 26 YEARS AGO Pages 41-42 ...Six Year Highway Plan...Route 640 from Route 20 to Route 784 - This project involves the widening and hard surfacing of an existing gravel road. The work will be undertaken bythe State Forces...Estimated cost $246,000 Book 17 - March 15, 1979 ------>> 25 YEARS AGO Page 209 ...Mr. Roudabush said he has received correspondence on the following roads: ...Route 640 in the Stony Point area Book 21 - July I4, 1982 ...... -->> 23 YEARS AGO Pages 301-302 ..new projects added are...Route 640...These projects were added because the right-of-way has been obtained... Note: Although only some early excerpts have been included here, the residents of 640 continue to request the Board of Supervisors to pave 640 up to the present day. February 11, 2004 Prepared by Nancy Dresner (434)974-9590 / © Z CD O~ 7-5 A RESOLUTION ENDORSING JARMANS GAP ROAD DESIGN ALTERNATIVE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY WItEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) held a Public Information Meeting to solicit input on the proposed design concept for Jarmans Gap Road (Route 691 ) (Project 0691-002-258, C501), located in Albemarle County, Virginia_ Two design alternatives were presented for consideration at the informational meeting - Option A and Option B; and WHEREAS, 174 written comments were received. The comments were essentially evenly split between the two options; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the options, public and written comments, and considering all aspects of the proposed project, VDOT recommends Option "A" for the following reasons: · it has least impact to historic properties; · it is the least expensive option; · k will facilitate the use of Federal funds; · it will avoid an expensive enviromental remediatiun. NOW, TI~EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, does hereby endorse Option "A" with the proposed modifications by the Virginia Department of Transportation which will reduce property impacts, reduce overall project costs and allow the project to be built sooner: limiting the sidewalk to one side of the road; and terminating road construction at Gray Rock Subdivision with the continuation of shoulder improvements for bicycle traffic all the way to Route 684 I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on March 3, 2004, by a vote of five to one. PHILIP A. SHUCET COMMISSIONER January 26, 2004 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 FIECE VED JAN 28 2OO County of Ait/emafle County Executive's Office JAMESLBRYAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Mr. Robert Tucker Albemarle County Administrator 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902-4596 Jarman Gap Road (SR 691 ) Dear Bob, Our objective in holding the Public Informational Meeting for the Jarman Gap Road project (0691-002-258, C501) on November 12, 2003 was to determine the public's attitude about two distinct design concepts. As you may remember, we had chosen one specific design and planned to show it at a Public Heating, only to cancel it at the last minute because of community objections to the design and support for an alternative. Tlierefore, we presented two designs - Option A and Option B - and gathered comments. The 174 written comments we received were essentially evenly split between the two options. Many favored shortening the western termini o£the project at Gray Rock Subdivision. Impacts to private properly- especially the historic tearoom-garage -- was the most noteworthy issue. Attached is a spreadsheet with the comments listed (Attachment A) and a decision support matrix (DSM) we developed to assist in making a decision [Attachment B). The DSM lists those factors we think are important in analyzing the project at this juncture. These factors are safety, cost, historic impacts, future needs, and public opinion. Our analysis shows Option A. which tees Jarmans Gap Road (Rte. 691 ) into Crozet Avenue (Rte. 240) has the least impact to the historic properties, is the least expensive option, will facilitate the use of Federal Funds, and will avoid an expensive environmental remediation. We also recommend limiting the sidewalk to one side of the road and terminating the road construction at Gray Rock subdivision -- but continuing shoulder improvement for bicycle traffic all the way to SR 684. These modifications to Option A will reduce property impacts, reduce overall project costs, and allow the project to be built sooner. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY iV~r. Robert Tucker January 26, 2004 Page 2 of 2 We would appreciate it if the Board of Supervisors would adopt a resolution in concurrence with the modified Option A so that we may proceed with the design for the Public Hearing. If there are any questions or concerns, please advise. Sincerely, Attachments cc: David Wyant Bob Moore Karen Kilby Julie R. Brown n ~ uo~ o ~ o >~ = ® ~ ~-'>z-~ z "< '-< -< o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cr ~ - z =5'~.° · 3On = ~ ~ ~o -o ~ ~ ~ ~.~ o~ m~o ~ ~ ~ o IBc you 8uppor[ the Project? Yes or N ~) Alt. preferred? (A or B) ~hy this Alternative? Historical Impact? Yes or N0~ f yes please 3omment. &dditiona ~,ommo, ,ts ;ommenter 33 ~ zz z 0 0 0 ~: o ~ - ~ ~o ~3 ~ <~ o oo ~'0 Z -< you pport the Project? O Alt. 3> fA or B) · this Historical Imoect? Yes or No) ' yes )lease ditional 0 TO Z 3~ 3 3 o 'o 3 I o~ u ~ ~roject? Alt (A or B) this Historical Impact? or No; f yes )lease ommemer o) o- C) 0 ~- © o ~ C_ rid 0 0 0 Z o.~ ~ ;~ ~ .~,~.< ~ 06- ~ mo~o Do you support the Project? Yes or No) Alt. oreferred? (A or B) Yhy this Alternative? Historical Impact? Yes or No f yes )(ease ~dditional 3omments ommenter 'TO Z ~ (2. Z Z 30 you ~upport the -< ~roject? Yes or No) Alt :referred? (A or B) fhy this ~dternative? Historical Impact? Yes or No) yes ~]ease ;omment. dditional Comments ;ommenter -< '< Z o~- :::~= m__ Z -< Z Z c~3 Do you support the -< Project? Yes or No ,Alt. 0referred? (A or B) ¢hy this Alternative? Historical Imoact? Yes or No! yes )lease ;ommenr. &dditional Comments 3ommenter o- O · t.- -.~.o N · -nm TO ~ ID.. Z '< < z ~ m 0 ~ o Z -( '< Do you support the Project? Yes or No) Alt. 0referred? 'A or B/ ~hy this Alternative? Historica Imoact? ~ [Yes or No) ~. z O Ix) f yes please comment. ,dditional 3ommenm Commenter Z -< Do you ~upport [he ~roject? Yes or No) 0 Alt. )referred? (A or B) ~Vhy this Alternative? t- C) 0 C~ Historical Impact? ~ ~' Yes or No) ~. ¢ c- f yes m -~ please ~ ~ :omment. 8 ~ --ro o Co (D dditional Comments r~. ~-~o <.0' Z ZZ '< Z 0 0 0 ~ 0 Do you support the '< Project9 Yes or No) Alt. preferred? (A or B) ~Vhy this Alternative? Historical Impact? Yes or No, yes please comment. Jditional ;omments ;ommenter c) O eX> rid ~o°~ ~ m ~_::r Do you support the ~roject? ~'es or No) Alt. preferred? (A or B) /by this ~,lternative? Historical Impact? (Yes or No) f yes 3lease :omment \dditiona[ Comments ;ommente- 0 0 z~ 2I: © 0 Z 7 Z ~ Z 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 3 3 o ZZ Z Z ~ 0 0 0 0 co Do you SUDDOFI the Project? Yes or No) )referred? ~A or 13) Why this Alternative? Historical Impact? Yes or No : yes )lease ;omment tdditional Comments 3ommenter Z Z Do you support the -< Project? (D · Yes or No) AE preferred? (A or B~ Nhy this Alternative? Historical Impact? Yes or No: yes )lease :omment. dditional Comments ;ommenter O L r.,o ~D N Z Z Z '<Z Z Z Z -< Z 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 CD 0 _~. 0 Do you support the Project? Yes or No~ Alt. oreferred? (A or B) ~Vhy this Alternative? Historical Yes or Ne) yes please comment dditional CommenTs mmenter Z '< Z 0 o Do you support the -< Oroject? Yes or No) Alt. ~referred? (A or B) Yhy this a, ltemative? Historical mpact? Yes or No) f yes 2[ease ;omment. Iditional .Comments ,ommenter Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z co R= 0 0 O N ~D z z Z Z Z O 0 o '<3 Do you ~upport the '< ~roject? Yes or No) Alt )referred? (A or B) ~hy this ~,lternative? Historical Impact? Yes or No' yes please comment. dditional .;omments 3ommenter Z ID. Do you ~upport the z =roject? o Yes or No} Alt )referred? (A or B) Nhy this ~,lternative? Historical Imoact? Yes or No yes 3lease ~'omment Additional Comments ommenter Z g Z Z :)o you support the z =roject? o 'Yes or No/ Alt. oreferred? (A or B) ~hy this Alternative? ..< Historical Impact? 'Yes or No) yes ~lease :omment ,dditional ;omments ;ommenter u' C) 0 CD Do you support the Project? Yes OF NO Alt. preferred? (A or B) /hy this &lternative? Historical impact? ',Yes or No) yes please comment. ~,dditiona 3omments ;ommenter Z Z support the Yes or Ne) Alt, preferred? (A or B) C this Historical Impact? yes }lease mment 0 ~ 0 C- B · -nm "-1 Do you support the ~roject? ?es or No) Alt. 2referred? fA or B) Vhy this Alternative? Historical Impact? 'Yes or Noi :yes 21ease :omment ~dditional ,Comments ;ommenter 3o you ~upport the :roject? Yes or No Alt. preferred? (A or B) ~Vhy this ~Jternative? Historical Impact? 'Yes or No) yes please ;omment Additional .?,ommen[s ;ommenter support the ect? Yes or No) Alt 3referred? (A or B) ' this 9rnative? Historical Impact? Yes or No) yes )lease r 3 N Alt. Preferred? fA or B) Vhy this Historical _+, Impact? ~ 8 or No/ ~. :~ yes ~ --~ N .mm .dditional ~roiect? Alt. preferred? (A or B) this Historical Impact? Yes or No'~ f yes mment ~menter 2002:WEDAM~SURVEY-R1 Printed: Tue Mar, 02 20:31:5 Service: 2002 Story Number: 4225 Ke!, Words: WEDAM-SURVEY-R1 Debt Code: y Priority: 4 Version: By: katherin Date: 02-Mar-04 7:37:26 PM It seems that government officials, elected leaders, highway department workers, and a few vocal citizens have all weighed in on whether to build the western bypass. But has anybody ever asked you? We did WINA's President, Brad Eure, commissioned a survey, saying it's about time. The results show 57-0ercent support building a western bypass and 31-percent are opposed. Only 13-percent favor the current plan while 37-percent believe the bypass should go to Ruckersville and 35-percent say it should at [east go to the airport, Two-thirds believe the Charlottesville area has some responsibility to travelers from other communities to allow for a bypass. As far as the underlying concept, four out of five think a bypass ~s a good idea. half want to move forward now, and only 12-percent think the entire idea is a bad one. Less than one-fourth agree with the way the Albemarle supervisors are handling the issue, and almost half disagree. The survey has a margin of error of plus-or-minus just under five-pement. BOARD -TO -BOARD March 3, 2004 - 10:30 a.m. A Monthly Communications Report ofactivtttesfrorn the Albemarl~~ e ?llbemarle County Board of Supervisors. ~a~:~ RECENT O~erk's [n[Iia[s:~~_ c__ FY 2004-2005 BUDGET: In November, the School Board directed the Superintendent to prepare a needs-based budget as required by the Code of Virginia. On January 21s*, the Superintendent presented his funding request and, over the last several weeks, School Board members have auended 6 meetings and 15 seat hours asking questions and learning more about the request. We held our public hearind on February 11m and had thirty speakers, 9 of which represented groups. Attachment 1 is a copy of the minutes of the meeting for your review. The School Board's Funding Request, supported by a unanimous vote, totals $115,431,378. The primary initiative driving this funding request is employee compensation. The funding request also supports initiatives we believe will improve our efficiency and instruction. We are looking forward to presenting our funding request to you on March 17m and hope that we can continue the discussion at that time. Attachment 2 is a memo from the Virginia School Boards Association regarding the proposed change for the funding of the VRS retirement rate for teachers. The future fiscal implications for localities are very concerning. Attachment 3 is information regarding the decrease in state funding for Migrant Education and the impact locally. This information was provided to School Board members. This is just one example of the numerous grants, which have disappeared as the General Assembly has moved dollars from one account to another. LONG-RANGE PLANNING: On February 21s~ the School Board met to discuss priorities and positions for long-range planning which the Long-Range Planning Committee will use in developing the CIP. I have attached a summary of those positions for your review. (Attachment 4) They will also receive a copy of the High School Feasibility study (Attachment 5 - Executive Summary), and the Residential Development report. NORTHERN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: The School Board appreciates your sending us information regarding the acreage proffer offered by a developer for the proposed northern elementary school. We thoroughly reviewed the information and affirmed the following items: Reaffirmed decisions made over the last three years that an elementary school site is needed and the North Pointe is a preferred and suitable location for the new Northern Elementary School. Reaffirmed the current CIP timeline for opening the school in the next 10 years. It should be noted that the CIP and associated rime frames are revised annually to meet the changing needs of the school division and accommodate growth. · Request that the land proffer be at least 12 usable acres, graded with utilities on site. The current site must be expanded to account for the unusable steep and terrain of the site. We thank you for bringmg this important item to our attention. FUTURE ITEMS · HR Report: We are looking forward to our March 17~joint meeting at 4:00 p.m. to receive Part II of Human Resources Compensation Report Follow-up to Questions: The question was raised in an e-mail regarding the percentage and reasons employees are leaving the school division in their first three years of employment. Attachment 6 is a copy of the Human Resources Annual Report to the School Board. Over 60% of employees leaving the division are in years 0 through 3. Page 14 of the report provides information regarding exit surveys and a copy of the exit survey is included at the end of the document. February 11, 2004 Special Meeting (Budget Public Hearing) Page 1 A Budget Public Hearing of the Albemarle County School Board was held on February 11. 2004 at 6:30 p.m., Auditorium, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902. PRESENT: Mr. Stephen Koleszar; Mr. Gordon Walker: Mrs. Pamela Moynihan; Mrs. Diantha McKeel: Ms. Barbara Massie; Ms. Sue Friedman; and Mr. Brian Wheeler. ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Dr. Kevin Castner, Superintendent; Dr. Pam Moran, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction; Ms. Mary Ann Piatkowski. Deputy Clerk; and Mrs. Je~mifer Johnston. Clerk. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. At 6:30 p.m., Mrs. McKeel, Chairman, called the Board to order. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. The Monticello High School Junior Air Force ROTC presented the colors. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Agenda. Mr. Koleszar offered a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Mrs. Moynihan seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing. Mrs. McKeel welcomed those in attendance. Mr. Blaine Norum spoke on behalf of the Gifted Advisory Committee. The Committee strongly supports all initiatives that the school board deems essential to quality education. In the proposed budget there are several initiatives that they believe are essential to quality education for all students in the division including the proposed teacher salary scale increases, the staff development/curriculum institute initiative, the teacher performance appraisal plans and the data warehousing project. In addition, they ask that the following be included in the budget. The committee has reviewed college course enrollment and AP test taking participation for the past three years. Currently in our division there are several ways that students can get college credit. Students incur the costs of AP exams and dual cmrollment classes. In looking at enrollment, participation has increased armually. However, with more students taking college level com'ses, and with individual students taking more AP courses per person, the expense incurred by families is significant. Currently, no funds are allocated to support this AP test participation or the dual credit tuition. Board/Superintendent Priority 1.2.2 establishes increased participation in AP courses and AP test taking as a specific goal. Currently, this priority represents an unfounded mandate and an unreasonable burden to families. They recommend the Board consider full or partial funding for all AP exams and pursue means to subsidize the costs of dual credit courses at PVCC and UVA. In addition, there is no requirement that a student enrolled in an AP class take the exam. Funding for AP exams could be accompanied by the requirement that all students enrolled in AP courses take the AP course exam. Based on the experience of other divisions_ we would expect this funding to increase enrollment and exam participation. We also see mandatory AP exam participation as a strategy for maintaining tire high standards of instruction and student performance expected in an AP class. (Full comments on file in the Clerk's Office) Ms. Nancy Markos spoke on behalf of the Albemarle Education Association. She thanked the School Board for supporting the Superintendent's budget and teacher pay scale increases over the next two years. February 11, 2004 Special Meeting (Budget Public Hearing) Page 2 Ms. Lisa Moorefield spoke on behalf of the Western Albemarle High School PTO There is a crisis that we can no longer ignore. They are concerned that our teacher salaries lag behind those of Charlottesville, Flnvanna and Louisa Counties tc name a few. We cannot compete for the best teachers in this position and our children are the ones that will suffer. Furthermore. they are alarmed when they hear that nearly 300 of our teaching staff are eligible to retire over the next two to three years. The proposal to cut property, taxes by two cents a hunch'ed or about $55 a year does not meet their approval. They do not wish to remove $1.1 million dollars in mx revenue from our schools in exchange for the price of a cup of coffee. ~ae needs-based budget that Dr. Castner prepared is modest. It addresses only the critical needs of our schools, teachers, administrators and staff to meet the high expectations of this community, the WAHS PTO Board supports the Superintendent's funding request. Further, they support as their number one priority competitive compensation for teachers and staff She asked that the Board support the Superintendent's funding request and they will support the Board. Ms. Pat Napoleon is a teacher within the division. The issue of compensation for school professionals stands out as an area to be watched closely. Retaining quality staff is an obligation that cannot be neglected. Feacher salaries have remained stagnant or have slipped during the past ten years when compared to other neighboring systems. This pattern was unfortunate and uunecessary. She said that the Albemarle Education Association has not done their part in fighting for increased teacher salaries. At the same time, she praised the work of Mark Crockett, teacher, in regards to researching and providing information on compensation. The decline came about as a result of political maneuvering, poor management techniques, apathy and a lack of courage on the part of some who held positions on leadership. As a county we have hesitated too loug. The resulting situation is too little too late. It is time for the Board of Supervisors to fmtd the Superintendent's Funding Request in its entirety. Mr. Tom Pajewski spoke on behalf of the Parent Council. They fully support the Superintendent's proposed budget. They expect that it be supported in its entirety. In years past they have taken on the budget as an ~mportant issue that we were involved with trying to educate the public, ourselves, and the school board in terms of our perspective. This year they took a slightly different route. They believe the primary focus needs to be competitive and fair compensation for teachers. There are a number of other items within the budget that are supported, but they believe for our schools to remain at the top tier we need to treat our teachers as such and pay them as professionals, pay them at the appropriate salary range in the higher quartile. While they realize that this budget attempts at getting that level, it is still the first step of a multi-year process. Ms. Margie Shepherd is a teacher within the division. She asked that the Board fight for the budget for all of our needs figured at current taxations. [Comments of file in the Clerk's Office) Ms. Whitney Verrell is a Western Albemarle High School student. She said that quality education is quality teachers_ those teachers who go the extra mile whose care and commitment make learning fun. She thanked the teachers for all they do and the School Board for supporting the teachers. Ms. Maggie Leafy spoke on behalf of the Baker-Butler PTO. They support full funding of the Superintendent's Funding Request and they ask the Board to support it as well. She saidthat in order for the division to provide adequately for the needs o£the division, we must oppose the proposed tax reduction. ]They ask that the School Board let the Board of Supervisors know that those monies could be more effectively used in our schools. Quality and motivation of our teachers is directly related to the success of our students. We have asked our teachers to prepare our children with the lmowledge and skills necessary to be successful in the 2 lS~ century. We have also asked them to leave no child behind. They go above and beyond everyday of the year to xvork towards these goals. We cannot expect them to fulfill this order without giving them the tools and support that they need to succeed. They support the proposed compensation and benefits package. The Superintendent's have vision is clear for the furore of our schools. She hoped that the School Board's was too. We need to be proactive now in order for our schools to thrive. Ms. Kathy VerreI1 is a parent of stndents in the division. She thanked the Board for their time and commitment to the education of the children of Albemarle County. She said that the Board asked for a needs- based budget and they got it. She applauds the request. The quality of education in Albemarle County is at an February 11, 2004 Special Meeting (Budget Public Hearing) Page 3 all-time high as is indicated from test scores. The Board of Supervisors has mentioned a possible 2 cent tax cut which would place this budget at more than $2.5 million in the whole. She asked if the Board would honor their commitment to quality education and approve the budget despite predicted revenue shortfalls or will the standards be lowered. Ms. Ashb> Kindler is principal of Stone Robinson Elementary School. She said that the Superintendent and his team have put together a good solid budget that supports our schools and our students. Sometimes in leadership roles we find ourselves in a position to tell people what they need to do not what then want to do. She urged the Board to tell the citizens of Albemarle County what they need to do and support the budget. Mt', Steve Gissendauner is a teacher within the division. He thanked the Board for their efforts to provide a reasonable compensation to county teachers. There are additional actions that the board could take to attract and retain ~luality teachers. First, he asked that the Board consider Dr. Castner's proposal to allow teachers to bring children in from their homes in surrounding counties. Secondly, provide easy access and full or partial subsidy to after school child care problems for County teachers. Thirdly, look at issues surrounding employee support and morale so that every county teacher feels like an important part of a fimctioning effective team. Ms. Logan Karns spoke on behalf of the Woodbrook PTO. They support the Superintendent's needs- based budget. Our teachers, like many others in our community, spend countless hours of extra time grading papers and creating lesson plans. They spend their free time at school fundraisers. They buy school supplies for children whose families may not be able to provide for them. They keep snacks in their desks for that hungry child who did not bring one. They start afterschool clubs to augment what they are already teaching. They spend hundreds of their own dollars to start a Lego League and then they use portions of their classroom funds to pay for Kindergarten field trips. Teachers go xvell beyond what the rest of us generally expect to contribute to our jobs. Being a healthcare provider, no one expects me to meet with patients after normal working hours, feed them. give them my home telephone number or raise money to provide for their medical care. reachers are held to a higher standard than the rest of us because they work with children. We take this foregranted sometimes. The current salaries of teachers in Albemarle County do not do justice to the professionalism of any of them. We must stand up in support of adequate teacher salaries or we are at risk of losing those teachers that we value so highly. Ms. Aun Etchison spoke on behalf of the Meriwether Lewis PTO. They applaud the Superintendent and his staff for the bold and responsible budget proposal that was presented. She thanked the Board for recognizing that the need to offer a market competitive salary and benefits structure is most critical. They urged the board to vote unanimously for this increase. Compensation package should be at a minimum in the top quartile of the state. The School Board must convince the citizens of Albemarle County and the Board of Supervisors that this budget must be fully funded to support teacher compensation, growth, infrastructure, general operational increases, and initiatives. The proposed 2 cent decrease in prope~T¢ tax would amount to an equivalent tax savings of $55 per household per year or $1.05 per week or 15 cents per day per family. The PTO is willing to put that 15 cents per day into pay increases for teachers and maintaining the status quo of our school system. ]?hey need the Board to stand up with one voice and fully support the Superintendent's budget including the initiatives. The initiatives once examined are really essential services. We live in the 21s~ century and we must realize that there is a price associated with doing business in the 2 lS~ century. Mr. Jeff Carpenter is a teacher within the division. He shared an experience xvith the Board about during the first days of class he tells the students about himself so that they can get to know him a little better. Eventually, he mentions that he is a Harvard graduate. At least one student in each class asks the question "You went to Harvard. how come you are a teacher?" The students lmow what the teachers are paid. Whx would someone with a Masters degree from an ivy League school work for so little money? Usually he responds To studeurs questions with questions of his own. So he asks back, "Aren't you worth a teacher who went to Harvard? Don't you deserve highly qualified teachers?" The answer is yes, the children of Albemarle deserve highly qualified teachers. Yes, om' kids deserve the best educators. The only way to guarantee ~ve can attract and retain such teachers is to increase salaries. He asked that the Board do as necessary to make sure the Superintendent's budget request is fully met. February 11, 2004 Special Meeting (Budget Public Hearing) Page 4 Ms. Shelley Payne spoke on behalf of the Stone-Robinson and Burley PTOs. She commended the Superintendent and School Board for recognizing the importance of correcting the structural problems in the current model for teacher compensation. If we do not take action now, we will be in a crisis in a few years She read the follo~ving resolution: "The PTO executive Boards for Burley and Stone-Robinson fully support the Superintendent's Funding Request and ask the school board to approve it as submitted. We feel strongly that in order to continue ~o achieve the excellent results that we have come to expect from our schools, we need to be able to attracl and maintain the best teachers, rhis can only be accomplished with competitive wages. Further, we strongly disapprove of the reduction of our tax rate from 76 cents to 74 cents. For many years we have told our county employees, including teachers, that the budget is too tight and we cannot af±brd to provide adequate salary increases. If we choose as a county to reduce tax rates we are in effect stating that there is simply aever a time ~vhen we can afford to pay county employees what they deserve." Mr. Charlie Trachta is a parent with children in the division. He does not think the Superintendent's funding request goes far enough. There is not enough compensation for teachers to continue their education and training. He is bothered that there is not a great increase for non-teachers in the division. Schools are more than just the teachers. Without the non-teaching staffthe schools will start to fall apart. He does not like the budget also because there is nothing that says we musr stop the Board of Supervisors from the proposed tax decrease. For the residents of Albemarle County to receive a $50 rebate, it is not enough to go out to dinner. The school division is going to lose $1.1 million or more. Our school system is in the top of the state_ and yet our teachers are not being paid. The lines are being drawn between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board, you must stand up for the division. Ms. Pamela Bell spoke on behalf of the Henley Middle School PATSOi They support the Superinteudent's Funding Request and urged the Board to take the request to the County Board of Supervisors. They recognize funding is again tight this year and that state support for our schools remams at less than half of what the county allocation is They also recognize that we do not know fully what the stare will contribute ~r ~vhat the county ~vill have available because of the proposed tax decrease. Nonetheless. we feel strongly that the county must find ways to maintain the current quality of education in our schools and support the dedicated staff of teachers and administrators that we have. The Superintendent's Funding Request continues ro move to~vards meeting these goals. The Henley PATSO made s~atements about compensation, staffing, level-funding, and continuation of essential programs. Mr. Phil Marx is a parent of students within the division and a taxpayer. His family supports the Funding Request. His daughter is a senior at WAHS and will be graduating in June. The teachers and staff in the County have made his daughter prepared to go anywhere in the country to any college/university and to perform well. He asked that the Board support the teachers in the County. He would like to see teachers have parity- with peers ~n other counties and he knows the Board does mo. His family is a success stoty. They have had their taxes increased approximately 40 percent last year and they are happy to pay that money as long as they know it is going to good things like the schools that we ail benefit from. He asked that the Board support the Superintendent's funding request. Ms. Denise Ramey spoke on behalf ofthe Broadus Wood PTO. She said that it is exciting to listen to the passion that the people in the room have about education and their children. She has two children at Broadus Wood Elementary. She is new to Virginia three years ago from Florida. They had their children in private Kindergarten in Florida because the school system is not on par with the state of Virginia. She had a job opportunity to move Virginia. She works in Waynesboro and looked for housing in Albemarle County, Greene County, Augusta County, and other surrounding counties. She chose Albemarle County for a reason. The school system drove her to Albemarle County. She knew what the taxes were when she moved here. Like most parents, ir matters to us to have great educators. If we can attract great teachers, that will make the difference to her children. She urged the Board to approve Dr. Castner's budget. Mr. Shawn Paul Evans is a parent of students within the division. He asked that the Board support Dr. Castner's full budget proposal He asked that the Board ask the Board of Supervisors to support the proposal and he plans to ask them as well. He asked that the Board continue to invest in our schools, our community and our February 11, 2004 Special Meeting (Budget Public Hearing) P~e5 children. Ask the Board of Supervisors to maintain the current level of taxation and aliow the school budget to be allocated based on the current tax rate and not a reduced tax rate. This investment is vital if Albemarle County is going to maintain its excellence and continue to be one of the best places in America to live. He supports salary increases, l'hese increases empower our teachers to create an atmosphere of excellence, as well as, inspire them to de more. This inspiration is most tangibly expressed through adequate compensation. He encouraged the Board to budget for classroom size reduction. Making the class size more manageable~ hir'mg more teachers will enable each teacher to give individual attention to children and there is no substitute for this type of mentoring available in smaller classrooms. He would also like to see more support of the arts. He believes that every school should have a full-time art, music and theater teacher. He knows that the Board knows the influence that the arts have on the children and their education A measure of any great society is the value that society places on the arts. Our schools need to be providing our children with this value. Lastly, the proposed tax cut from the County would save him $32. He asked that they Board of Supervisors do not do him a favor of saving him $32 and cost him the education of his children, cost him the quality of schools in the County, and cost him the quality of living in Albemarle County. He urged the Board to talk to the Board of Supervisors about not reducing the tax rate and fund the budget on the current tax rate not a reduced tax rate. Mr. Billy Ballard spoke on behalf of the Cale PTO. If Albemarle County wants to continue to provide the best education in Virginia, recruiting and retainiug quality teachers is .iust as important as providing appropriate staffing and resources to maintain small classrooms. Both of these issues are equal importance and should be given equal consideration as we stride to implement and exceed the expectations set forth by the Virginia Standards of Learning. If we do not, we will always be playing catch up. He realizes that we face economic challenges because the state and government is not sharing the financial burden. We all need to let our concerns be known to our state and federal representatives. But. we cannot afford to pay for what we want. In the past we have given revenues back instead of preparing for the future. Use your imagination, use some common sense, cutting programs, reducing personnel, eliminating resources is not creative, it is counterproductive. These curs will directly effect the students, parents, employees and county citizens and not sharing a vision of excellence like is being presented. Someone, somewhere most likely a teacher made a difference in our lives. Students are om' future_ the seed of imagination planted in students today is the promise of prospertry and security tomorrow. Let's not shortchange their oppommities now. He knows that the Board will do the right thing. He knows that all of the School Board will support the Superintendent's budget in order to provide for the high quality- instruction, which is the right thing for everyone. He asked that the Board present a united front to the Board of Supervisors and ask for the means to support this budget and more. Our teachers deserve to be treated like professionals, so they can afford to live in Albemarle County and support their families. If the property tax is cut, then CIP needs at some of the schools will continue to be put off: Albemarle County is ranked in the highest for ability to pay for education in the state but for some reason we do not. Ms. Angela Stokes spoke on behalf of the Murray Elementary School PTO. History is full of stories of people who ignore signs of disaster. We are at risk of jeopardizing the quality of education our children experience if we continue to ignore the need to attract dynamic educators by providing competitive compensation for our teachers. The Superintendent's budget proposal is to be applauded for recognizing this need. It acknowledges the obvious danger signs, indicators that shows om' teachers are being paid under the current market value. Data that shows that we are losing 60 percent of our teachers during our first few years in the County, leading to school divisions that offer much more attractive packages. In hard facts. 30 percent of our teaching force could retire within the next two years. In addition to this data, the budget proposal is a direct response to the personal accounts from teachers who have left the counw, not because they could not afford a fancy vacation but because they could uot afford food and a place to live. And it is based on personal observation that the best thing to give a group of students whether they are struggling leaders or gifted scholars, is a competent and enthusiastic teacher. How can we ignore the signs that we are at risk of losing our most valuable assets7 This budget proposal is a fncst step in a poskive direction of change. But she hopes the Board will not stop here. Attracting and keeping teachers should remain a top priority that includes conversations with our county's f'mest instructors to determine the ultimate package. Other schools offer better technology and teacher friendly schedules, time to meet with colleagues and tuition reimbursement. We need to be just as creative and just as aggressive as other school divisions. She hopes that the Board will heed the warning signs and support a budget February 11, 2004 Special Meeting (Budget Public Hearing) P~e6 that meets the needs of the students in this community. We do not want to lose a gifted resource in a swelling current of dissatisfaction and desertion. Mr. Larry Lawwill spoke on behalf of the Building Level Administrators. They are in full suppoix of the Superintendent's budget recommendations. They have been involved in the budget process over the last few years. In January 2000, he addressed the Board on several issues. The first and foremost ;vas the teacher salary. In addition, he talked about working to fund the staffing formulas for the schools. In 2001, the priority of the Building Level Administrators was staff'mg and salaries. That year we were looking at increases in class size to try- to fund an adequate raise for teachers. The Board worked hard to provide the best increase in salaries and tried to have the least amount of impact on the class size. In 2002, he talked about the progress our students had made in the quality school system that ;ye have. Again, the Building Level Administrators supported salary in staff'mg. They encouraged the Board not to make cuts that would have negative impacts on the quality programs in our schools. In 2003, Mr. Vale talked about staffing and compensation. In addition, he voiced support for the building and departmental funding and finally funding Design 2004. Now in February 2004, again the Building Level Administrators are fully behind the salary and compensation proposal. We have a quality staffin our buildings, we need to keep them. We are losing teachers to retirement. We are losing teachers ;vho are leaving to go to other places where they can make more money, whether in teaching or in the private industry. The salary proposal is a step in the right direction to try to stem some of that change. The system has the opportunity to not only start the process on improving salaries but also fund a number of things that have been put on the back burner or have only been partially funded in the past. When you review the list of items the Superintendent has proposed under improvements and restorations, a few are new initiatives while others are u'ying to catch up and make up for previous years of lack of funding. This is the year for the School Board to take a very clear stand in this county. ]'his position needs to be the Board's priority goes beyond salary and compensation aud staffing. This year the Board should also have as a priority to support the needs presented by the Superintendent. This year the money could be there, something that has not been the case in last several years. The Building Level Administrators strongly encourage the Board to take a budget to the Board of Supervisors which provides for the needs of this system: the needs which have been spelled out in the Superintendent's proposed budget. Mr. Chip Deale spoke on behalf of the Crozet PTO. He challenged each of the new Board members to a fight. First, he would like them to fight the Board of Supervisors. They are doing what can be described as a politically expedient but fiscally irresponsible action to consider reducing taxes from 76 cents down to 74 cents. They have heard other speakers describe the impact that would have on not only the school system, but the county as a whole and the minimal impact it would have on each household, an average savings of about $55. Fight them on the fact that redticing the tax would not only rob education but all county services of vital financial assets. Secondly, he would like them to fight our local elected officials in Richmond. When they continue to aggregate their responsibilities to fully fund state mandates and keep Virginia competitive nationally on education spending and per pupil aide. When they continue to aggregate those responsibilities you must :ontinue to fight them. ]'hird. he would like the Board to fight those who falsely claim that public schools generate so-so performance. You have heard a number of speakers talk about the superior results that we are getting in Albemarle County. Fight them with the facts, fight them about the school division's superior performance. Don't let them get away with falsehoods. Finally-, he would like the Board to fight the critics of teachers who mistakenly believe that they are already overpaid. That they only teach to the test. That they get paid for summers off. Fight these time warned falisies with the reality of competitive compensation that we need compared to other school divisions and the cost of living in this county. VCe are getting penthouse suite performance from our teachers for bargain basement prices. He asked the audience to stand for those who will fight for education. Ms. Darci Lieb spoke on behalf of the Monticello High School PTSO. The PTSO fully supports the Superintendent's Funding Request. l'hey asked the Board to approve it as submitted and forward it to the Board of Supervisors as a statement of the needs of the school division. They support the fnnding request cornerstone of competitive compensation for teachers and staff' acknowledging the need for excellence in the classroom, the offices and support capacities. Often they have ;vatched the school system be asked to cut back in tough financial times. Now with the financial sttrplus rather than being given to do more or to the same things better, the school system is again being asked to get by with less. If the Board of Supervisors chose to lower the tax rate. they risk lowering the quality of our schools along with it. They ask that the Board hold firm m requesting that of the February 11, 2004 Special Meeting (Budget Public Hearing) Page 7 Board of Supervisors what the division needs and no less. They ask that the Board support the request so that the administrators can continue to attract, retain and motivate the best educators. Ms. Denise Davis spoke on behalf of the Walton PTO and Scottsville PTO. We know that we need good teachers. We know that we are losing teachers. She said that it is very obvious that we are standing on shaky ground. She is in the process of building a home that is quite substantial and she knows that if she is going to spend that type of money, she ~vill not be putting it on shaky foundation. She will give the School Board her "tax relief" if the Board of Supervisors decrease the tax rate if it will benefit any child in the division. A lot of us do not realize too that Albemarle Counry does not actually obtain 76 cents on the dollar, we are obtaining roughly 66 cents. Ms. Karen Collier spoke on behalf of the Walton PTO. They ask that the School Board approve and submit the Superintendent's Funding Request. They fully support the funding request for the teachers and the staff to raise their salaries to competitive compensational levels ensuring that the standards m~d qualities of education remain excellent in our school system. We need to increase salary ranges for staff as well as teachers to ensure that we retain the ones that we have and acquire quality professionals. They asked that that Board ask the Board of Supervisors ro not louver the trax rate risking the lowering the quality of the education in our county. Ms. Marie White spoke on behalf of the Red Hill PTO. She shared with the Board ~vhat she loves about the school and some of the successful programs that were funded at the school this past year including Design 2004 and the Spanish pilot. She asked that the Board fully support the budget as prepared and presented by Dr. Castner. Specifically, she supports the employee pay scale increases. Our teachers have been giving us a premium product and we have been paying them ar a discount rate. We have been getting a bargain. We want excellence and we have to be willing to pay for it. They ask that staffing at Red Hill be held at a level that does not alto~v for combination classes. Comments on file in the Clerk's Office. Mr. John Baldino said that last year he had the opportunity to speak to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Association of Realtors and he tried to explain the states education budget. After he ~vas finished, he ~vatched a presentation on the MLS listing product. Albemarle County teachers cannot afford to live in Albemarle County. We have to fund this budget. He does not agree ~vith the proposed tax rate decrease. Fund the budget not a penny less. Ms. Bernardette Heams spoke on behalf of the Brownsville PTO. They ask that the Board support the Superintendent's budget proposal because at their school there is no one that they love and care for more than their teachers. They support them in everyway that they can. and they ask the Board to do the same by increasing teacher salaries. We ask them to leave no child behind, we ask you to leave no teacher behind. They should be treated and compensated for the role models that they are. When you go to the doctor do you want the best and the brightest or the least expensive? Well that is how- they feel about our teachers. Support the budget. Agenda Item No. 6. Other Business by Board Members/Superintendent. Dr. Castuer said that a handout for budget points of interest and an armotated agenda for the February 12th budget work session. Mrs. McKeel said that at Board member places there was a sheet of budget questions as well as a personnel addendum for the February 12~ meeting. Agenda Item No. 7. Adjournment. At 8:17 p.m., Mr. Walker offered a motion to adjourn the meeting of the Albemarle Connry School Board. Mr. Koleszar seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. Chairman February 11, 2004 Special Meeting (Budget Public Hearing) Page 8 Clerk Analyzing the House of Delegate's Proposal to Change the Funding of VRS Retirement Rate for Teachers The House of Delegate's proposed budget will shift to local governments a larger share of the cost of retirement for teachers. The budget proposal also makes local governments solely hable for losses in the stock market that may lead to teacher retirement contribution rates above the normal cost of 6.03 percent. While in FY2004-06, localities may see a small short term benefit in that teacher retirement rates would be lowm' than they might otherwise be, in the long run, there are severe and potentially extremely costly consequences, as soon as 2006-08, to the proposal made by the House. Background Information Normal cost: this is what the retirement contribution cost would be, based on an employee entering the system, without reflecting any past losses or gains in the retirement fund. The normal cost does not reflect past experiences in the fund - for example,_either gains or losses from the stock market and investment income, changes in salary levels, or rate of people retiring. It is the starting pmnt for calculating retirement rates. The normal retirement cost for the upcoming biennium is 6.03 percent. 7.82 percent of payroll: this is the calculated retirement rate for teachers for FY04-FY06, based on teachers being rated as a separate pool and a thirty-year amortization period. This is the contribution rate needed to fund the liabilities of the teacher retirement system. Currently the teacher retirement system is 94% (92.7) percent funded; in other words, it has 94 percent of the assets needed to cover its liabilities. The 7.82 percent rate is the funding level necessary to reuma the system to a fully funded status. How retirement costs are paid. Employers (school divisions and ultimately local governments, which pay the bill) pay VRS a percent of payroll for retirement for instructional positions. In FY04 that percentage is 3.77. State reimbursement is not based on payroll costs, but on the amount in the state budget to pay the cost of meeting the Standards of Quality (SOQ). The SOQ have not been updated since the late 1980s and fall far short of recognizing the actual cost of adequate public education~ The House Proposal on Teacher Retirement As proposed by the House Appropriations Committee, in FY05 the contribution rate charged to school divisions would be the normal cost, or 6.03 percent. The state would reimburse localities for a portion of this cost. The state's share would be 55 percent of the costs for positions funded by the state. The localities share would be 45 percent of the costs for those positions. The localities also pay 100 percent offue costs for positions that are outside of the SOQ and not funded by the state. The state's share of the retirement costs would be fixed at only the normal cost not only in FY05 but also in succeeding years. Any contribution rote over 6.03 p~rcent would be the liability of the locality. The teacher retirement system would be under-funded in the 2004-06 bienmum, since 7.82 percent is the amount actually needed to fund the system. The House committee is saying that the costs would be delayed and paid in phases over the next three years. In FY06 through FY08, the contribution rate would be the normal cost and one-third of the amount needed to fully fund the unfunded liability - in other words, one third of the difference between 7.82 percent and 6.03 percent. This'would mean that the FY06 rate would be 6.63 percent of payroll, which is what VRS would charge localities. The state share of the cost, however, would be based on the lower, fixed rate of 6.03 percent. Localities would pay their share of the 6.03 contribution rate, and all of the cost of the additional 0.60 percent in FY06. The remaining 1.19 percent would be unfunded in FY06. The most detrimental effect of the proposed change would not be felt until future years. Assuming that VRS retirement rates do not change in 2006-2008, which is an extremely unlikely vcenario, the retirement rate in FY07 would be 7.22 percent and in FY08, 7.82 percent. Again, the state's reimbursement to localities would be based only on the 6.03 rote, so localities would be paying their share of the 6.03 rate and all of the cost of the rate above that - an additional 1.19 percent in FY07 and 1.79 percent in FY08. The picture gets even worse, because the FY07 and FY08 rates given above are based on the current valuation, but VRS will undergo a new valuation for the FY0%08 biennium as it normally does every two years. The valuation is based on a five-year smoothing technique that recognizes twenty percent of losses and gains each year. The system today, therefore, has only started recognizing the losses from the downturn in the stock market, and will continue to recognize those losses for another three years. The actuary for VRS already has predicted that retirement contribution rates will continue to rise. In other words, in the best case, retirement rates would be expected to continue to increase just because of market losses. The teaching workforce is aging as well, which adds to the liabilities in the system. The valuation for FY07-FY08 also would reflect the under-funding of the teacher retirement system in 2004-2006. This under-funding will only increase the unfunded liability of the system, which in turn will mean higher retirement rates in the future. But regardless of how high the rates go, the state would base its reimbursement on only the normal cost of 6.03 percent. An analys~s by the VRS's actuary presented to the VRS Board of Trustees last June predicted double-digit retirement rates toward the end of the decade. Localities would bear a larger and larger proportion of the costs of teacher retirement. Problems with the Proposal h Up until 1986, the state paid all the costs for fringe benefits for teachers recognized by the SOQ, including retirement costs. Starting in the 1986-88 biennium, the state gradually raised the state share of the SOQ from 50 to 55 percent and, in return, required localities to pay a share of the cost of fringe benefits, based on the composite index. This proposal by the House, if adopted. would be one more example of a commitment that the state has made but failed to keep. JLARC has shown that the state is underestimating the costs of the current SOQ, and that the SOQ is woefully inadequate in terms of the educational program actually offered in schools. 2. Localities would bear all responsibility for losses in the stock market over the past several years. Part of the reason rates have gone up is the downturn in the stock market. 3. Part of the rise in contribution rates is the result of salary increases given by localities, and evidently part of the rationale of the House Appropriations Committee is that the state should not have to pay for funding decisions made by localities. If the state fails to recognize those salary increases, however, a fair conclusion is that the state thinks those increases should not have been given and that teachers are paid too much. This is a bad precedent and sets the stage for a future state action of the state to not recognize those salary increases in the future rebenchmarking of the SOQ. Teacher salaries are largely driven by the free market. There is a teacher shortage, and localities have to set salaries at a level that will attract and retain teachers. Further, localities are under the gun m hire highly qualified teachers to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind. 4. Not all the changes inthe higher salary levels contributing to the increase in retirement costs result from salary increases. The overall salary levels also reflect the fact that more teachers are on the payroll because of increases in enrollment. Irt addition, localities fund additional teaching positions above SOQ required positions in an effort to lower the class size and help ensure that students will pass the SOL tests and graduate, and that schools will be fully accredited. Overarching Problems with Teacher Retirement/SOQ Funding Statewide, the state share of education is supposed to be 55 percent of the SOQ; localities statewide pay 45 percent, but the percentage an individual locality pays varies anywhere from 19 percent to 80 percent of the SOQ, depending on the local composite index. Localities, however, now pay approximately 60 percent of the payroll costs, including teacher retirement. The major reasons for these discrepancies are: 1. Localities employ more than 22,000 teachers beyond those required by the state. Therefore, the localities pay 100 percent of the sala~ and fringe benefit costs; the state pays nothing for these teachers. The Board of Education has acknowledged the disconnect between the cun'ent staffing levels in the SOQ and the staffing levels actually required. The Board's proposal would revise the SOQ to add about 12,000 positions to those required and funded by the state. 2. Retirement contributions are based on a percent of payroll - the actual salaries paid to real teachers teaching children. State reimbursemem, on the other hand, is based on the SOQ funding methodology that dampens the calculation of the costs for meeting the standards. As one example, linear weighted averages are used to determine the base salaries used in the state budget. The linear weighted average is a conservative measure of the salary levels that the state shares in funding, but as JLARC has shown, the state is not even correctly computing their low calculation. More than 75 percent of the teachers in the state are paid salaries higher than the salaries used to determine the state's share. 3. The Standards of Quality have not been updated since the late 1980s. The SOQ are the funding mechanism for education, so the state is basing its education funding on educational practices from the late 1980s. Since then, the state has thoroughly revised the Standards of Accreditation, rewritten the Standards of Learning, and tied student achievement on the SOL tests to graduation and to school accreditation. Those sweeping changes, however, have not been incorporated into the SOQ, which is the prima~ way the state pays its share of the cost of public education. In addition, the composition of the student population has changed dramatically. The number of students with limited English proficiency increased 200 percent during the past 10 years. The special education population continues to grow and school divisions are attempting to deliver services to medically-fragile children. Migrant Education Program BACKGROUND: The Albemarle Regional Migrant Education Program serves appmximately 250 students each year. Of this number, 150 students reside in Albemarle County. Of those who reside in Albemarle County, 50 are enrolled in Albemarle County Schools and the remaining 100 have dropped out of school. Due to the increased numbers of Migrants in the state as a whole, the share of the Virginia Migrant federal allocation to Albemarle has been drastically reduced. In addition, stare support was cut entirely from the budget by the Ieg~slature in 2003. Four years ago we received over $240,000, two years ago we were allocated $184,000 and this past year we received under $74,000. IMPACT: As a result of reduced funding, staff and direct service hours to students and their families have been drastically reduced. The Coordinator's position was reduced from 90% time to 20%, almost entirely cutting out her teaching and home school coordinating duties. The number of teachers and the hours that they work has been reduced to minimum. There are only four part-time Migrant staff members left for the entire regmn. As a result, students receive less extended learning time and are taught by volunteers and interns instead of trained teachers. The needs of the Migrant students are very unique. They often have missed parts of the/r schooling and have spent time in many different schools. They need academic support to learn the basic skills that they may have missed. Our Migrant students are almost all Limited English Proficient and thek parents are unable to help them with their homework. They need extended learning time throughem the school year and the summer, parent trmning, and intensive home/school coordination. Currently we are meeting the needs of the Migrant students as best we can within our current budget. We organize, train and supervise over 150 volunteers and collaborate with over 40 agenmes to provide support including books, volunteers, interns, and donations. We have received an Adult Education EL/Civics grant m provide teachers and classes in the rmgrant camps for our out of school youth. However, this funding ~vill end in 2005. We encourage our students and parents to attend, and try to help them access the Adult Educanon GED and ESOL instmctian at school sites. We have shared the resources of an Americorp intern for the last four years with Adult Education, which has been indispensable in providing more direct tutoring t~me. (At this time we do not plan on continuing this program next year because we do not have the money to pay the intern's monthly stipend of $900.) At the present we are looking for other funding sources. The Albemarle Regional Migrant Education Program has been recognized statewide and nationally numerous times; twice we been named a National "Unusually Successful Tire I Migrant Program." But we are now a mere shadow of what we used to be We have cut as much as we can. FUTURE: We are working with the state department and plan on applying for a federal Migrant Incentive Grant award. We are exploring the recently announced possibili .W of asking all of the Titte I programs m the region, including Albemarle, to help support the services M~grant Education is providing for their students. We are searching for grants and making presentations to local groups for support. If the Albemarle County School Board would like to directly support their Migrant Education Program, a small match could be made to our federal funding as is done with Adult Education (Regulations require a minimum 15 % match for ABE.). A 15% match to Migrant Education of $11,000 would provide the means to hire a rcmned teacher to provide over 400 hours of direct instruction for our Albemarle students. Although this is only 8 hours per student this could be targeted to our students most at need. Using this model we could also approach other regional school boards and ask for fiscal support for their students. Summary of Board Discussion from February 21, 2004 The School Board reached consensus that redistricting could be used as a tool to maximize use of school building capacity. o The School Board reached consensus that straight feeder patterns are desirable and split feeder patterns would be limited and allowed when a compelling, geographical or transportation condition exists which makes a split necessary. The Board agreed correcting the majority of existing splits would be very disruptive to a great number of students. Redistricting to correct splits would occur when additional capaci .ty is added to an existing facility, a new school is built, or when there ~s a significant need to maximize the use of our capacity. Redistricting from AHS and WAHS is allowed. Redistricting from Albemarle High School to Monticello High School and Western Albemarle High School to Monticello High School are recommended to accommodate short and long-term growth. Adding capacity at Monticello is the most cost effective way to handle growth over the next 10 years, and to maximize our use of current facilities and enable us to build a stronger case for a new high school facility, when necessary. The School Board has serious concerns about enlarging Albemarle High School. The School Board reached consensus that grandfathering be considered with any redistricting. Proposed grandfathering and the associated transportation cost will be brought forward to the School Board with each redistricting. The School Board approved a motion to have staff bring forward as a regular agenda item a proposal to eliminate the MWL split starting fall of 2005. The proposal would include a request for a waiver of number 4 of the administrative procedures of Policy FB. The procedural waiver would eliminate the formal redistricting process followed when redistricting more than 50 students. The School Board also agreed that other spot redistrictings be brought forward that were recommended by the Long-Range Planning Committee during the redistricting for Baker-Butler. The School Board directed staff to discuss with the Long-Range Planning Committee (LRPC) the potential need to add seats to Western Albemarle High School. The LRPC would consider the facts presented and include the project in the next CIP if appropriate. Next Steps The Long~Range Planning Committee will be convened and staff will present the High School Feasibihty Study, the Residential Development Report, and Board direction from the February 21 discussmn. The direction given by the Board will inform the upcoming Capital Improvement Program (C1P) process. Future Agenda Items Consideration of having the redistricting committee become a Superintendent's Committee instead of a School Board Committee · Consideration for the exact terms of Long-Range Planning Committee members. High School Planning Study Albemarle County Public Schools Albemarle County, Virginia Executive Summary Estimated Costs for Potential Additions to Albemarle High School · Additions to Accommodate 200 Students Cost Per Student Seat · Additions to Accommodate 300 Students Cost Per Student Seat $ 7,622,000 $38,110 $ 9,164,400 $ 30,548 Estimated Costs for Potential Additions to Western Albemarle High School · Additions to Accommodate 200 Students Cost Per Student Seat $ 6,690,000 $ 33,450 · Additions to Accommodate 300 Students Cost Per Student Seat $ 7,962,500 $ 26,542 Estimated Costs for Potential Addition to Monticello,High School · 200 Student Classroom Addition $ 3,998,000 Cost Per Student Seat $19,990 Estimated Costs for Potential New High School · New 1000 Student High School Cost Per Student Seat $ 44,805,000 $ 44,805 Rancorn Wildman Architects Albemarle County Public Schools Department of tluman Resources ANNUAL REPORT 2003-2004 School Year (October I, 2002 ~ September 30, 2003) TABLE OF CONTENTS ]~I~RODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... ~.. 2 REPORT ................................................................................................................................... . . 6 APPENDIX 1: Table 1: Student Ethnic Distribution ......................................... ~ .................................... 19 Table 2: Employee Ethnic Distribution .......................................................................... 20 Table 3: Teaching Field Demographics ......... ; ................................................... ~ ........... 28 Table 4:2002-2003 Recruitment Trip Schedule ............................................................. 29 Table 5: Summary of 2002-2003 Recruitment Trip Results ....................................... ;... 30 Table 6: Summary Comparison of Recruitment Trips .................................................... 31 Table 7: Newly Employed Teaching Staff...; ................................................................. 32 Table 8: Personnel Characteristics of New Teaching Stat~. 1998-2003 .......................... 38 APPENDIX 2: 360 Degree Feedback Forms .......................................................................................... 39 APPENDIX 3: mas ....... 44 Exit Survey Fo ................................................................................................ INTRODUCTION The Albemarle County Department of Human Resources is pleased to present the School Boarcl with the School Division Human Resources Annual Report. This report is intended to provide information for use in establishing the Division's overall strategic plan and to assist in s~tting initiatives for future years. The report contains statistical information on the School Division's worlfforee as well as some highlights of the Human Resource Department?s initiatives and accomplishments for fiscal year 2002-2003. Key Information Provided: · Recruitment/Selection/Retention - minority staffing, retirements, turnover, peffo~t:tmaace appraisal, exit surveys · Compensation and Benefits - pay strategy, training, rewards and recognition · Demographic data - age, EEO, geographic information The Albemarle County Department of Human Resources is determined to provide excellent haaman resource support to our customers through the implementation of our strategic plan. We will continue our efforts to focus om competitive salaries/benefits, recruitment/selection/retention, professional development, aging workforce/retirements, as well as assessment and improvement of our internal systems and processes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The intention of this report is to provide information to be used in establishing the overall sWategic plan and to assist in setting initiatives for the coming year. This report provides statistical information on the School Division workfome as well as the Human Resources Depatta~ent's accomplishments over the past year. This year the Human Resources Department remained committed to its mission of exemplary customer service by reaching out to internal and external clients alike. Some major initiatives included the following: · Enhanced the applicant management system through the implementation of an ,on-line application · Continued to cultivate strategic partnerships with all departments/schools · Enhanced the newly restructured annual recognition program · Conducted safety tr0inlng · Audited and revamped the file management system to ensure compliance with federal, state and local regulations · Implemented a Weekly New Employee Orientation program to ensure that all required paperwork is completed prior to the employee beginning work · Led an initiative through the Employee Advisory Council to provide training to all classified County Employees · Expanded the Mantoring for Excellence program to include classified employees · Provided assistance to teachers seeking national hoard certitieation as a result of a new $5000 budget initiative Assisted in the developmcm and implementation of an enhanced tuition reimbursement program allowing for up to $500 per course with a maximum of $1000 p~r year for coursework · Based on the School Board's priority the Human Resources Department reevaluated current compensation methodology · Evaluated current recruitment efforts and implemented a new recruitmem strategy Following is a summary of the key information provided in the report: · Through September 30, 2003, the Albemarle Coumy School Division hired 136 teachears, five administratom and 99 classified staff, for a total of 240 new employees. For the 2002-2003 school year, the School Division hired eleven new minority teachers and two new minority admini~rators. Over the past eight years, the amber ofminority teachers in the School Division has shown an overall increase from 70 in 1995-1996 to 78 in 2003- 2004. In addition, twelve male teachers endorsed on the elementary level were hired for the 2003-2004 school year. As of September 2003, 26 teachers retired as compared to 21 in the previous year, an increase of 24% . This long-term trend toward more retirees will undoubtedly continue as the Division's teaching force ages. · Overall teacher retention remained relatively stable over four of the past eight years, between 91.5% and 94.5%. Retention for the past four years was between 85.5% and 87.7%. Exit survey data identified the top three masons for leaving as other, salary and lack of recognition. This data also indicated that employees were most dissatisfied with supervisor feedback regarding performance, salary and leadership's concern for employees. The following Critical Issues and Considerations, addressing the areas of Competitive Salaries and Benefits, Recruitment and Selection, Professional Development, Retention and Aging V~rork Force/Retirement are presented as follows: Competitive Salaries and Benefits Critical Issues: · The increasingly aggressive market for teachers makes attracting and retaining teachers a challenge. A review of the 134 School Divisions indicates that Albemarle County teacher salaries have dropped in competitiveness as the ranking among other school divisions has fallen at every step, with the exception of our minimum and step 5. In addition, the Albemarle teacher scale is in the second quart'fie at all steps, with the exception of minimum and step 5, relative to other school divisions in Virginia. · Several recent issues have impacted the ab'ffity of the School Division to attract and retain a highly qualified workforce. These issues include: · Recent recruitment efforts resulted in a shallow pool of candidates for many positions; · Top candidates declined positions; · Recognized high cost of living in a~ea by candidates; · Continued increase in the pemenmge of workforce eligible for retiremem; · The henefits strategy adopted by Albemarle County is targeted at 105% of markot. Howewr, the current benefit plan design does not allow for flem'bility to meet the varied needs of employees and their family members. Considerations: is a cross-section of localities from across Virginia but heavily represented by surrounding school divisions (11 of 26). This market does not adequately represent our teacher scale competitiveness for recruitment. · Consider differem markets for different positions, specifically, management-level and/or professional-level positions. The adopted market my adequately represent our competition for those positions for which we would generally recruit locally, such as Office Associates, Custodians, Bus Drivers and Teaching Assistants. However, this market does not adequately represent our salary scale competitiveness for positions in a wider geographic market. · Determine impact of cost of living. As the Charlottesville area has a high cost of living, recruiting new employees is becoming increasingly difficult. Over the past year, final candidates for teaching positions and management positions have declined our offer of employment, oRen based on lack of affordable housing. Charlottesville Metropolitan Statistical Area has the 2nd highest cost of living of the eight largest urban areas in Virginia. Charlottesville MSA is second only to Northern Virginia and the cost of housing (both rental and ownership) is considerably higher than the surrounding areas. · Continue providing a longevity increase for teachers~ · Living wage. Staff will continue to evaluate the issues, impacts and options regarding establishing a living wage. Recruitment and Selection Critical Issues: · The Virginia Department of Edacation has identified the following areas as hard-to- fill: Library Media Specialist, Special Education, Math, Reading, Foreign Language, Language Arts and Science · The environment for minority recruiting remains extremely compo~ve in terms of other school divisions and the private sector · The ambiguity and impact of No Child Left Behind legislation with regard to recruitment and selection leaves us uncertain about future outcomes and goals · Attracting highly skilled candidates to a variety of classified positions such as nurses and teaehlng assistants Considerations: · Continue to offer early contracts for specific teaching positions · Through our Strategic Recruitment Plan, establish relationships with five Virginia colleges and universities to recruit the best instructional talent · Evaluate the use of other recruitment sources · Identify teaching assistants to move into teaching positions and support their development · Continue to research, stay informed and develop strategies in order to ensure compliance with the requirements associated with No Child Left Behind legislation · Explore innovative recruitment techniques and incentives geared toward minority staffing · Increase recruitment budget to allow for targeted recruitment efforts such as carnpus visits, candidate site visits and improved recruitment materials Professional Development Critical Issues: · The No Child Left Behind legislation requires a review of current teacher endorsements to ensure compliance. · Exit survey data indicates that employees are dissatisfied with supervisors' feedback regarding performance. 4 Considerations: · In light of No Child Left Behind legislation, identify instructional staff with appropriate education and experience and assist them in achieving certification in critical needs areas. · Identify ~ needs of supervision to include performance management. Retention Critical Issues: · Sixty-five percem of the teachers that left the division over the past year had O-3 years experience with Albemarle County. .~dthough inherent to the teaching profession, this high degree ofturnover is still an area Where improvement would be of great significance. · There is a large population of employees currently eligible, or soon eligible, for early retirement. · There is room for improvement with regard to classified staff turnover, espeeially In support services professions. Considerations: · Evaluate mentoring programs for continuous improvement. · Continue to support equity and diversity initiatives. · Continue to evaluate turnover rate of teachers with 0-3 years experience and identify creative initiatives for retention. · Menitor the effectiveness of retention initiatives specifically developed for classified · Identify employees eligible for retirement and explore incentives for continued employment such as re-employment of retirees in part-time classified and teaching positions. · The value of exit survey data has been instmmemal in the identification of eritical staff'mg and retention issues; therefore, continue to conduct exit surveys. Aging WorkforeedRetirement · Critical Issue: · The County's aging workforce not only impacts the number of retirees and the administrative reqmrement aasue~ated with such an increase, but has implications for our lxmefit plans as well Impacted areas include increased health insurance costs, sick leave and sick leave bank usage, disability retirements, and workers compensation incidents. · Comiderafion: · Evaluate current beuefit programs with consideration to the issues of this aging workforee. REPORT RECRUITMENT, SELECTION AND RETENTION The Human Resources Department cominues to support the School Division in recruiting, selecting and retaining the best talent possible. The team has also been instmmemal in staffing changes to include transfers and promotions of several key positions over the past year. Through September 30, 2003, the Albemarle County School Division hired 136 teachers, five administrators and 99 classified employees to the system. As the numbers in the chart below indicate (which shows hiring trends from 1996 to the present), there has been an increase in the number oftemchers hired from last year by nine. We attribute this increase to the implementation of several new academic programs, turnover, and hiring part-time teachers in order to teach specific sections necessary to meet federal regulations under No Child Left Behind legislation. NEW EMPLOYEES 9-30-1996. 9-30-1997 9-30-1998 9-30-1999 ~-30-20009-30-2S01 9-30-2~02 9-30-2003 r~ 85 89 145 ' 140 176 134 127 : 136 ~mi~m ~ ~ 7 7 5 5 ~ 109 1~ 155 116 139 120 121 ' 99 .~} 322 26 ! ' 253 2~ r~l 194 189 ~' 256 At the start of the 2002-2003 school year, Albemarle County began hosting three Visiting International Faculty (VI_F) teachers from Australia to teach at the elementary level: The 'v~ program is the leading cultural exchange program for hosting imemational teachers in the United States. Since 1989, VIF has been bringing "highly qualified" educators to provide outstanding instruetiun and cultural enrichment to U.S. students. In addition to the three from last year, this school year we are hosting one high school math teacher fi:om the Philippines. Minority Staffing The hiring of minority staff continues to be a major need and focus area for the Divisior~ It is the philosophy of the Division that the instructional staff should reflect the diversity of the student population. A continuing School Board/Superintendent Priority is to make progress in achieving this NEWLY EMPLOYED TEACHING STAFF SINCE LAST YEAR'S REPORT comparable level of diversity within the instructional staff. The data indicates an increase in the overall number of minority teachers hired this year. We attribute this increase to our on-going increased commitment to diversity and the support of the administration. Competition for minority candidates is intense both in the public and private sectors. Similar to last year, we find that local competition from the private sector and the location of Albemarle County make it challenging to recruit a more diverse population, According to USA TODAY, despite the increase of the public school classroom becoming more diverse, the teaching force remains overwhelmingly homogeneous and has its lowest share of men in 40 years. Only 10% of roughly 3 million teachers'are minority, and just 21% are men. According to a survey conducted by the National Education Association, an organization which represems 2.7 million teachers, the average contract salary for teachers in 2001 was $43,262. Unfortunately, these low salaries relative to other fields seean to be discouraging both men and minorities to the education profession. Since minority recruitment, hiring and retention has been a challenging demand for all of the surrounding systems, we have continued to partner with the Charlottesville City Public Schools to find be~er ways to attract and retain minority employees~ An example of our collaboration is the Mentoring for Excellence program. Mentoring for Exce//enee was established two years ago under the TOTAL TEACHING STAFF auspices of the Human Resources Department and the Superintendent's Equity and Diversity Committee. Its purpose is to provide cultural, personal and professional coaching to new minority employees. The mentors are leaders in the community who have volunteered to assist each now employee with the acclimation of their new position. The mentor is not designed to replace their building level mentor, but to enhance the support needed. The success of the program, due in part to the support of the administration, has been confirmed by the positive feedback we have received fi.om our participants. Since the progrmn's inception, we have matched over 30 new teachers, administrators and sl. tpport staff with mentors. We have also invited the City of Charlottesville and county governments to participate. Over the past eight years, the number of minority teachers in the school division has increased from 70 in 1995-1996 to 78 in 2003-2004. However, past recruiting challenges coupled with a loss of minority teachers resulted in a net decrease of two minority teachers in the division. (Note: one minority teacher that resigned at the end of the 2002-2003 school year was on a leave of absence the entire school year and, tl~refore, was not counted in the total number of minority teachers on staff'in last year's report.) In addition, two of the frye new administrators are minorities and one was promoted fi.om Assistant Principal to Principal. Currently, our minority teaching assistants comprise 13% of the total teaching assistant population~ While there is always room for improvement we are pleased with our work given the environment and our limited resources for recruitment and selection. Per the School Board and Superintendent's stated priority, the instructional staff should reflect the overall diversity of the student population. In order to be successful in achieving this priority, the Division must continue to focus on minority recruitment and retention to close the gap as indicated in the graph below. Furthermore, u:end data indicates that while our ratios are the same as last year, we are slightly ahead of our competitors. Racial Minority Distribution in Area Schools ;O% ;0%- !0%- 0%- IEIStudents I-ITeachers EITeaching Assistants EtAdrninistrators I~OtherSupport , Minority Employee Distribution Compared to County Resident Minority Distribution Minorit~ Employee Distribution Co unty ~e~ {de~t D~ tz~t~o ~ l~ments Since September 2002, 26 teachers retired compared to 21 in the previous year. graph shows an increase in the number of teacher retirements once again for 2003. The following Retired Teachers 20- The trend toward greater numbers of retirees is reflective of the Division's aging teaching force. The Division's administrative and classified staffs are also impacted by increases in retirement. The graphs on the following page provide information on the age distribution of Albemarle County tench~s, ..~.~-,v.~ni~mtors and mppo~ _~ From th_h~s data. a, we can anticipate a ~astai~_erl i~cre~___~e of retirements in the coming years. However, retired school employees can return to work in a part- time position and continue to receive their Virginia Retirement System (VRS) pension. To clato, 12 school division employees have taken advantage ofthis oppommity. Legislation is still pending IRS approval to allow retired teachers and administrators in critical positions to be re-emPloyed full-time and continue to receive VRS pension. 9 AGE IDIST~BUTION OF TEACHE~RS 2~004 ,SCHOOL YEAR (As of S~=,,~ ~0, 20e~) ]0 One critical element in projecting workforce requirements for the future is to consider the impact of potential retirements. (The following retirement projections do not include service earned in other public entities and thus understates the projection). FULL-TIME TEACHERS ELIGIBLE FOR RETIREMENT FULL-TIME ADMINISTRATORS EUGIBLE FOIl RETIREMENT tl FULL-TIME SUPPORT STAFF ELIGIBLE FO~ RETIREMENT As the graphs above and on the previous page indicate, a large number of our employees will be eligible to choose an early retirement option this year. Looking ahead to the next two years, the number of employees eligible to retire continues to be significant. Retention The following graph provides the eight-year trend regarding teacher retention. Teacher retention remained relatively strong from 1996 through 1999, between 91.5% and 95.9%. Retention in the past four years was between 85.5% and 87.7%. This graph also provides retention rotes for administrators and support staff. Retention Rates 12 The graph on the right provides teacher turnover information by experience level. Consistent with national trends, the highest turnover for teachers is within the first three years of teaching Of the 141 teachers that left employment over the past year 65% (91) of them had 0-3 years of experience in Albemarle County. In August of 2003, Education Week on the web challenges systems to look at other factors that enntribute to high turnover effectively addressing the question of why "a third of our teachers leave the profession after only three years." Retention rates at other levels of years of experience remained stable in comparison to last school year. Performance Appraisal (Pilots) Recognizing that consistent and timely performance evalu~ions hacrease retention, performance appraisal draft instruments have been piloted on a division-wide basis for the past three school years. While in the pilot stage, feedback has been collected and will be incorporated into the revision of the current performance appraisal during the 2004-2005 school year. A focused team comprised of administrators, teachers and other community educators are working to ensure that the school system's goals and objectives are met, and that up to date teaching strategies and best practices are incorporated. 360° Feedback 360° evaluations, a multiple source feedback process, has been ufflized to identify oppommities for professional growth, create individual development plans and to set goals. In our efforts to provide valuable feedback as a part of the evaluation process, the piloted 360° Feedback Process continues. Participants (or raters) completed the survey information in May and a composite report summarizing the participants' perceptions was sent to the administrator. The feedback informaf~on may he shared with their supervisor for purpose of goal setting for this eun~nt school year. Exit Surveys The Exit Survey data collected for this report includes terminations that occurred between September 1, 2002 and August 3 I, 2003. There were 373 voluntary and involuntary terminstionts during this timeframe. 13 The Human Resources Departmem contracted with the organization HR Solutions this year for the purpose of gathering the exit survey data. In addition to the advantage of confidentiality, the School Division benefited by being able to compare itself against national normative data from 64 different organizations and over 53,000 employees (both public institutions and private sector). The data collected indicates that, all in all, employees are leaving with a positive image of their employment with the Division. Highlights of Data from Exit Surveys The findings indicate a very high percentage (75%) of employees who returned the survey were at Ieast satisfied with their overall experience of working for Albemarle County Public Schools. The following are some highlights from the survey results. The top reasons for leaving were: For Teachers On~y: · 29% Other · 18% Salary · 18% Personal tmrelated to v~rk · 14% Moved from area For Alt Employees: 26% Other o 20o/0 Sala~ · 15% Lack of recognition · 15%Poor supervision/management Tho top 3 aspects that employees were most dissatisfied with iaelucle: For Teachers Only: · 41% Salary · 33% Supervisor's feedback regarding · 33% Leadership's concern for employees · For Ali Employees: · 45% Salary · 39% Supervisor's feedback regarding 36% Lead_..ership's concern for emplo.vees The top 3 ,aspects that employees weane most satisfied with include: For Teachers One: · 86% Opportunity to perform duties best suited for · 85% Job made good use of skills/abilities · 82% Orgm~iyalion's clear sense of direction For Mli Employees: · 75% Benefits · 75% Job m~le good use of skills/abilities · 75% Overall ~enee Eodt Survey Summary Analysis The following chart is an overall summary of the percemages of positive responses within each dimension of the exit survey, To date, our vendor has insufficient Normative Data gathered necessary for comparing responses to the questions that we asked for the purpose of assessing Drsanizational Culture. ' ' County of Government/ Dimension Albemarle School Exit Normative Division Score Data Public Sector Education 1. Work Satisfaction 73 58 60 · ,~,~. ~,,~,,~,,,,,~ ,,,,~e,~o.e ......... ~ 69 47 45 3. Pay/Benefits 59 55 51 4. Training and Development 63 42 53 5. Career Advancement Opportunities 54 34 37 6. Supervisory Consideration 62 48 53 7. Work Group Communication 65 53 51 8. Organivational Cultm-e 63 - 14 The next cha~ details the highlights from the survey in terms of tho highest and lowest percentage differences from the normative data. co~ ~e- ~ ~ ~o~ ~m~ THREE IIIGI[IJGHTS BY SURVEY DIMENSH)N Dimension 2: ~o~ Dist~butlon~chcdule Flexibility [ 69 J 47 2~ M) worklmd aas a~qualc and masolmblc'. ' 70 47 23 D~~ 4; ~g:~d ~ebpm~ ~. 42 .21 ~s ~a~z~on ~ ~ ~oN to h~p ~l~s im~ ~lv~ ~ 43 23 48 22 I 26 Job ~o~ ~ ~ o~ni~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~m~o~ at ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~o~. ~ 21 25 ~p of ~ o~ w~ ~n~ ~ ~ e~o~ 59 34 25 Dim~on 6: ~ Con~ra~on ~e~ w~ ~ ~on ~n my ~t ~ o~ ~B. 69 45 24 Dim~on 7: Work ~o~ C~cagon ~ ~ ~, I m ~fi~ ~ ~ job. 75 52 23 Dim~on 1: Work ~g~on ~s ~i~on ~ a cl~.~ of ~fi~. 68 45 23 Dime~on & O~za~onal Culmre o~ oP~R~'~ ~R ~RO~8Y S~Y n~SXo~ . 59 55 4 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~o~ I ~t ~to ~g my wo~. 43 43 0 ~ O~~S ~R ~RO~ BY ~U~ S~Y 1'1'~ My m~mr ~ly ~e m ~ on ~ wo~ ~o~an~. 55 I 47 8 ~me~on 6: ~u~ Co~ra~on I · I m ~ ~ ~e ~m~on I ~ ~ou~om ~e y~fiom my ~r ~t ~ ~ffo~a~ (i.e. ~o~ my ~m ~-~). 61 ~ 53 8 Dim~on 6: Su~ Con~ra~ ~e ~on of ~ job ~ ~ my ~m~s) m ~ ~ ~j~ve. 67 58 9 Dimen~on 6: Su~ Con~r~on ~ w~ g~ m~on ~ng ~ ~ of ~ ~ 69 ~ 9 Dimen~on 7: ~k G~up Comm~ica~on My ~mr ~ me ~ ~m ~ ~g me. 61 52 9 ~n~on 7: ~ork G~ Co~ica~on 15 COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS Strategic Plan for Total Compensation In November 20011, the Joint Boards adopted the Total Compensation strategy and later adopted a process by which to establish the annual merit pool increase and salary scale adjustment. The process was used this past year in making recommendations on compensation and benefits to the Joint Boards that resulted in the School Board implementing a 4.8% average salary increase (including step) for teachers distributed across the scale, no salary scale adjustment and a 3.8% merit pool for classified/administrative staff in FY 2003-2004. ,Compensation and Benefits Strategy Adopted by Joint Boards e Overall Goal: The overall goal of tho County's Compensation and Benefits strategy is to provide competitive compensation opporttmities that reinforce high performance fxom all employees and the achievement of organizational goals. · Base Salary: Base salary range midpoints are targeted at approximately market levels (i.e., 100th percentile). · Benefit~: Benefits will be targeted slightly above the County's competitive market (i.e., 105t~ percentile). Competitive Market: The primary competitive market for all County positions is defined as: · Counties and School systems of similar size within the State of Virginia; Counties and School systems located in the same geographic region of the State of Virginia; 'and, · Local private employers within the Charlottesville area for positions that are not unique to government and/or education industry. Internal Equity: Our focus on establishing an equitable compensation Program is reflected in our dedieatinn to considering internal equity, and market compensation levels in establishing base salary ranges, · Other Issues: Classified / Administrator Merit Distribution - The School Board modified the formula by eliminating the 'deceleration factor'. This change did not affect the total funds distn'outed in the merit process, but more equitably allocates the funds. The distribution of merit incx-eases is based on a formula implemented in i996. At the time ofimplememaiio~ the vast mjox--i~y' of our classified employees were below the midpoint of their pay grade. The fomula incorporated an 'acceleration factor' and a 'deceleration factor' which bad two effects. First, the 'acceleration factor' gave larger merit percentages to those further below the midpoint thus moving them m the midpoint faster. Second, the 'deceleration factor' gave srnaller merit percentages to those further above the midpoint. These ~factors' were recommended by the consultant in 1996 to improve the distribution of employees within each pay grade. The consultant also recommended that the formula be modified once greater distn'butiox~ was 16 achieved. In the past five years, the current formula, plus market adjustments in 2001, has provided a greater distribution of employees within each pay grade, which led to the decision to eliminate the deceleration factor at this time. School Board Priority - One of the School Board adopted 2002-2004 priorities is "During the 2002-2003 budget cycle, methodology used to analyze the division's salary and compensation structure relative to its defined market will be reevaluated". Over the past year, staff has considered options, collected data related to this priority and will present recommendations for the next fiscal year. Steps Taken to Achieve Strategy · Compensation: The market survey conducted showed our FY03-04 teacher pay scale overall was considered to be 0.28% below the market median, so a 4.08% increase was distributed along the scale to meet market last year. The Albemarle Coumy Classified and Administrator scale was not adjusted for FY03-04 based on data that showed our scale was 0.5% above the market. The data from our cornpefitive market indicated that salaries lagged the market for teachers and matched the market for classified/administrators. To reach the objective of paying employees at market, the following actions were taken effective July, 2003 as indicated below. Classified Scale and Employees' Increase: 1. Our classified salary scale was not increased To reward current etaployees for their job performance and maintain internal equity with the .market, the merit pool amount was funded at 3.8%. This resulted in a range of increase amounts depending on performance ra~_ng, salary/midpoint ratio and departmental pool amount. Teacher Scale and Step Increase: 1. The scale was adjusted and teachers received an average 4.08% increase distributed across the payscale. (This percentage included any step increase.) Our teacher pay scale does not compensate for teaching service beyond 30 years. Based on market data showing the teacher scale was considerably below market at the maximum years of service, the School Board approved a longevity increase for teachers with more than 30 years. This longevity increase was approved for only FY02-03 and was paid as a lump sum in December. · Benefits: In comparison with our competitive market, our current benefit programs were evaluated as above market, based on the plan design and premium cost of our medical insurance plan. 17 Benefits Administration: The Human Resources team strives to administer quality benefits in a cost-effective m_amcr and communicate those benefits to Albemarle County employees, family members, applicants and retirees. The County continues to offer a wide variety of employee benefits to meet the needs of our work~oree. TheSe include employee healthcare, retiree healthcare, deferred compensation, dental, flexible spending accounts, optional life insurance, direct deposit, FMLA, annual leave, sick leave, etc. Pension and life insurance plans for full-time employees are offered through the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) and for pm-time employees through a separate pension/life insurance plan. Of 2,198 employees, 539 contribute to tax deferred savings plans. Benefits are communicated through a variety of methods, some of which are listed below: · Weekly Benefits Orientation sessions · Benefits information on the County web site · Financial Educations and Pre-retiremem seminars · Monthly availability at the County Office Building of our deferred compensation vendor (Nationwide) Training: Over the course of the year, the Human Resources Management Team has provided training to hundreds of employees in the following subject areas: New Sllpervisor Training, Veteran Supervisor Workshop, Interviewing (Legal Issues and Interview Skills), Retention Strategies for Managers and Supervisors, Safety Awa~eness / OSHA training and Sexual Harassment Training. Additionally, through the Albemarle Resource Center (ARC), employees were offered a variety of training opportunities. Some of the more popular ones included classes on quality improvement, time management, team leadership, meeting facilitation, and customer~service. Rewards And Recognition: Building on employee feedback indicating the success of last year's revised employee recognition program, certain aspects were further enhanced and the County once again recogni~d the years of service contributions of its employees. In the Fall of 2003, 246 employees were recognized for their service milestones which occtarred between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2003. Furthermore, the new attendance reward program established for bus drivers recognized its first award recipients at both the 2003-2003 mid-year in-service and the 2003-2004 pre-service meetings. 18 Appendix 1 T~ble 1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS STUDENT ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION 2003-2004 SCHOOL YEAR (As of September 30, 2003) AMERICAN AFRICAN ASIAN HISPANIC OTHER WHITE SCHOOLS INDIAN AMERICAN TOTAL '# % # % # % # % # % # % ELEMENTARY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ BAKER-BUTLER 1 ':0.2 26 ' 5.7 25 5.5 7 1.5 I 0 "..=0,0 394 ~" ' ~7'~5'~ .. . ., .~, ¢,.?,..,.~,.;~ ~ ~,.: , BROADUS WOOD 0 0.0 3 ' 0.¢ 27 . 8.3 20 6 2 0 ,';-~;0 275 .',.~f~ '" BROWNSVILLE 1 0.3: 1 ',,' CALE 0' 0.0 ~0 ,2.~ 89 '18.8, 58 '~2.2 4 "~," 313 · , , . ,, .... .',.,~;7~. CROZFT 0 0.0 5 .1.3 14 ,3;8 14 .3.8' 0 ', 'G,Q. 338 ...,.,,,,.,.9~.1.,,.: ~¥" GREER 2 0.5 /5 . 19~1 110 2~. 30 .' 7.7 1 ',0.~ 174 ,,.~;~:; ' HOLLYMEAD 1 ,.' 0.2 32 r" 7.0, 36 . 7.9 11 ' 2~4 ~ 0 . ~0 378 , 82J5 MERIW5'I'HER LEW~S I :. 0.2 10 ;' 2,;4 6 · 1.4 7 . .1.7 , 0 ,, 0.0; 398 ;,,~,:~. 2 MURRAY ELEM. 0 0.0 ~7 '. 6.~ 8 ' 2.9. 3 1.1 0. 0.0.. 252 ~., . '~80' ' RED HII.I. 0 0.0. 3 ', .1;7 23 !3:1 ;3 .,7'.4 ! ':'0~ ' 135 :',~.7.1 ' ' 175 . . ..... .. :.. STONE-ROBINSON 0 0.0 4 '.'0;9. 65 14:3, 11 2.4' 0 0.0.. 376 5'.. ~ ' STONY POINT 0 0.0 7 ,3.3 30 14.2 5 2.4 '~ 1.4 167 ,.'~8~8" '.'21~ WOODBROOK 1 , 0.3 18 '5.5 88 ~6.7 6 1.8 0 ~0.0 216 ..6~.,~ 329 . .,., YANCEY 0 "' 0.0 0 0.0 43 '29,9 8 5.6, 0 ' 0.0 93 ~ ~[ . . '1 ' , ,. ~ . . :..., . . · '.', , ,, ' ' '. SUBTOTAL 11 0.2 2'81' '4,6 ~6S 12.3. 245' ~.5 ~., ~.~' '4228'":"78.~' .~09" MIDDLE ' ' .',: ' ' ;' . '' BURLEY 1 .0;.2' 6 . 1'.5 101 25.'1 '0 2.5 0 , ~.0 284 -'70~6' ~0" ... ,... , ,.. , . ? ,.~,,,: .: HENLEY 0 , 0.0 10 1.4 22 "3.~ 11 1.6 0 . 0.~.', 648 :~¢.~. , 69.! .: JOUET'I' 2 :'0,3 44 . 7.6' Y4 .12.8 26 4.5 ~ 0 O 431 ~": . 57~. SUTI.IERLAND J 0,~ 25 3.8' 104 15.8 b , 0.8. 0 ~"' . ~20 ,,79, "660 ' I .... WALTON 1' 0.2;. 5 '0,8 95 .15.8 36 6.0 0 ~.0'.' 486 ~¢.; ,.,' ....'S0aTOTAL. 4 01 90' 3.1 39~ 13.S. 88' 3.0. 0 ~ ,2~'5S.'.~"~.' ',','¢'," ALBEMARLEH.S. 2 0.1 78..' .8 257 ..15.7 43 , ,:) O.0~ 1252 '~' :"'" ' . ' WESTERN Al BEMARLE 2 ' ,'0.2 ~ 22 2.1. ~i3 3.1 j ~8. 1.~ 0 0: 993 , '" "' ' 'sUBTOTAL '4 0. 12. ',105 2.7" . . . , . '~4 '. 2.e ST'. o ..3{.~ .: s~,~' :':,~e 19 0 mini iii ~o ~ ~ 0 ~ ~m~ ~zo n,, ol,- o 22 O0~OW~oO0 z~z2~z~ 23 24 25 IA.I 26 Table 3 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS TEACHING FIELD DEMOGRAPHICS GENDER ETHNIC BACKGROUND ' ' African ! American TOTAL' TEACHING FIELD Female Male White American Hispanic Asian Indian C0U,NT. ,=' Courlt Porce~lt Cotlnl Per[;e,l Count pur~..o~t Count Perce,[ Count Percent Count Perco,t CouTi£ Purr.~ztt 2 8 .80.0 2 .,20.,0, 0 ' 0.0 0 ' ~SOL 11 28 Library 25 '.'/9,6;2 I r,~ 3,8' 26 ·'·100.0 0 "'.O.Q"' C' O.Q 0 .' 0,0 0 '0~0 ': · , 0.0 2 2.5 0 '."0.0 .79 ¥"~y~icn~ Educr::on 37 "~9:7 25 '-' 40.3 53 : 85.S 9 14,5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0"' ,' ',,' 28 Table 4 2002-2003 RECRUITMENT SCHEDULE DATE(S) & TIM~S [ lOCATIONS [ TYPE Minority Career Day O~ober 22, 2002 Omni Hotel Annual Care~ Fair Charlottesville, VA VASPA November 13, 2002 Double Tree Hotel Education Career Fair Charlottesville, VA February 6 & 7, 2002 Univexsity of Virginia Education Career Fair ~ Charlottesville, VA February 24, 2003 Harrisonbar$, VA Education Careex Fair Fairmont State University March, 2003 Fairmont, WV Education Career Fair TESOL Education Career Fair March, 2003 Baltimore, MD Virginia State Reading Association Education Career Fair March 8, 2003 Roanoke, VA Virginia Ma~ Association March 8, 2003 Chesterfield, VA Education C~xee~ Fair April 7, 2003 Contral N~0v Yark Conse~dum Edn~'afon Cares~r Fair Cortland, NY April 8-9, 2003 Westexn New York Consortium Educafi~ Career Fair Buffalo, NY Rocheatex Area Consortium Education Carear Fair April 10-11, 2003 Rochester, NY 29 U 31 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS NEW EMPLOYED TEACHING STAFF 2003-2004 SCHOOL YEAR (As of September 30, 2003) BY GRADE LEVEL TEACHING . ,':,=, TOTAL '. GRADE LEVEL MALE FEMALE ." '# .' ' "%' Elementary School 12 48 ,. 60 44.1 ,o Middle School 12 24 High School d4'~'''~ "'136~, 100 0% 'I;OTJN;. :':',.','.' . J.' ~'2~' ' . .,~' ," . Table 7 BY DEGREE ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH DEGREE Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Bachelor's 2 21 23 5 14 19 7 11 18 Vlaster's 7 26 33 4 8 12 8 10 18 Master's Plus 30 Hours 3 0 3 2 2 4 2 0 2 Doctorate · 0 1 I 1 0 1 1 I 2 BY YEARS OF PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE (including military service) YEARS OF ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH EXPERIENCE Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female 0 3 11 1-3 2 9 4-5 1 f5 6-8 ~ 8 9-11 2 4 12-15 0 3 16-20 0 2 21 & Above , 3 5 *35 years is !.h,,; most oxp¢~r,eace 14 11 7 9 6 3 2 8 4 6 10 5 7 12 1 6 7 1 1 2 0 1 0 ,') 0 0 1 1 i 2 3 Total' 5 9 14 4 3 7 3 1 4 1 4 5 0 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 4 2 6 lor a qewly omployed tsachar LICENSURE L ELEMENTARY MIDDLE LICENSURE Male Female Total Male Female Collegiate Pro[essional Postgraduate Pro[essional Provisional Pupil Personnol Speci~.'.l Ed. Conditional Occupational Ther~:py 3 23 26 8 20 28 1 4 5 (') C 0 P, 1 1 0 0 0 4 11 5 9 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total Male 15 7 6 3 0 ~' HIGH Female 14 0 0 0 0 Total ~,~,'. 21 .6,2 '.. 45 6% ~ ~ ,. '5~, :~.:'.4...2.:~?/; 3 , ~. . o ' :'!,.4'..,,10.3 Y. o ,'.:,~'," :~.~',~? o ': o~' .' .... 62o%' 32 H~,.I' ~'I~IILi Jill NEWLY EMPLOYED TEACHING STAFF continued... TablE)' 7' · BY GEOGRAPHICAL .REA LAST TAUGHT ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH CITY/COUNTY Male Female Tota Male Female Total Male Female Total 4 Albemarle 2 13 15 0 2 2 1 3 Arlington 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Buckingham 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 Caroline County 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Charlottesville 3 4 7 1 I 2 1 0 1 Chesapeake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Culpeper 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fairfax 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 Floyd 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 1 0 1 Fluvanna 1 0 1 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 Greene 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 Hampton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Henrico 0 0 0 0 1 1 I 0 1 Louisa 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loudoun 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lynchburg 0 '1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Madison 0 1 1 , 0 0 0 I 0 1 ' 1 Norfolk 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Orange 0 1 1 2 I 3 0 1 1 Petersburg 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Prince William 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Roanoke City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IRockingham County 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Spotsylvania County 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Staunton 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wayneeboro 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 Private School 1 1 2 1 1 ' 2 1 2 3 3ollege/University 0 2 2 0 1 1 I 1 2 Other Private Organization 0 0 0 0 1 I 1 0 1 OTHER Africa 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 · 0 Alabama 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 California 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ' 0 1 China 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ecuador 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Florida 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 sraei 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 Korea 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maine 0 0 (~ 0 I 1 0 0 0 Maryland 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Michigan 0 0 0 . 1 1 2 0 0 O Nebraska 1 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 O New York 0 0 0 O 0 0 i 0 1 ' 1 Oklahoma O 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Pennsylvania 1 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 Philippines 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 1 South Carolina 0 1' 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Texas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 ~ N~EWLY EMPLOYED TEACHING STAFF continued... Table 7 BY AREA OF ASSIGNMENT ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH ASSIGNMENT Male Female Total Male Female Total Ma e Female Total~ Art I 0 1 0 0 0 0 '0 0 Elementary/Middle 10 25 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 English/Second Lang. 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 Gifted & Talented 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 Guidance 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 Language Arts/English 0 1 1 2 3 5 1 4 5 Language/Foreign 0 0 0 0 3 3 I 6 7 Libmrian 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 Mathematics 0 0 0 3 5 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 1I 2 [~!~.! ~'!I~. ~,;~'.,;~! '*~.,,~ Physical Education 0 3 3 ! 0 1 2 Reading 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 Sch0ol Psychologist 0 I 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 ''~.2~,','~. [*',5,... Social Studies 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 3 5 . Special Educ. DepL C 5 5 2 4 6 2 0 2 Technology 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vocational Education 0 0 0 1 34 NEWLY EMPLOYED TEACHING STAFF continued... Table-~' BY COLLEGE OR UNIVERS ITY ATTENDED ELEMENTARY I MIDDLE HIGH TOTAL ASSIGNMENT Male Female Total~ Male Female Total Male Female Total # % VIRGINIA Christopher Newport 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0.74% College of Wm& Mary 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 3 4 4 2.94% George Mason University 0 0 0 1 0 1 , 0 0 0 I 0.74% Hollin$ University 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.74% James Madison Univ. 4 5 9 0 2 2 2 I 3 14 '10.29% Longwood College 0 2 2 1 2 3 0 0 0 5 3.68% Mary Baldwin College 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2.94% Mary Washington 0 2 2 0 I 1 0 0 0 3 2.21% Old Dominion University 0 0 0 0 1 I 1 0 I 2 1.47% Radford College 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 I 0.74% Randolph Macon College 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.74% Sweetbriar College 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.74% St. Paul's College 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 0 1 0.74% University of Virginia 3 15 18 3 5 8 4 9 13 39 28.68% Virginia Commonwealth 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 2.21% Virginia Tech ' 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 4 2.94% Virginia Union University 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0.74% Washington & Loo Univ. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.74% ALABAMA Aubum University 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.74% CALIFORNIA California State University 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0.74% Pepperdine University 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.74% San Francisco State Univ. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 I 1 0.74% COLORADO University of Northern Colorad¢ 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 0 1 0.74% DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA George Washington~niversity 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 ~1.47% FLORIDA Miami University 0 0 0 0 I '1 0 0 0 1 0.74% 0 0 0 0 o 0 1 0.74% University of Georgia 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.74% INDIANA Indiana Universi!~ 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 I 0.74% IOWA Drake University 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.74% KANSAS Kansas State University 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.74% MAINE University of Maine 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0.74% 35 NEWLY EMPLOYED TEACHING STAFF continued... Table 7 ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH TOTAL ASSIGNMENT Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total # _MARYLAND St. Mary's College of Maryland ~ 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0.74% University of Maryland 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 .0 0 ~ 1 ~ 0.74% ' . : IvlASSACHUSSETT$ Mass. :Institute of Technology 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0.74% MICHIGAN Wayne State University ~0 0 0 ~ MISSISSIPPI 0 1 I 0 ~ 0 0~1 0.74% NEVADA 0 ,= 0r ~ 0 1 0 I I 0.74% dEW HAMPSHIRE Dartmouth College 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 '1 0.74% i~IEW YORK Columbia University 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 I 0.74% St. John's University 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 I 0.74% SUNY Buffalo 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.74% SUNY Courtland 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.74% SUNY Fredonia 0 0 0 I 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.74% SUNY Potsdam 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0.74% Vassar College 0 1 1 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1% ' ' ..~'' ~tat~Tolal '1 3 4. ' 1 0.' 1 '0'.' 2' , 2 ' NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina Central Univ. 0 0 0 I 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.'~4% North Carolina State Univ. 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1.47% OHIO ~ent State University 0 0 0 .0, 0 0 1 0 1 I 0.74% PENNSYLVANIA Bloomsburg University 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 ' 0 1 0.74% Edinbom University 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.74% Geneva College 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 I 0.74% Pennsylvania State Univ. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 I I 0.74% St. Francis University 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 I 0.74% Shippensburg University 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 , 1 0.74% Susquehanna Univ. 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 I 0.74% ¢Vest Chester University 1 0 , 1 ~ 0 ? 0 ~ 0 0 . SOUTH CAROLINA South Carolina State Univ. 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.74% TENNESSEE East Tennessee, State.. ,Univ'.~ ~, ~ 0 1 1 0 0.~ 0 0 0 0 TEXAS University of Texas at Austin 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0.74% 36 NEWLY EMPLOYED TEACHING STAFF continued... Talkie ~ ASSIGNMENT ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH TOTAL , Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total # % UTAH  0 0 0 ~ 1 0.74% WEST VIRGINIA Glenville State College 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0.74% WISCONSIN University of Wisconsin 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.74% BELGIUM I Katholieke Universiteit'Leuven 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 1 0.74% PHILIPPINES 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 10.74% 37 Table ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS PERSONNEL CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TEACHING STAFF 1998 - 2003 2000-2001 2001-2002 2(~02.2003 2003.2004 CHARACTERISTICS' 1998-1999 1999-2000 (9/30/2000) (9/3012001) (9130/2002) (913012003) NUMBER EMPLOYED Male 37 22 39 37 24 42 Female 108 118 137 97 103 94 TOTAL 145 140 176 134 127 136 GRADE LEVEL , Elementary 57 60 $2 64 48 60 Middle 37 36 34 ~ 35 35 36 Secondary 51 44 60 35 44 40 DEGREE I Doctorate 2 2 3 4 2 4 Master's plus 30 hours 6 10 12 8 7 9 Master's 64 57 73 52 55 63 'Bachelor's 73 71 88 70 63 60 LICENSURE ~ostgraduate Professional 60 57 61 44 48 58 Collegiate Professional 76 65 72 49 41 62 Pupil Personnel -- - 3 3 4 1 Provisional 9 18 40 36 30 14 Occupational Therapy ..... 2 1 -- Special Education Conditional ....... 1 1 *Does Not Hold A License ........ 2 - NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS REPRESENTED BY NEVV TEACHING EMPLOYEES Virginia colleges/universities 15 15 17 15 10 18 Df_her instL~Jtions ~ 55 i 39 68 ~ 65 ~ 58 ~ 46 NUMBER OF NEW TEACHING EMPLOYEES FROM... Virginia colleges/un versities 81 93 96 58 64 87 Other institutions 64 47 80 76 63 49 : *AFJROTC Officers Appendix 2 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 360° Feedback - Administrator Instructions: You lmve been identified by the administrator being appraised as one who can provide valuable input m the individual on his/her performance. Your individual responses will remain anonymous and only composite' information will be provided to the administrator which will assist in his/her objective setting for the next appraisal period. Please use the following scale to assess the performance of the administrator and record your response on the green and white scanner sheet provided to you. A B C D E Not Applicable Does Not Meet Improvement Meets Exceeds or Observable Expectations Desired Expectations Expectations 1. Actively listens to others ............................................ A B C D E Provides a supportive environment for expressing and clarifying ideas and suggestions. 2. Utilizes effective oral and written communication skills- ................. A Expresses ideas tn a clear and effective manner. 3. Communicates necessary information appropriately ...................... A Communicates necessary information to appropriate personnel in a timely fashion. Seeks input and feedback; gives support and reinforcement. 4. Plans, organizes and follows through effectively ......................... Prioritizes tasks, foresees and identifies problem areas and seeks strategies to address them. 5. Demonstrates organization in the day-to-day functions .................. A Facilitates smooth daily operations. Plans in a productive manner. Develops and implements equitable schedules. 6. Employs the principles of effective time management .................... A Performs responsibilities in a timely fashion. Meets deadlines. 7. Provides a safe and orderly climate in the building ......................... A Manages the operation of all programs at the job site in a secure and positive environment. 8. Develops programs relevant to the objectives of SIP/QuIP Designs programs that match the goals of SIP~QuiP with the needs of the staff. A B C D E B C D E B C D E B C D E B C D E 1~ C D E B C D E 39 360° Feedbacl (continued) 9. Monitors the various programs in accordance with local ................. A and state guidelines. /ldjusting the programs as needed to adhere to Division and State regulations. 10. Develops respect by example in behavior and conduct .................. A Guides, directs, and positively affects the action and results of individuals and groups. 1 I. Delegates tasks to others .................................................... A Delegates responsibility and authority appropriately. Directs, coaches and supports independent action while following up to ensure results. 12. Recognizes/credits others for their professional efforts ................. A Ac~aowledges contributions of others. Seeks and sha~es the expertise of others. Encourages a climate of collaboration. 13. Displays fairness/impartiality, integrity and honesty- ......... A Treats all staff members with understanding and dignity. Acts in fair and consistent manner. 14, Is approachable- ............................................................ A Is visible and accessible to ail staff members. Receptive and allows time for discussion. 15. Values others' input .......................................................A Actively solicits others' opinions and contributions. Respects diffetqng points of view. 16. Demonstrates knowledge ofcurrentissues and trends ................... A Effectively uses knowledge of local and state policies, procedures and laws. 17. Employs affirmative action policies consistentl3~ ..........................A A ctivelyfollows the County's Affirmative Action Policy. 18. Follows due process procedures ........................................... A Adheres to procedural guidelines for due process. B B C B C B C B C B C B C B C B C C D D D D D D D D D D E E E E E E E GENERAL COMMENTS: Use the essay section of the scanner t~reverse side) to respond to the following questions: 19. Describe areas in which you believe this person does well. 20. Describe areas in which you would like to See tiffs person improve. 40 for 4i :i'.'m!f JJcllirM nut leadel who ~!al?d,; ::Al ' J. ,-, 42 43 Appendix 3 ALBEMARLE COUNTY EXIT SURVEY Thank you for taking the time to respond to this exit survey. This survey gives you the opportunity to share your opinions and ideas about certain aspects of your job with AJbemarie County. Your responses will be grouped with others to assure your contr~Jentiality. Your survey will be ma~ed to HR Solutions, Inc. in Chicago, for compilation, before the resulta are returned to Albemarle Co, univ. Part1. Employee Information Coding Instructions i~lefore yOU begin youraurvey, please fill out the ~:oding grid below by following the Instructions on he enclosed packet: 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BRiO O O O O O O'O O O C mi-lo o o o o o o o o o FOO O O O O O O O O O For Example... If you worked for the County Attorney, you would write '04" in the boxes next to A & B andflll in the corresponding bubbles to the right of the letters, as shown below. Please fellow the mst of the coding instmctJor~s to fill in the remaining boxes and bubbles. Your coding grid (to the left) should look like the example below when you are rlnished. 0123456789 1. Number of years with the organization: O Less than I year O 1 to 5 years O 6to 10 years O ti1 to 20 years O 21 years and over 2. How long did you consider leaviag this organization? O Less than 2 months O 2 to 6 months O Over 6 months to I year O Over I year 3. Now employment relative to job with this organization: O Same field/Same type of work O Same lleldlDifferent typo of work O Dilferent f~ld/Same type of work O Different field/Dilferent type of work O Not employed 4. How would you describe your overall experienco at this organization? O Very Positive O Somewhat Positive O Neither Positive Nor Negative O Somewhat Negative O Negative Part 2. Primary Reason(s) for Leaving Of the following options, please mark your most important mason(s) for leaving the organization (please mark all that apply): O Salary O Type of work O Benefits paCkage O Workload/quantity of work O Inflexible schedule O Lack of career opportunity O Lack of recegnition O Conflict with supervision/management 0 Conflict with co-worker(s) O Poor su pervislon/management O Favoritism from supervision/management O Poor worklog conditions O Poor or litlle training Health/medical reasons/disability Commute/location Moved fi'om area/relocation Return to school Personal reasons not related to job Family responsibilities (please specify): Self-employment Military service Retirement Other (please speci~j}: _ Albemarle County Exit Survey, Page 1 9055618600 ,I Part 3. Satisfaction with the Organization Each of the survey items are to be answered by filling in ONE of the bubbles to the right of the statement. When you complete the survey, make heavy black marks that complelelyflll the bubble, erase cleanly any answer you wish to change, and make no stray marks of any kind. Agree ~ ': ~e tff.er Ag~?.e N~'Disag,~e. Disagree Disagree 6. My job made good use of m~ 7. My job gave me an opportunity to do the things that I do best. ..................................................... 8. All in ali, I was satisfied with my job. 9. The workload in my v~rk group was faidy and evenly distdbutsd ............................................... 10. My workload was adequate and reasonable ..... 11. I was satisfied that my pay reflected the effort I put inle doing my work ...................................... 12. The benefits I received (health insurance. vacation, otc,) were adequate ........................... 13. This organization made an effort to help employees improve Ihemselves ........................ 14. My last performance evaleation was usefulin helping me improve my work performance..... 15. This organization provided me the opportunity to improve my professional knowledge and job skills ................................................................... 16. Job promotions in this organization wore fair. and objective ..................................................... 17. Promotions at this organization ware based on performance ...................................................... 18. M3 19. The evaluation of my job performance by my supervisor(s) was fair and objective .................. 20. My supervisor made people in our wark group feel that lhey were a valued and important part of the team ......................................................... 21. My supervisor regularly gave me feedback on my work performance ..................................... 22. The leadership of this organization was concerned about the employees .................. 23. Them was good cooperation between my department and other departments .................. good cooperation among Ihe membem of the department .............................. ~"ommunicatien I received throughout the year from my supervisor about roy performance (i.e. before ~superv'~ser kept me informed about matters affecting me ...................................................... This organization has a clear sense of direction. The company places value on the diversi~ of the ideas, thoughts, talents, and abititiss of its people ................................................................ Part 4. Comments To maintain confidentiality, your comments will be typed by HR Solutions and this page will be desboyed. Nevertheless, be careful that you do not reveal your identity by whal you write. *la. Was there an effort made by your department tO keep you from leaving? I b. If no, what ir anything could have been done by this organization to keep you from leaving? 2. What will be available to you in the future that was not available is you at this organization? Thank you for your particlpatienl Please place your completed survey in the enclosed, addressed, postage-paid envelope and mail directly to HR Solutions, Inc. for processing. 25Eas;i-WashJngtonStreet. Suite1927 Chicago, IL60602 phone.' (312) 236-7170 Fax: (312) 236-3959 Web Site: wwvv. hrs~ufionsinc.com L Albemarle County Exit Survey, Page 2 I 2660618 605 45 RECEIVED A~ ~OS MEETING Date: _ Agenda ~tem #:-- -- Awards/Honors Presented During 2003-2004 Academic Year C~erk'$ tni~i,~s:_ Albemarle High School's band is one of only 41 bands across the state designated a Virginia Honor Band by the Virginia Band and Orchestra Directors Association. This is the third year in a row that thc band. under the direction of Greg Thomas, has received this honor. H. Andrew Johnson, gifted resource teacher at Crozet Elementary School, has been recognized as an outstanding teacher by the Virginia Association for the Gifted, a statewide organiTation advocating appropriate instruction for all gifted learners. Kevin C. Castner, superintendent of Albemarle County Public Schools. has been named athnini~trator of the year by the National Association for Gifted Education, an organization of parents, educators, and community leaders supporting diverse expressions of gifts and talents in children and youth. Catherine Coffman, a math teacher at Albemarle High School. was certified by the National Board for Professional Tcacinng Standards. She is one of 551 teachers in Virginia and more than 32,000 nationwide who have completed the rigorous accreditation process. The Woodbrook Wobots, a team of fourth and fifth graders from Woodbrook Elementary School, won three awards in thc First Logo League regional robotics tournament. Coached by teacher Junelle Catlett, The team won first place for robotic design and second place for robotic performance. The third award went to thc team's mentors. Albemarle High School students Justin Cline and Ryan Catlntt. A team of six fourth- and fifth-grade students from Yancey Elementary School took a first-place award and tied for second place durhxg the First Lego League regional robotics tournament. Coached by teachers CHnt Lawson and Jennifer Morgan and retired teacher Steve Taylor, the team took lust place in the robotic control category and fled for first in the research categoxy. Four teachers from BakerZButler Elementary School were awarded a total of $4,716 in grants from the Edgar and Eleanor Shannon Foundation for Excellence in Public Education: Charlottesville/Albemarle to fired innovative teaching projects. Linda D. Hutson received a grant for her "Discovering Egypt" unit; Jennifer Whitenack won:for "From Marble to Monticello: Exploring Cultural Geography Through Architecture," Lisa Harman received a grant for her "Smooth as Silk" project; and Jennifer Whitanack and Cheryl Thomasen were r~cognJzed for theix natural science project, "Touch Me, Feel Me: Up Close and Personal with the World of Invextebrates." Albemarle High School student Klm Walters was named an honor roll fmallst from Virginia in Sports Illustr ted magazme s Starter all-American Teen contest for teenagers invo]ved in organized sports who have proven themselves exceptional in some way. A team of 24 students from Sutherland Middle School took second-place honors in Virginia in the Knowledge Masters Open'competitiun on December 3.2003. The team was coached by Gwedette Crummie. A team of 29 fourth- and fifth-grade students from Baker-Butler Elementary School placed first among 272 fifth-grade teams from around the world competing in the Knowledge Masters Open Competition on January 21, 2004. The team is coached by teacher Jennifer Whitenack. Harold Boyd, a teacher at Jack Jouett Middle School, has been chosen as one of the Distinguished Dozen by the Boys and Girls Club for his work with the club's after-school program. The following schools participated in the 2003 Make a Difference Day by integrating community service into education: Agnor-Hurt, Baker-Butler, Broadus Wood, Brownsville, Cale, Crozet, Greer, Hollymead, Meriwether Lewis. Murray, Red Hill, Scottsville, Stone-Robinson, Stony Point, Woodbrook, Yancey, Bm'ley, Henley, Jouett, Sutherland, Walton, Albemarle, Monticello, Murray, and Western Albemarle. 26-02-04A0,~: 00 RC¥~D COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Proposed FY 2004 Budget Amendment SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Headng on the Proposed FY 2004 Budget Amendment in the amount of $936,984.75 and request approval of amendment and of Appropriations #2004057, 2004059. 2004060.2004061,2004062, 2004063, 2004064, 2004065, 2004066. and 2004067 to provide funding for various General Government and School programs. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messm. Tucker Breeden Ms. White AGENDA DATE: Mamh 3, 2004 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes ~ / BACKGROUND: / The Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser, ~nust be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc. STRATEGIC PLAN: 4.2 Fund County services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed public facilities and infrastructure. DISCUSSION: The proposed increase of this FY 2004 Budget Amendment totals $936,984.75. The estimated expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below: ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES General Fund Local Government Programs/Grants Education Fund Education Programs/Grants Capital Improvement Program Emergency Communications Center 117,973.07 523,776.00 25,280.91 128,023.14 104,450.00 37,481.63 TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES - All Funds $ 936,984.75 ESTIMATED REVENUES Local Revenues $ 65.730.91 State Revenues $ 170,492.30 Federal Revenues $ 611,797.59 Fund Balances $ 88,963.95 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES - All Funds $ 936,984.75 This budget amendment is comprised of twenty-two (22) separate appropriations, twelve (12) of which have already been approved by the Board as indicated below: Approved December 10, 2003: · One appropriation (#2004051) in the amount of $97,700.00 funding the DEQ Red Hill Water System study. AGENDA TITLE: Proposed FY 2004 Budget Amendment Mamh 3, 2004 Page 2 Approved January 7, 2004: · Qne appropriation (#2004046) in the amount of $25,679.00 for a Homeland Secudty Grant and to fund an insurance deductible; · Two appropriations (#2004047 and #2004052) for Education programs and grants totaling $116,724.14; · Six appropriations (#2004048, #2004049, ¢2004053, #2004054, #2004055, and #2004056), totaling $165,I25.00 for grants to the Police Department; and · One appropriation (#2004050) providing $48,623.00 in funding for Social Services "Keep 'em Covered" grant. Approved February 4. 2004: · One appropriation (#2004058) for the Democratic Presidential Primary totaling $34.940.00. The ten (10) new appropriations are as follows: · Two appropriations ¢#2004057 and #2004062) for grant awards to the Police and Fire Rescue Departments totaling $297,028.00; · One appropriation (#2004059) totalin§ $43,552.04 allocating additional fire program and two-for life funds to the volunteer fire departments and rescue squads and providing additional funding for the volunteer's building insurance. · Three appropriations (#2004060. ~2004063, and #2004067) for Education programs and grants totaling $43,329.91; · One appropriation (#2004061) totaling $13,000.00 to provide matching funds for construction at Camp Springs; · Two appropriations (#2004064 and #2004065) in the amount of $40,970.22 allocating funding received as reimbursement for Hurricane Isabel expenses to ECC and Solid Waste/Recycling. · One appropriation (#2004066) in the amount of $10,313.44 providing funding for back overtime wages due to certain Fire/Rescue employees. A detailed description of these requests is provided on Attachment A. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the FY 2004 Budget Amendment in the amount of $936,984.75, after the public hearing, and then approval of Appropriations #2004057, #2004059, #2004060, #2004061 #2004062, #2004063, #2004064, #2004065, #2004066, and #2004067 to provide funds for various General Government and School programs as described in Attachment A. 04.030 Appropriation 2004057 Attachment A $ 72~693.00 Albemarle County has been awarded a grant from the Department of Homeland Security in the amount of $72,963.00 to assist the Police Department as well as Fire/Rescue in pumhasing equipment ra]ated to domestic preparedness. The above monies will 9e split 50/50 between the two departments. Equipment approved by the Department of Emergency Management includes self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA's), tactical vests, night vision equipment, surveillance and monitoring equipment and cardiac defibrillation equipment There is no local match. Appropriation #2004059 $ 43,552.04 The County receives dedicated State revenues from Fire Program funds and EMS "2-for-Life" program which are estimated in the budget and passed on to each of the County's volunteer fire departments and rescue squads on an equal basis, For FY 2004, the County received an additional $9,184.54 from the State Fire Program fund. This amount is being appropriated among the seven volunteer fire departments. The County also received an additional $1 114.50 in EMS "2- for-Life" funds whicl' will also be allocated equally between the County's three volunteer rescue squads. Original budgeted revenues for the "2-For-Life" program exceeded budgeted expenditures Dy $1,253.00 which will need [o be funded from the General Fund Balance. For several years the County has provided a master property and liability insurance policy for all volunteer fire departments and rescue squads operating in the County. The premium for FY 2003/04 exceeded anticipated expenditures by $32.000.00. This additional expenditure will be funded from the General Fund Balance. Appropriation #2004060 $11,674.91 Western Albemarle High School and the Warrior Club received donations in the amount of $2 700.00. Edward and Cynthia Wolanski donated $100.00. H. Carter Myers III donated $100.00, and Real Estate I~1 donated $2,500.00. These donations will be used to purchase weight room equipment for the new Weight/VVellness Room that is being constructed at the school. Western Albemarle High School also received a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 from the Pfizer Foundation Volunteer Program. This donation will be used to purchase music for Symphonic Band, Wind Ensemble, Jazz Band, Flute, Clarinet, Saxophone and Brass Ensembles, Murray Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $1,000.00. This donation will be used to support instructional programs at the school. Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $650.00 from David Heilberg. This donation will be used by the Chorus Department to help pay expenses incurred for the upcoming trip. Yancey Elementary School received donations in the amount of $145.00. Michael and Lilia Allen donated $20.00, James and Jane Fisher Jr. donated $75.0C, Jamie and Jay Endahl donated $25.00, and Ellen Taylor donated $25.00. These donations were made in memory of Ernie White. Mr. White was the brother of Paula White. gifted teacher at Yancey Elementary School. These donations will be used by the Gifted Program to benefit Yancey's Yarnspinners and their Tellbration performances. Broadus Wood Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $2,179.91 from the Broadus Wood PTO. This donation will be used to pay the salary of the Spanish teacher at the school. Woodbrook Elementary School received donations in the amount of $4,000.00, Christopher Conti, on behalf of G.E. Fanuc, donated $3,000.00 and Century 21, Ray Caddeli & Associates donated $1,000.00. These donations will be used by the School Community Group to fund activities for the students at the school. Appropriation #200406'1 $ t3,000.00 CDBG program income funds are to be used to provide assistance to iow and moderate income households. The Housing Department has requested that $13,000 in these funds be appropriated and used to provide a match ($2,600 per house) for a grant AH IP received to construct five homes in Camp Spdngs using insulated concrete forms for foundations and walls. The energy-sawng improvements in the Camp Springs houses, including the insulated concrete forms, will reduce energy use and cost of maintaining the homes. Appropriation #2004062 ~;2247335.00 Albemarle County has been granted funds in the amount of $224,335.00 to assist the Police Department and Fire/Rescue in purchasing equipment and training related to domestic preparedness. The above monies will be split 50/50 between the two departments. Training will use approximately 5% while the bulk will be used for equipment. Examples of equipment approved by the Department of Emergency Management include self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA's), tactical vests, night vision equipment, surveillance and monitoring equipment, and cardiac defibrillation equipment, There is no local match. Appropriation #2004063 $ 1 ~600.00 Western Albemarle High School and the Warrior Club received donations in the amount of $350.00. Lacy and Leanne Whitmore, Jr. donated $100.00 and Robert Rinehart donated $250.00. These donations will be used to purchase weight room equipment for the new Weight/VVellness Room that is being constructed at the school. Western Albemarle High School also received a donation in the amount of $250.00 for Laurel Royse. This donation will be used for the benefit of the boy's varsity basketball team. Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 from H.M. and Joann Walker. This donation will be used to purchase items for the basketball team. Appropriation #2004064 $11,802.63 The Emergency Communications Center (ECC) incurred expenses related to Hurricane Isabel in the amount of $13,261.43. Of this amount, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved $12,691.00. Of the approved FEMA amount, FEMA reimbursed 75% the Virginia Department of Emergency Management reimbursed 15% and the remaining 10% was absorbed by the locality. FEMA also provides for a 4% administrative cost on their reimbursement amount Based on these guidelines, ECC received $11,802.63 in reimbursement of their expenses. Appropriation #2004065 $ 29~167.59 In the aftermath of Hurricane Isabel, in an effort to assists citizens with cleanup efforts, the County offered debris collection sites at several County parks as well as a period of time that tipping fees would be paid by the County for debris that was taken to the Ivy Materials LJtilization Center. The County incurred tipping fees of $25,268.00 and currently has a contract, in the amount of $14,000, to grind the debris collected at the parks' sites. Of this amount, the Federal Emergency Management Agenoy (FEMA) approved $31,363.00. Ofthe approved amount, FEMA reimbursed 75%, the Virginia Department of Emergency Management reimbursed 15%, and the remaining 10% was absorbed by the locality. FEMA also provides for a 4% administrative cost on their reimbursement amount. Based on these guidelines, the County received $29,167.59 in reimbursement of these expenses. Appropriation #2004066 $10~313.44 During the pedod of January 2003 through October 2003 twelve employees in the Fire/Rescue Department were not propedy compensated for the regularly scheduled hours worked over the 212 hours in their 28-day pay cycle. According to Virginia State Code, the regularly scheduled hours over 212 in the pay cycle are to be paid at the overtime rate/1 ¼ times their hourly rate) regardless of whether the employee physically worked all hours scheduled during the pay cycle. Employees that took vacation time during the cycle are due an additional one-half time for any vacation hours taken during the cycle up to their regularly scheduled hours. Staff has reviewed the work schedules and leave records for the period of time in question. Additional funds in the amount of $9,580.53. for overtime wages and $732.85 in FiCA associated with these wages, will be required to properly compensate these employees. These funds will be appropriated from fund balance. Appropriation #2004067 $ 30,055.00 Western Albemarle High School and the Warrior Club received donations in the amount of $1.650.00. Peoples Mortgage Corporation donated $500.00, Hanckel-Cifizens Insurance donated $500.00. D. Brock Green donated $100.00. William and Carolyn Achenbach donated $500.00, and Althea Randolph donated $50.00. These donations will be used to purchase weight room equipment for the new WeightNVellness Room that is being constructed at the school. Murray Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $5,000.00. This donation will be used toward construction cost of an athletic track for the school. Burley Middle School has received a donation in the amount of $100.00 from Daniel and Jennifer Games. This donation will be used for the gifted program at the school. Burley Middle School also received a donation in the amount of $800.00 from the Sojourners United Church of Chdst. This donation will be used to help fund the LAUNCH Program at the school, The LAUNCH Program is designed for rising 6th graders that need extra support to succeed at the middle school level. Broadus Wood Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,500.00 from Samuel H. Austin on behalf of the Austin Memorial Foundation. This donation will be used to purchase specific books for the library and also to purchase hands-on math and/or science materials for Ms. Zehnter's classroom. Albemarle County Schools received a donation in the amount of $1,200.00 from PMB Pharmaceuticals Inc. This donation will be used to purchase palms and pedometers for the PE Department at Breadus Wood Elementary School. Albemarle County Schools received a check in the amount of $669.00 from the Greater Kansas City Community Foundation and Affiliated Trusts on behalf of H&R clients who donated to the H&R Block Education Fund. This donation was placed in the School Board Reserve account. In July 2003, Albemarle County Schools and Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding in provision for the Head Start Programs at Baker Butler, Brownsville and Yancey Elementary Schools. Per this agreement, MACAA agreed to pay for supplies and overhead costs associated with the Head Start Programs. Albemarle County Schools has received $2,337.00 from MACAA to cover these costs. Per the agreement, these funds will be appropriated to each school's operating budget. The l.J. and Hilda M Breeden Foundation has made a matching grant in the amount of $6,250.00 to Baker Butler Elementary School. Also, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation made a matching grant in the amount of $2,000.00. These funds will support Phase II of the sculpture park on the land surrounding Baker Butler Elementary School. Mr. Douglas and Mrs. Sarah Dupont made a matching donation in the amount of $1,250.00 to Henley Middle School for the Frederick Upton Foundation Grant. This donation will support Henley's Cultural Enrichment Program in funding three artists-in-residences programs: Sculpture, Writer, and Dramatic Interpretation. The projects will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experiences for students with performing, visual and musical arts. The Virginia Commission for the Arts has made grant awards to several Albemarle County Schools. Teacher Incentive Grants were made to Baker Butler Elementary in the amount of$100.00, Meriwether Lewis Elementary in the amount of $300.00, Murray Elementary in the amount of $300.00, Stony Point Elementary in the amount of $3,900.00, Woodbrook Elementary in the amount of $900.00, Yancey Elementary in the amount of $300.00, Burley Middle in the amount of $600.00, Jack Jouett Middle in the amount of $599.00, and Henley Middle in the amount of $300.00. These programs will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experience for students with performing, visual and musical arts EXPLANATION: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION APP # DATE BATCH# OFFICE OF DOMESTIC PRE PAREDNESS (ODP) GRANT 2003-1 2004057 SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPEI FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 1543 31091 800100 Equipment J 1 36,346.50 1 1543 31092 800100 Equipment J 1 36,346.50 2 1543 33000 330001 Grant Rev- Fed. J 2 72,693.00 1543 0501 Estimated Revenue J 72,693.00 0701 Approp. J 72,693.00 TOTAL 145,386.00 72,693.00 72,693 00 PREPARED BY: BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL: ACCT. APPROVAL: ENTERED BY; Melvin Breeden Ella W. Carey DATE:Jan. 15,2004 DATE: Mamh 3,2004 DATE: DATE: FMS2 REVISED 6/84 EXPLANATION: 1' 1( 1000 2: 1000 I 1000 DEPT COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE [~'*"' ........ NUMBER 2004 059 APPROPR,AT,O. FORM / FIRE PROGRAM FUNDS AND TWO-FOR-LIFE FUNDS IN EXCESS OF BUDGET SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT NORTH GARDEN SCOTTSVILLE FIRE 560902 CROZET 561002 EARLYSVlLLE 561102 EAST RIVANNA 32020 561202 STONY POINT E TRAIL 240417 FIRE PROGRAMS 0501 EST REVENUE 0701 APPROPRIATION 32030 565002 CHAPJALBE RESCUE 32030 565102 WESTERN ALBEMARLE 32030 565202 SCOTTSVlLLE RESCUE 1000 24000 240415 EMS FUNDS 2, 1000 1,3t2.08 CREDIT -- I 1000 J 1 O0 lO lOOO 1000 1,3t2.08 1,3t2.07 __ 1,312.08 1,312.08 1,312.07 51000i 510100 FUND BALANCE 0501 EST REVENUE 0701 APPROPRIATION 1,312.08 9,184.54 32020 530950 VEHICLE &BLDG. INS 51000 510100 G/F BALANCE 0501 EST REVENUE 789.16 789.17 789.17 1,114.50 0701 APPROPRIATION 9,184.54 9,184.54 1,253.00 2,367.50 32,000.00 32,000.00 32,000.00 2,367.50 32,000.00i tOTAL PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: ENTERED BY: MELVIN BREEDEN ELLA W. CAREY 87,104.08 43,552.04 43,552.04 DATE: 01/14/04 j DATE: 3/3/2004 DATE: /'FMS2 REVISED 6/84 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION FORM DATE BATCH # 2004 060 EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR VARIOUS EDUCATION PROGRAMS FUND 2115 61101 90O0 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 601300 EDUCATION/REC SUPPLIES 8006561WEIGHT/WELLNESS EQUIP 1300 EDUCATION/REC SUPPLIES 601300 EDUCATIONIREC SUPPLIES 601300 EDUCATION/REC SUPPLIES 61101 132100 PT WAGE-TEACHER 210000 FICA 580500 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 181109 CONTRIBUTION WAHS-WEIGHT/WELLNESS 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 0701 APPROPRIATION 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 0701 APPROPRIATION SUB. LEDGER CO_~E_ AMOUNT J 1 1,ooo.oo 2,700.00 GENERAL LEDGER DEB~ CREDIT 1,009.00 650.00 145.00 2,025.00 154.91 4,000.00 2.700.00 8,974.91 8,974.91 2,700.00 2,700.00 PREPARED BY: MELVIN BREEDEN ELLA W. CAREY ENTERED BY:_ 23,349.82 11,674.91 11,674.91 DATE: DATE: ol/26/o4 I 313/2004 ~DAT.~ ......... L FMS2 ~REVISED 6/84 IExpLANATION: '[COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ~N~I~R 2004 061 APPROPRIATION FORM BATCH # MATCHING FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION AT CAMP SPRINGS 1224 DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 81031 563100;AHIP 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION- FIB 050t EST REVENUE 0701 APPROPRIATION SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER CODE AMOUNT I J I 13,000.00 J 2 13,000.00 DEBIT CREDIT 13,000.00 13,000.00 _ I 'OTAL 26,000,00 13,000.00 ~ PREPARED BY: MELVIN BREEDEN DATE: 01/24/04 I APPROVED BY: ELLA W. CAREY DATE: 3/3/2004 ENTERED BY: DATE: 13,oop.oo EXPLANATION: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION APP # 2004 062 DATE BATCH# OFFICE OF DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS (ODP) GRANT 2003-11 , SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECTI DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 1544 31091 550403 Training J I 5,608.38 1 1544 31091 800100 Equipment J 1 106,559.12 1 1544 31092 550403 Training J 1 5,608.38 1 1544 31092 800100 Equipment J 1 106,559.12 2 1544 3300¢ 330001 Grant Rev- Fed. J 2 224,335.00 1544 0501 Estimated Revenue J 224,335.00 0701 Approp. J 224,335.00 I I' I , I I I I I TOTAL ~ 448,670.00 224,335.00 224,335.00 PREPARED BY: BD. OF SUPVAPPROVAL: ACC% APPROVAL: ENTERED BY: Melvin Breeden Ella W. Carey DATE: DATE: Mamh 3,2004 DATE: DATE: FMS2 REVISED 6/84 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION FORM NUMBER 2004 063 DATE BATCH # EXPLANATION: EDUCATION DONATIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS FUND DEPT OBJECTI ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 61105 580000/MISCELLANEOUES EXPENSE 60302 800656/WAHS WEIGHT/WELLNESS 61105 580000 MISCELLANEOUES EXPENSE 18100 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATION 18100 WAHS WEIGHT/WELLNESS 0501 EST REVENUE 6701 APPROPRIATION SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER 250.00 DEBIT CREDIT 350.00 1,250.00 2 350.00 2000 t ,250.00 1,250.00 0501 EST REVENUE 0701 APPROPRIATION 350.00 350.00 [OTAL PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: MELVIN BREEDEN ELLA W. CAREY 1,600.00 DATE: 01/24/04 1,600.00 _ENTER_EDB__~_~[ DATE: 3~3~2004 DATE: "MS2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE REVISED 6/8~, [ APPROPRIATION FORM NUMBER DATE BATCH# 2004 064 EXPLANATION: ALLOCATION OF FEMA REIMBURSEMENT FOR ECC EXPENSES RELAT~ED TO HURRICANE ISABEL 31041 31045 OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 120000 oPERATIoNS-OVERTIME 160805 OPERA~I'IONS-SHIFT DIFF 120000 ADMIN.-OVERTIME 1300001ADMIN-PART-TIME WAGES 3316011ADMIN -R&M RADIOS 6001001ADMIN-OFFICE SUPPLIES 600200 ADMIN-FOOD SUPPLIES IJ 1 120000 EMD SURCH.-OVERTIME Iij 1 0000 R. V S,-O TIM J 199900 RECOVERED COSTS SUB. LEDGER CODE_ AMOUNT J 1 4,229.96 104.27 1,187.46 361.67 GENERAL LEDGER DEBIT CREDIT 330.00 491.12I 666.19 902.24 27.66 3,502.06 J 2 11,802.63I 4100 0501 EST. REVENUE 0701 IAPPROPRIATION 11,802.63 11,802.63 PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: ENTERED BY: MELVIN BREEDEN ELLA W. CAREY DATE: DATE: ~DATE: 23,605.26 11,802.63 02/09/04 - 3/3/2004 11,802.63I ?REVFMS2 ISED 6~84 ICOUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION FORM NUMBER DATE BATCH # EXPLANATION: ALLOCATION OF FEMA REIMBURSEMENT TO SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 510430 TIPPING FEES SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 29,167.59 199900 29 167.59 1000 0501 EST REVENUE 0701 APPROPRIATION 29,167.59 29,167.59 MELVIN BREEDEN ELLA W. CAREY I ENTERED BY: DATE: DATE: DATE: 58,335.18 29 167.59 02110~04 3~3~2OO4 29,167.59 FMS2 REVISED 6/84 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION FORM NUMBER 2004 066 EXPLANATI0~: FUNDING FOR PREVIOUS OVERTIME OF FIRE/RESCUE STAFF SU~B. LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRPTION CODE AMOUNT IJ ' 00/ 0 5~ 00001FIRE/RES. OPS- C _ .4 I 1000 320191 120000 MONTICELLO FIRE-OVERTIMEJ ~1 I 7,848.97 1 ~1000 32019 210000MONTICELLO FIRE-FICA J 1 . / 600.45 2 '1_000 51000. 540100 APPROPRIA~ION-FB J 2 10,313.44 GENERAL LEDGER DEBIT CREDIT 10,313.44 10,313.44 L ~-OTAL _ PREPARED BY: MELVIN BREEDEN I DATE: APPROVED BY: [ELLA W. CAREY DATE: ~NT_ __~_ED ~Y_.~ ~DATE: 20,626.88 10,313.44 10 313.44 02/12/04 ............. 3/3/20041.- FMS2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ~-'~NUMBER REVISED 6/84 I APPROPRIATION FORM DATE BATCH # N DONATIO S, CONTRIBUTIONS, AND GRANTS SUB. LEDGER ]2004 067 GENERAL LEDGER DEBIT 60302 2251 61101 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT INSTIREC SUPPLIES INST/REC SUPPLIES INST/REC SUPPLIES BOOKS/SUBSCRIPTIONS INST/REC SUPPLIES SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE 22t7 INSTIREC SUPPLIES CREDIT 5,000.00 1,650.00 100.00 800.00 i'i ' 1,000.00 J '1 1,200.00 669.00 820.00 300 NST/REC SUPPLIES INST/REC SUPPLIES PROF SVC INSTRUCTION 697.00 820.00 601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES INSTIREC SUPPLIES INST/REC SUPPLIES 601300'INST/REC SUPPLIES INST/REC SUPPLIES INST/REC SUPPLIES 601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES INST/REC SUPPLIES INST/REC SUPPLIES 300.00 300.00 900.00 300.00 600,00 599.00I 300.00 18000 DONATION J WEIGHT/WELLNESS EQUIP MISC. REVENUE MISC. REVENUE FREDERICK UPTON GRANT 3104 24000 VCA GRANT-BAKER-BUTLER VCA GRANT-MWL 24000 VCA GRANT-MURRAY VCA GRANT-STONY POINT VCA GRANT-WOODBROOK VCA GRANT-YANCEY VCA GRANT-BURLEY VCA GRANT-JOUETT 2000 EST. REVENUE APPROPRIATION 9,269.00 1,650.00 2,337.00 8,250.00 1,250.00 100.00 300.00 300,00 3,900.00 900.00 300.00 600.00 599.00 300.00 REVENUE 070_, APPROPRIATION '3104 050, EST REVENUE _ I 0701AJ OPRIAT'ON 'OTAL PREPARED BY: MELVIN BREEDEN APPROVED BY: ENTERED BY: ~ _L/~ W. CAREY 11 606.00 ] 1,650.00 16,799.00 60,110.00 30,055.00 I DATE: 02117/04 DATE: 3/3/2004 I ~DATE: 11,606.00~ 1 650.00~ 16,799.00 30,055.00 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Supplemental Funding Request - JAUNT SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request $60,000 in supplemental funding for JAUNT for the current fiscal year, FY04. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker. White, Wade LINK TO ATTACHMENT(S): LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: Mamh 3, 2004 ACTION: x CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: no REVIEWED BY: / Due to increases in the demand for JAUNT services in the County's urban area, JAUNT is facing a shortfall of as much as $60,O00forFY04. Withoutadditionalfunding, JAUNTwiIIhavetobeginservicereducfionsintheCounty, which means turning down requests for rides. JAUNT has seen an extraordinary increase in the requests for trips in the urban Albemarle ring. Albemarle, which is driving this increase after level funding for the current year and minimum increases over the past several fiscal years. To address the increased dderahip and the pending shortfall, JAUNT has requested an additional $60,000 from the County. STRATEGIC PLAN: 3.1 Make the County a safe and healthy community in which citizens feel secure to live. work and play. DISCUSSION: From FY02 to FY03 the number of trips increased by 18%, and the numbers for the first three months of FY04 suggest that ridership could increase an additional 26%. In analyzing the data. JAUNT estimates that about a third of the increase can be attributed to the Wood's Edge development, another third to the Rio HJJl Apartments. and the remaining trips being faidy spread out throughout the urban area, including medical, work, and miscellaneous trips. The increased service trend in the urban area actually began during the last fiscal year, but the snowy months masked the change~ since ridership was [emporerily restricted by the weather. The problem of increased ddership rs compounded by the fact that during last year's budget process, the County essentially fiat-funded JAUNT after removing $35,000 for Big Blue. This left no margin for the increased demand for public transportation. Unfortunately, federal urban funding has been capped for several years and additional federal funds are available only for the rural service increases. As rural services increase, there are offsetting federal revenues, but there is no opportunity for increased funding except with local funds in the urban areas. The chart below shows the increase in ridership in the urban area compared to the other areas of the County, as well as the Albemarle local contribution since FY99 JAUNT SERVICE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY FY99 to FY05 Projected Budget 05 Actual 99 Actual 00 Actual 01 Actual 02 Actual 03 Budget 04 Est. 04 -baseline Urban Albemarle Passenger Trips 21,533 21,175 22.759 25,301 29.763 28.000 37.500 38,000 Total Local Match $317.494 $330,908 $341.236 $389.335 $418.481 $383,481 $383.481 $471,580 All Other Albemarle Public Service Trips 29.185 31,937 34.182 39.692 32,469 32,300 26.900 28.700 Total Albemarle Public Service Trips 50,718 53,112 56.941 64,993 62.232 60.300 64,400 66,700 AGENDA TITLE: Supplemental Funding Request - JAUNT March 3. 2004 Page 2 Options: 1 ) One option might seem to be a service reduction for the current year, which woulc mean not accepting requests for demand response service, particularly in the urban area. The problem with this option is that the Americans with Disabilities Act ",ADA) requires that JAUNT provide demand-response service to people certified as hawng a disability within three-quarters cfa mile of any fixed route bus service. Albemarle County's policy designates the target area for comparable ADA services as the whole urban area, not just the area within 3/4 area of the CTS routes. Federal regulations preclude JAUNT from turning down any tee Jests for service in the urban area if passengers call by 5 PM the day before. Therefore, JAUNT must provide services to all eligible riders within the urban area or face a potential legal challenge for denying equal access under ADA regulations. For ADA purposes, CTS does the certifications and then passengers call directly to JAUNT for service. 2) Another option would be to discontinue Sunday service for County residents, but this would save only $3,200 for the year. 3) A third option would be to change our ADA policy, by limiting ridership to those eligible riders who live within % mile of the bus lines. This change could save approximately $14,400 a year, but that would require increasing the urban fare outside of the % mile from the current $1.50 to $10.00. Increasing the fare would require a public hearing, so the reality of implemenfing a fare change in time to offset the shortfall in the current year is unlikely. However, this policy change could be implemented for the next fiscal year. 4) A fourth option would be to increase the fares in the rural areas to offset the increased ridership in the urban area. Raising rural fares could lower the shortfall by $23,600 annually. However, a public hearing would be required to increase JAUNT fares and implementing a new fare in the current year Would provide only a minimal offset to the budget shortfall. A quarter of the fiscal year would only increase revenues by $5,900 and that would require new fares to be in place by April 1. However. it is still an option for the Board to consider when it reviews JAUNT's FY05 funding needs JAUNT RURAL FARE INCREASES Service Current Increased Fare Fare Covesville Route $2.25 $3.00 Rural Demand-Response Zone B (Northridge, Forest Lakes, etc.) $2.60 $4.00 Zone C (Esmont, Earlysville, etc.) $4.00 $6.00 Zone D (Howardsville, etc.) I $5.20 $7.00 The $1.50 fare currently charged in the urban ADA area cannot be raised unless the CTS fare was to change, since ADA regulations stipulate that fares for disabled riders cannot be more than twice as much as the regular CTS fare, curranfly set at $0.75. Therefore, to increase the urban fare as a cost offset, would require the policy change cited above, which would reduce the designated ADA target urban area to the % mile restriction. The chad below shows how the rural fares would have to be increased to offset the urban demand by $23,600 annually. 5). A fifth option is raising the fare for non-certified riders, although there are so few riders that do not qualify as disabled that any increased fare would have a minimal impact, increasing the fare for non-certified riders from the current $8.00 to $15.00 to more accurately reflect the cost of a trip would only raise $3,600 annually. RECOMMENDATIONS: Due £o the limited options available to reduce JAUNT'e shortfall in light of the ADA mandated services to the eldedy and disabled, staff recommends approving a supplemental allocafion of $60,000 to JAUNT for the remainder of the current fiscal year. Options for limiting the County's contribution to JAUNT's FY05 services can be discussed as part of the March budget worksessions. 04.027 FMS2 / ? COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE NUMBER 2004 069 REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION FORM DATE ~ BATCH # EXPLANATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR JAUNT ! SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECTI ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 t000 59000 5633001JAUNT I J [1 60,000.00 2 1000 51000 610100 APPROPRIAT. ION- FIB J i2 60,000.00 1000 0501 lEST REVENUE J ! 60,000.00: 0701 APPROPRIATION J ~ 60,000.00 J[ ~J ~ J J J J J 'OTAL 1 ~0,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 PREPARED BY: MELVIN BREEDEN DATE: 03/03104 APPROVED BY: ELLA W. CAREY DATE: 3/312004 ENTERED B_Y:______J _ __ _.j ............ DATE: FY 0;4/05 RECOMMENDED OPERATING BUDGET COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BUDGET AT A GLANCE The County's recommended total Fiscal Year 2004-05 budget totals $237.8 million and is built on a real property tax rate decrease as directed by the Board of Supervisors from $0.76/$100 of assessed valuation to $0.74 ~$100 of assessed valuation. The Personal Property tax rate is recommended to be maintained at its current level of $4.28/$100 assessed valuation. The revenues in this recommended budget reflect the tax rate reduction. FY 04/OS Recommended E~pendRures $237,789AS8 Capital a~d Debt General 17% Government 26% School SeE- ~staining 5% School O~eratiess 47% Spec~l Revenue 5% FY 04/~ Recommended Revenues State S237,789,468 Federal Revenue~ - Revenue 26% 6% ~:~TOW ed Funds 7% Other Local ~Yund Balance Revenues 21% Iocal Taxes :~% This financial document includes information on expected revenues, planned expenditures, the County's funds, our strategic p~an, performance targets, and a summary of the FY 04/05 - FY 08/09 Capital Improvements Program budget totaling St 26.3 million. W~ile it appears the economy is beginning to recover, our primary focus for the FY 04/05 budget is recovery from last year's budget shortfalls, Accomplishments I find it e×citing to look back at 2003 and realize what we as a community have achieved and celebrated during tight fiscal times. The County concentrated on protecting our valued rural areas by acquiring conservation easements through the ACE program, working towards adopting a Rural Area chapter for the ComprehensNe Plan and recommending standards for groundwater availability prior to new development. We are also supporting our urban areas as qu&[ity ~iv~ng and working spaces through continued infrastructure improvements, such as sidewalks and trail systems, a new police sector/beat system that improves the County's response to high density areas, and major master planning projects for Crozet and neighborhoods along Route 29 North. We have added 25 acres to the Albemarle County Park system, and have completed our first full year of operation for the Monticello Fire Station We are continuing to devote significant energy to the human services needs of the community as we implement a Community Development Btock Crant to build a community center in Whitewood Village, provide a range of child and adult protective sewices and continue the highly successfu Bright Stars and Family Support programs at our e~ementary schools. Working with representatNes from UVA, community groups, the Workforce Investment ~oard the Chamber of Commerce, and the Charlottesville Ama School Business Alliance (CAS8A). we have developed lifelong learning goals that wil~ be presented to the Board of Supervisors in April. We are focusing on increasing our efficienc~ and service to customers as we continue with efforts like our Development Department reorganization, our renovation of the new County government facility with full occupancy planned for 2004, and our enhanced online services such as job BUDGET MESSAGE PAGE FY 0zJ/05 RECOMMENDED OPERATING BUDGET COUNTY OE ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA applications and property record searches. The County's website has been greatly enhanced, featuring "A-mail" for constituents, and new public access terminals in the County Office Building's Visitors Assistance Center. Our staff has received awards from GFOA, VACO, and the Center for Digital Government for outstanding efforts and high quality innovations. The County's achievements support our strategic vision and are discussed in more detail in the Strategic Directions section of this budget document. Also, as the County begins to emphasize more long-term financial impact planning in its operational budget, as we have done with our capital program, a FY 04/05 Business Plan has been developed for the first time, which begins to align the Board's Strategic Directions with the on-going and new budget initiatives for the next fiscal year. This FY 04/05 Business Plan is included as a separate document in the Board's notebook. The Challenqes Ahead While our staff and community remains focused on improving our community and achieving strategic goals, we continue to face substantial challenges as we move forward into FY 04/05. Growth and Urbanization According to UVA's Walden Cooper Center for Public Service, the Charlottesville Metropolitan Statistical Area [MSA) has one of the fastest population growth rates in Virginia which can be atrributed to the high growth rates in Fluvanna and Greene Counties. AIbemzrle's population has been growing at an average 2.1% annual growth rate during the period of 1990 to 2000. If our Count' continues to grow at this rate. the population could reach over 100,000 by 2010. Our population growth, while moderate compared to some counties, challenges us to find creative ways to maintain high standards in education, provide for capital infrastructure, and meet increasing demands for services in our growth areas, while we protect our rural character and natural resources. In 2002, an estimated 50.7% of the population lived in urban areas of Albemarle County. As the County continues to urbanize in the areas around Charlottesville and other designated development areas, we are challenged to provide appropriate levels of infrastructure and community services for these higher density areas, especially within a budget that is based on a more rural-oriented tax rate. In September 2003, the Board of Supervisors added addressing growth and urbanization to the County's strategic planning goals. This remains one of our most important future challenges. Continued Reliance on Property Taxes: The State currently does not allow Virginia COMPARATIVE REAL PROPERTY TAX RATES -2003 counties to diversify revenue sources in the same ways cities can through the meals, hotel and Locality Population Tax Rate cigarette taxes. Without the flexibili~/to diversify Stafford 102,700 1.14 revenue sources, counties must continue to rely Roanoke 87,700 1.12 heavily on property taxes to fund needed services. Chadottes~ille 39,800 1.11 Although local property taxes account for 38% of Hendco 271..700 0.94 our entire County budget, property taxes, real and personal, account for 66% of our local revenues, Hanover 91,000 0.82 Currently, the tax rate is $0.76 per $100 of IAlbemarle 86,700 0.76I assessed value. With a proposed real estate Frederick 62,400 0.73 property tax rate of $0.74 per $100, Albemarle Rockingham 69,200 0.71 County would continue to have the lowest tax rate Bedford 61,400 0.66 for any county in Virginia with a population over Augusta 66,300 0.58 70,000. Since ] 983, Albemarle County has . transferred SO. 10 per $100 of this tax (totaling Sources: Tax Rates: Ta~ Rates 2(333 Virginia's Cities. Counties and Selected $8.0 million dollars in FY 04/05) to the City of Tow ns: Population: Commonwealth of Virginia, Auditor of Pdblic Accounls. Charlottesville per a revenue sharing agreement between the jurisdictions. If the Board reduces the tax rate to $0.74/$100, the County will be required to fund its operations on a net property tax rate of $0.64. This rate is below the 2003 average of $0.70 for all counties in Virginia and is even lower than the property tax rates of much smaller and rural counties such as Frederick, ~edford, and Rockingham= Last Year's Economic Downturn: Last year, the effects of the turbulent national economy and market downturns compounded by the state budget shortfalls, had a negative ircpact on consumer spending and on our local revenues~ This time last year, the County's economy-driven revenues, such as sales, meals, transient, and utility taxes, were faith/flat. Personal property taxes, which reflect the value of new and used vehicles, as well as business equi~rcent~ were showing a rcarked decrease in rate of growth, in FY 03/04, lower revenues combined with the reduction in state and federal revenues, and additional obligations, resulted in a shortfall $1,024 millior in the FY 03/04 local government operations budget, which was BUDGET MESSAGE PAGE FY 04/05 RECOMMENDED OPERATING BUDGET COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA addressed by reducing department baseline budgets, freezing some vacant positions, and PoSt.p, oning replacement capital equipment This year~ our challenge is to rebound from the lingering effects of last,year's reduction and the on- going.effects of the state's budgeting decisions that often fall short in meeting their local obligations. Although, revenues appear to be improving, our actual revenues may stillbe affected by the state's final budget, which is anticipated to be completed by March 13~, but final budget approval could be extended beyond that date. Unfunded Requests Every year, we are challenged to meet all the financial needs identified by our schools, countydepartments and community agendes. The Scho~l's recommended budget is $2.] million she rt of their available revenues. As part of the budget ng process, county departments and commun ty agencies requested tn additional $3.8 million for strategic initiatives related to the County's strategic goals. These requests include pt social service workers, parks improvements, community development initial variety of community needs,.such as improvements to the libraries and exp~ County's eldeHy and youth. Our Strategic Response Covering FY 03/04's Reductions Per the Board's direction early, inthe process, the recommended budget is b taxes~ This budget will primarily assist the County m recovering from last y~ budget provides revenue to fund eight reinstated positions frozen last year, replacement vehicles (police, sheriff, inspections, fire/rescue)and three repl departments, and makes up for some of last year's reductions, in departmen reflects a 45.8% reduction ($177,000) from what was budgeted in FY 03/04 ~lic safety personnel, tools and equipment, ves, public transportation, and support for a nsion of services to. meet the needs of the Jilt on a 2 cent reduction in real property ar's budget shortfall. This recommended purchase 26 overdue public safety ~cement vehicles for other county al operational budgets, This budget als0 'or equipment and furnitu re replacements; Meeting Ongoing Commitments This budget targets available funds to meet ongoing commitments to our er~ployees and agencies. I recommend fund ng to pay for a 13.5% employer annual increase in- health insurance, anJ additional $648 per employee. This does not increase benefits to employees but merely funds the tis ng medical cost~. The regional jail costs are anticipated to increase by $ 567,000 in FY 04/05, which is primarily due to the jail having ~o use $ 500,000 of their carry-over this currentyear to fund the FY 03/04 budget. In addition, the state reimbursement for jails remains fiat while costs continue to rise. $107,000 is budgeted to purchase mandated voting equil targeted to provide for a cost-saving technology upgrade that will bring gre Providing for $2.8 Million in Unexpected Virginia ReUmment System (VRS) C The most substantial impact to the FY 04/05 budget is the unexpected mar County was aware early in the budgeting process that the employer contribt was not until recently, after we began to bud th s budget on a tw0 cent de~ aware' of the impact this one item would have on the FY 04/05 budget. Due several Years, the County is required to provide an additional $2.8 million ir government budgeted an additional $820 000 to fund the emp oyer contrib the schools budgeted an additional -$2 million for school employees. An ac also*oe required, and is unfunded a~ this time: this requirement will not be Movinq Forward On County Priorities Regardless of our budget situation, the County will continue to build on services to our citizens. This recommended budget is designed to support resources. For example, this budget:. Provides for High Quali~ Education: The County will transfer $75 revenues, to the School Fund for operations. This is an increase of addition, the school receives Sl 1.2 million from local funds for cap system shares in the growth of non-dedicated local tax revenues ti' such local tax revenue growth, in addition to other state, federal an covers 67.8% of total school revenues, with State aid, State sales ta: ment for the disabled and $71,000 is ~ter efficiency to our departments. ~ntributions dated increase in VRS contributions. The tions toVRS might increase. However, it tease in real property taxes that we became to the downturn inthe market over the past VRS contribution~. Of this, the local ~tion for local gove~rn~ment employees and itional $250,000 for VRS Croup Life may .nown until the state completes their budget. sound fiscal policies, and efficiently provide the County's priorities within available million 60% of the County's tocal tax $6.2 million or 9.0%over last year. In tal projects and debt service. The school rough our current formula, receiving 60% of ~ misceUaneous income. Local funding and Federal and Otbe~ funds making up the remaining 32.2%. All non~}ocal school revenue sources are projectet to increase by $2~8 million this year. Additional details are provided in the School Budget, which is a separate document. TEe Piedmont Virginia Community College is c0nst~'ucting a Science and Technology building. Capital Improvement~ renovations will be h~ade tothe Albemarle and Murray High Schools. Other upcoming ~enovations funded in the FY 05/09 Capital improvement Program include a new gym and restrooms at HOllym~ad and initial funds.for construction of the BUDGET MESSAGE PAGE FY 04/05 RECOMMENDED OPERATING BUDGET COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA Southern Elementary school Our I'1- Department plans to establish afree e-learning curriculum offered to all County employees and a pilot program for County citizens. Provides funds to enhance Citizens' E[uality of Life: This budget provides over 518.9 million dollars for public safe's/. $4.7 million is targeted for libraries, parks, recreation, and cultural contributions. The County's Office of Housing, working with the Housing Committee and citizens and interest groups, will develop actions to implement the Affordable Housing Policy. These actions will include creating partnerships, identifying incentives, and increasing housing opportunities for homeowners and renters. The Comprehensive Plan's economic development policy will be updated. We will begin design Work on the new Crozet LibrarY. The SPCA will cont!nue construction of its new state of the art animal shelter. The Parks and Recreation Department will complete market analysis for indoor and outdoor recreation facilities and will establish a boat launch on the Rivanna Reservoir. In addition the County will finalize the necessarY easements to create a wa kable public trail fromCrozet Park to Lickinghole Creek Basin. Other initiatives will include the development of a fire rescue training center and police firing range, as well as police technology upgrades. The County will continue to plan and implement new fire rescue station construction to address the County's growth and urbanizing areas as well as refine the Fire's computer aided dispatch system. Protects the County's Natural, Scenic, and Historic Resources: The water crisis of 2002 dembnstrated to us the critical importance of our ~egion's-natural resources. To ensure that a long range plan is in' place to address our water needs, the County is continuing to work with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to develop an integrated water resource plan that directs the County's efforts to address water quality a~d water supply. Other major staff efforts in FY 04/05 will'be working to implement neighborhood master plans and actions needed to carrY out the County's newly revised rural area policies. The County is continuing its Acquisition of Conservation Easement Program with funding from the previous year's budget and an additional $350,000 from the Capital Improvement Program. The County will fund Iv'/Landfill remediation efforts and begin implementing the County environmental management policy; Improves the Effectiveness and Efficiency of County Services: Currently, all COunty departments are revising, and implementing new standards for superior customer service. Resources will be directed to improve the County's business processes, suchas the financial and human resource management systems, so that employees can locate data more easily and make better decisions. The County will continue deployment of its CityView program to streamline the Community Development Department's ability to receive and review new development and building permits and maintain critical data. The County plans to develop a Geographical Information System Web Module which will allow the public and other agencies ways to interact with the County's mapping systems. A strategic plan outcome-based performance measurement system is targeted to be in place at the beginning of FY 04/05. A five year forecasting model for long-range financial planning will be developed to better connect the strategic planning cycle to the operating budget and the capital budget. The County will provide a 33% increase ($1.2 million~ into the County's Capital Improvement Program based on the County's revenue growth and ib accordance with our fiscal policies. In FY 04/05, the County will start a vehicle replacement fund to effectively pay for vehicle replacements in the future. COB South will house-the Police Department, Social Services Department, and the Housing Offices, as well as provide a new customer service booth to provide citizens who go there access to othe{ county services. We will use technology~to simplify the Human Resources Benefits Application Process and develop a competency based management system to select, appraise, reward and develop employees. SUDOOrtS our Hiqh Quality Workforce: I continue to be extremely proud of the jobs performed by County employees. They are our greatest resource. Even in tight fiscal times, we must continue to offer a competitive compensation package that will~ recruit, promote, retain, and reward our high-performing employees. To continue to maintain the market competitive salaries identified in our market analysis, in addition to increasing the County's contributions to Health and Dental benefits of $648 per person, I recommend the County provide a 3 p~ercent merit pool for our local government employees in FY 04/05. Critical ConsideratJon.s If the Board determines to maintain the CUrrent real property tax rate ($0.76/$100), I recommend the Bqard of Supervisors consider providing an approximate $800,000 in reoccurring local government tax revenues to fund our priority strategic initiatives. These initiatives have been prioritized by both the Leadership Council and:~R¥ executive staff and are shown with both the full cost of the initiative and the net cost of recurring funds after other revenues and one- time costs haye been subtracted. These initiatives would put more police officers on the streets, and enhance our BUDGET MESSAGE PAGE A-4 FY 04/05 RECOMMENDED OPERATING BUDGET COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE~ VIRGINIA fire/rescue efforts. They would improve affordable housing opportunities, enhance library services, and expand the drug court, The County's efficiency would be enhanced by improvements in technology and records management in the Community Development Department. We would provide enhancements to stream monitoring and improvements to our parks, The full descriptions of these ~n igh priority initiatives can be found in the FY 04/05 Business Plan which aligns the strategic budget initiatives with the Board's adopted strategic plan. BUDGET MESSAGE PAGE A-5 March 3, 2004 CLOSED SESSION MOTION MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2-3711(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA UNDER SUBSECTION (1) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS; AND UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF PERTAINING TO SPECIFIC LEGAL ISSUES REQUIRING LEGAL ADVICE RELATING TO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE COUNTY IN PRIOR LITIGATION. February 23. 2004 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Cornmuai[y Development 401 Mclntire Road. Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 25-02-04A03:43 RCV9 Qiff Fox 4543 Garth Road Charlottesville. VA 22901 RE: SP-03-81 Crozet Commons; Tax Map 56A2, Parcel 1-31 Dear Mr. Fox: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 17. 2004, by a vote of 7:0. recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Residential uses shall be allowed in a mixed-use development as generally shown on the cormept elan entitled. "Crozet Commons Concept Plan" dated 213104. 2. In Keeping with the illustration entitled "Crozet Commons ,=olor rendering)" dated 3/22/00. the following features of the develooment will be provided: a a sidewalk and street trees shall be provided across the public road frontage. b. a "downtown" type streetscaoe shall be provided that includes the scale and alignment of building shown in the illustration. 3. A maximum of 10 dwelling units shall be allowed in the mixed-use development. 4. Residential uses may be mixed with other C-1 uses within buildings or may oe in separate buildings. 5. If residential uses are mixed with other C-1 uses within a building; there shall be no commercial uses on floors above residential uses other than home occupa[ions 6. The following uses shall not be allowed on the oarcel because of incompatibilities between residential ana nonresidential uses (See Section 22 of A oemarie County Zoning Ordinance in effect on 2/17t04 attached~: a funeral homes o movie theaters c. automobile service s{ations C fire ane rescue stations e. automoo~le truck repair shop f. medical center 7 A medical office may be allowed provided the office hours are between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 o.m. 8. A convenience store may be al~owea orovided the hours of operation are between 7:00 a.m. ane 11:00 p.m. 9. Interparcel vehicular and oedestrian access to the adjoining earce~s shall ae provided a~ locations shown or the conceptual plan or otherwise approveo by the director of planning within the department of community development 10 A condominium regime will be established for unifieC ownership and maintenance of the real proper~y. 11 The concept plan referenced in these condi.tions is not considered a "site .plan" meeting the reeuirements of the Zoning Ordinance: therefore, a subsequent site elan is required. Page 2 February 23. 2004 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on March 3, 2004. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any C uestions or comments regarding the above noted action, piease ao not hesitate to contact me (434) 296-5823. Sincerely, Elaine Echois. AICP Principal Planner EKE/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse Clason Land Trust COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 03-81 Crozet Commons Special Use Permit Amendment SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to reapprove a residential use in a commemial zoning district in accordance with Section 22.2.2.6 and 18- 2.1.3. of the Zoning Ordinance which allow for residential uses m a commercial zone. The property, described as Tax Map 56A2 Parcel 1-31, contains 1.37 acres, and is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on Three Notch'd Road [Route # 240] approximately 1.2 miles from the intersection of Rt. 240 and Rt. 250. The property is zoned C-1 commercial in the Community of Crozet. STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. Echols PC AGENDA DATE: February 17, 2004 ACTION: INFORMATION: Recommend approval of Special use permit with Conditions. BOSAGENDA DATE: March 3, 2004 ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: yes ITEM INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: On June 21,2000, the Board of Supervisors approved SP 00,01 Crozet Commons for this proposed mixed-use development. Crozet Commons proposes commercial and residential uses on C-1 zoned property in Crozet. A special use permit expires if construction has not begun within 24 months of approval by the Board of Supervisors. The special use permit expired on June 21,2002 and the applicant has requested that the special use permit be approved again with the same conditions. Attachment A shows the concept plan. Attachment B shows a black and white version of the rendering showing scale, form and massing envisioned for the development. Attachment C contains Section 22 of the Zoning Ordinance which indicates permitted uses in the C-1 zone. DISCUSSION: No change in condition has occurred since June 21,2000 which would impact this special use permit request with one exception. Through a comprehensive plan amendment, the ~3ommunity of Crozet Development Area has been expanded to include this property. The use is now supported by the Comprehensive Plan. A new concept plan was provided for this special use permit which is essentially the same as the previous special use permit. The only changes are with stormwater management. Information. The parking schedule shown on the concept plan indicates how parking could be accommodated by particular uses in the individual buildings. Actual parking requirements will be determined at the site plan stage at which time, if necessary, the applicant may request approval of a shared parking '"'"~rrangement. At present, fire flow is not available for the use; however, a water line replacement is scheduled to begin this Spdng which should resolve the problem. Staff does not anticipate a request for site plan approval prior to the water line replacement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the same conditions approved with SP 00-01 be approved, changing only the date of the concept plan. Residential uses shall be allowed in a mixed-use development as generally shown on the concept plan entitled. "Crozet Commons Concept Plan" dated 2/3/04. 2. In keeping with the illustration entitled "Crozet Commons (color rendering)" dated 3/22/00, the following features of the development will be provided: a. a s~dewalk and street trees shall be provided across the public road frontage. b. a "downtown" type streetscape shall be provided that includes the scale and alignment of. building shown in the illustration. 3. A maximum of 10 dwelling units shall be allowed in the mixed-use development. 4. Residential uses may be mixed with other C-1 uses within buildings or may be in separate buildings. 5. If residential uses are mixed with other C~1 uses within a building; there shall be no commemial uses on floors above residential uses other than home occupations. 6. The following uses shall not be allowed on the parcel because of incompatibilities between residential and nonresidential uses (See Section 22 of Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on 2/17/04, attached): a. funeral homes b. movie theaters c. automobile service stations d. fire and rescue stations e. automobile truck repair shop f. medical center 7. A medical office may be allowed provided the office hours are between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 8. A convenience store may be allowed provided the hours of operation are between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Interparcel vehicular and pedestrian access to the adjoining parcels shall be provided at ,ocations shown on the conceptual plan or otherwise approved by the director of planning within the department of community development. 10. A condominium regime will be established for unified ownership and maintenance of the real properly. 11. The concept plan referenced in these conditions is not considered a "site plan" meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; therefore, a subsequent site plan is required. Ct~OZET COMMONS COUNTY IRGINfA 56A (2) PARCEL_ 3J FEB - ~ 2004 MUNCASTEB ENG/NEEE/NG ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 22.1 22.2 22.2.1 22.2.2 22.3 CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 22 COMMERCIAL - C-I INTEN'I, WHERE PERMITTED PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 22.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED C-1 :listricts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to permit selected retail sales, service and public use establishments which are primarily oriented to central business concentrations, tt is intended that C-1 districts be established only within the urban area, communities and villages in the comprehensive plan. (Amended 9-9-92) 22.2 PERMITTED USES 22.2.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted in any C-1 district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character and more specifically, similar in terms of locafional reqmrements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0. a. The following retail sales and service establishments: 1 Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and crafi shops. 2, Clothing, apparel and shoe shops. 3. Department store. 4 Drag store, pharmacy. 5. Florist. 6. Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops. 7. Fumitm-e and home appliances (sales and servic~ 18-22-1 Zoning Supplement #6, 12-30-99 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 8. Hardware store. 9. Musical instruments. 10. Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops. 11. Optical goods. 12. Photographic goods. 13. Visual'and audio appliances. 14. Sporting goods. 15. Retail nurseries and greerxhouses. The following services and public establishments: 1. Administrative, professional offices. 2. Barber, beauty shops. 3. Churches, cemeteries 4. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5~i.02). 5. Financial institutions. 6. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). 7. Funeral homes. 8. Health spas. 9. Indoor theaters. 10. Laundries, dry cleaners. 11. Laundromat (provided that an attendant shall be on duty at all hours during operation). 12. Libraries, museums. Nurseries, daycare centers (reference 5.1.06). 14. Eating establishments. 15. Tailor, seamstress. 16. Automobile sendce stations (reference 5.1.20). 17. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding Tower su-ucmres and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. (Amended 5-2-93) 18-22-2 Zoning Supplement 1]6, 12-30-99 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 18.Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewar transmissinn, main or trank lines treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and]or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority ffefarence 31.2.5; 5.t.12). (Amended 11-1-9) 19. Temporary construction uses ~reference 5.1.1). 20 Dwellings ~reference 5.1.21). 21 Medical center. 22. Automobile, truck repair shop excluding body shop. (Added 6-3-81; Amended 9-9-92~ 23 Temporary nonresidential mobile homes/reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-6) 24. Indoor athletic facilities. ~Added 9-15-931 25. Farmers' market/reference 5.1.36). /Added t0-11-95) 26. Stormwatar management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subcFtvision plat. (Added 10-9-02~ 22.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT The following uses shall be permitted only by special use perrfftt approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 1. Commercial recreation establishments including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls./Amended 1-1-83) 2. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumpmg stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro- wave and radio-wave lransn'fission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. 3. Hospitals. 4. Fast food restaurant. 5. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11 ~. 6. Unless such uses are othe~vise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0. residential - R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4. 7. Hotels, motels and inns. 8. Motor vehicle sales and rental in communities and the urban area as designated in the comprehensive plan. (Added 6-1-83) 9. Stand alone parking andparking smacmres ~reference 4.12, 5A.41). (Added 11-7-84; Amended 2-%03) 10. Drive4n windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84; Amended 9-9- 92) 18-22-3 Zoning Supplement #25.2-5-03 7 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 11. Uses permitted by right, not sm'ved by public water, involving water consumption exceeding fou~ hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89) 12. Body shop. (Added 9-9-92) 13. Animal shelter (reference 5.1,11 ). (Added 6-16-99). 22.3 ADDITIONAL REQLrIREMENTS In addition to the requirements contained herein, the req~firements of section 21.0, commercial districts, generally, shall apply within all C-1 districts. (Amended 3-17-82; 7-10-85) l 8-22-4 Zoning Supplemem #25, 2-5-03 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Developmem 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 MEMORANDUM TO: North Pointe Committee FROM: Elaine K. Echols, AICP. Principal Planner SUBJECT: ZMA 00-72 North Pointe Development DATE: February 26, 2004 BACKGROUND At the Committee meeting held on February 2, 2004, members of the Committee refined their preferences regarding physical design of the project The Committee asked that staff and the applicant work together to design a plan to address specific design recommendations made at that meeting. The committee would then reconvene and consider the new plan once the staff/applicant work was complete. The requested changes include: Changes to specific design elements of the major commercial area including building orientation to the street and reducing building mass and scale (this did not include any specific limitations to propose_ d building footprints) Attention to the parking areas focused on breaking up massive surface parking lots in front of commercial buildings (structured parking, relegated parking, on-street parking as possibilities) Staff and the applicant met in early February and the applicant provided a revised plan on February 13. It was provided in a separate mailing. CHANGES TO THE PLAN The following changes have been made to the January 29, 2004 plan: · The "strip" center has been replaced with "blocks" on which buildings and parking are placed · There are two "big boxes" and their footprints are less than 75,000 square feet each · Blocks with surface parking areas allow for and, in some places show opportunities for future parking structures · A "main street" area is provided which leads to a public library building Staff believes these changes are very positive and that they appropriately address the issues raised previously by the Committee and staff. Staff believes that several "tweaks" will still be necessary prior to completion of the application plan which accompanies the rezoning request. These tweaks have been discussed with the applicant who agrees that they are minor and can be accommodated. Staff believes that they should be made on the application plan rather than on future site plans and subdivision plats. These tweaks are: 1. Provision of more centralized g teen space/amenity area for the residential units in the southeast corner of the site. 2. Modify the area with three small blocks in which the library site is located. This area is bounded on the southwest by the lake and on the north by the street which contains elevation information beginning with the number 460 and extending to the number 500. The modification would result in the central area noted as "parking" changing to a "green" and moving the buildings closer to the street. 3. Placing buildings on the corners of blocks such that they have presence on both streets. 4. Pulling building 16 up to the comer of Northeast Dr. and North Pointe BIvd so that the parking lot is not on the comer. 5. Detailing the areas that are drawn conceptually, especially along Route 29 so that the ARB can review them and provide comment. 6. F~rovide more information on the lake amenity. Additionally, the area shown as "future development" should be clarified As shown, it implies that a future rezoning would establish use and configuration. If this is intended, then, it could be excluded from the rezoning proposal or clarified through the proffers that a future rezoning would establish use and configuration. If something different is intended, it must be shown on the application plan. Staff asks that the Committee either affirm the design or advise the applicant on any needed changes. If the Committee agrees with staff, then staffwill pass this information on to the Board at its March 3, 2004 day meeting. OTHER SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE The Committee also asked for information on several other items. Staff's response is provided below: Confirm School Board intent as to need for an elementary school in this location, and determine whether indicated size is adequate or is 12 full acres necessary. The Albemarle County School Board met on February 26, 2004. On 7-0 votes, the Board affirmed the following items: 1 An elementary school site is needed and that North Point is a preferred and suitable location for the New Northern Elementary School. 2. The current CIP timeline for opening the school in the next 10 years. 3. The school site must contain at least 12 usable acres, graded with utilities on site. The site shown on the North Pointe Plan must be expanded to account for the unusable steep terrain of the site. Give ARB an opportunity for plan review after the Committee sees the next plan--Staff has checked with the ARB submittal schedule and found that if the revised plan is received by March 8. the ARB can review and provide comments on the plan at their Apd119 meeting. I_n checking with the Design Planner and Landscape Planner, who staff the ARB, a shorter review schedule on this item cannot be accommodated without impacting reviews required for other submittals Provide estimate of open space to developed space in the recommended plan. On the last application plan which received a full review (October21, 2003), the area shown in open space appeared to be around 45% of the residential area The open space is viewed as a very positive feature of the development. With the environmentally sensitive areas identified for preservation or conservation, staff is very satisfied that the neighborhood and overall community's needs have been met. Staff's concern raised at the Planning Commission meeting in November was a technical one -the proffers indicate that 25% of the total land area will bein open space; but the plan shows almost twice that amount. Staff has asked that the proffers and application plan more closely resemble one another. No open space figures have been provided with the February 13 plan because it is still in a conceptual stage. When a more detailed redesign of the plan takes place for the application plan, open space figures likely ~vill change. When total open space figures on the new design are provided, they need to closely match the percentage in the proffers so that interpretation issues that cause pm?ct delays aren't raised in the future. Transportation impact analysis - summary of impact of traffic generated by project on Route 29 intersections and potential mitigating effects of proposed infrastructure improvements. A traffic study was provided by the applicant in late 2001 and was accepted by VDOT in the summer of 2002. A series of letters regarding ~mpacts and mitigation of impacts has been received from VDOT from August of 2002 through October 2003. Each successive letter from VDOT relies on previous correspondence rather than providing a complete response to the revised plan. Instead of providing the Committee with copies of all of the correspondence among the applicant, staff, and VDOT, County staff compiled a summary of VDOT requirements and recommendations for signature by VDOT staff. The resident engineer has yet to sign this summary but it has been reviewed by VDOT staff and forwarded to the resident engineer. DISCUSSION When the Board of Supervisors appointed the Committee to work on North Pointe, the charge was to work towards an acceptable design for the rezoning. Staff believes that the current proposed design ~s acceptable with the tweaks indicated earlier in this report. In addition to other items discUssed previously by the Committee, there are several other outstanding issues which need to be resolved prior to the Board of Su perv~sors considering and taking action on the project. These issues are: 1. Are the mitigation measures for transportation impacts appropriate? 2. Is the level of flexibility proposed with the plan acceptable? 3. How much affordable housing should be provided? 4. Is a library atthis location appropriate? If the Committee wishes to provide comment on these items staff offers the following background information: Transportation - The applicant and County agree that the new layout improves traffic movement throughout the development and is more pedestrian friendly. Among the major improvements were: tmproved separation of through-traffic and the commemial area traffic, improved circulation through a gddded street network, and separation of the school from the commercial area. There are a number of transportation issues that remain to be resolved. First, the timing of U.S. 29 improvements is still undefined. The applicant has tied these improvements to phases of completion but offers no commitment to the time it may take to complete these improvements. Staff fears this could result in it being a very long time for these improvements, which reduces the value of the commitment to the County. Staff would prefer to see an absolute date by which these improvements would be constructed. Staff is suggesting the U.S. 29 improvements be completed within five years of the approval of the first site plan or subdivision plat. Additionally, staff is suggesting that the applicant agree to reimburse the County for any condemnation of right of way that may be necessary to complete the U.S. 29 imprcvemen[s. Second, staff believes the completion of Northwest Passage and North Pointe Boulevard between U.S. 29 and Proffit Road provides benefits to the County. As such, staff is interested in seeing [his improvement completed as soon as reasonably possible. With this background, staff is suggesting that completion of North Pointe Boulevard and Leake Road between Northside Drive and Proffit Road occur prior to any certificate of occupancy for any commercial use in the development. The applicant has already agreed to complete Northside Drive improvements with this phase of development. Commitments to build North Pointe Boulevard from Proffit to the center entrance of the development simply assures that the other leg is complete. Staff is also suggesting that North Pointe Boulevard and Northwest Passage between Northside Ddve and U.S. 29 be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for houses in 4 residential phases 2 or 3. as identified on earlier plans. This is the residential development to the north and east of Northwest Passage. Third, at the intersection of Pmffit Road and Leake Road, the applicant has agreed to construct a roundabout and 3rd west bound lane on Profitt Road to U.S. 29. VDOT has indicated they believe this is a necessary improvement for the proposed connection to North Pointe Boulevard. There is an outstanding issue as to what happens if the existing right of way is not adequate for the proposed improvements. Staff is suggesting the applicant agree to reimburse the County for any condemnation that may be necessary to accommodate this improvement. Fourth-, Leake Road is an offsite improvement required to connect North Pointe Boulevard to Proffit Road. The applicant has indicated they can provide a 50' dght of way in this area and improve Leake Road within that dght of way. Staff is suggesting the applicant agree to provide a 50' dght of way, then construct Leake Road with a cross section that matches North Pointe Boulevard. If the rigt~t of way is not adequate to provide this cross section, staff is suggesting [hat th_e applicant agree to provide a cross section that allows the best match to North Pointe Boulevard within this dght of way, as determined by the County Engineer. Finally, if it is determined that temporary construction easements are required to complete this road, staff is suggesting the applicant agree to reimburse the County for any condemnation that may be necessary for this temporary construction easement. Finally, staff is suggesting that all internal street sections include street trees between the curb and sidewalk. Flexibility with the Plan - The applicant has indicated that no more than a total of 893 units will be built on the 269 acres. The mix of units may not be as shown on the application plan, though. Because market demands dictate the amount and type of housing produced at any given :time, the applicant has allowed for a range of 23% to 43% of each type of housing. These housing types are single family detached, apartments, and townhouses/duplexes. Staff believes that this flexibility is very positive. The street layout would be the controlling factor in this instance. The application plan reviewed in October contains a table of uses by building. (The cu trent conceptual plan does not show this table; however, the revised application plan will show such a table.) The applicant has indicated a desire to make adjustments in square footage to any commercial or office building shown on the table. The cap would be 10% -- either increasing or decreasing square footage, so long as the overall amount of 582,592 square feet is not exceeded for commercial uses and 80,800 is not exceeded for office uses. The applicant does not wish to restrict the library, church, or school to the limitations of 10%. Staff believes that the flexibility desired by the applicant is reasonable in terms of quantities. Staff believes that the location of corn mercial buildings shown on the concept plan is also important. Now that blocks have been shown on the plan and the building mass has been broken up, it is important that these changes be reflected in commitments. 5 Staff believes it can work with the applicant to ensure that appropriate commitments are made to the location of buildings and parking areas. Affordable Housing- At present, the applicant is offering to provide 4% of the units in the development (36 units) as affordable. There are two issues related to this offer which are important to consider. One issue is that the recently adopted Affordable Housing Comprehensive Plan Amendment stipulates that 15% of all new developments should contain affordable housing. The second issue is that there is currently no program ~n place at the County for the applicant to use to ensure that whatever level of affordable housing provided remains affordable. Staff believes that, on the latter issue, we can help the applicant find appropriate language to assure a commitment to affordability. Staff needs guidance as to whether the pementage of affordable housing should come closer into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff notes that the applicant has indicated on many occasions that he is the only developer (other than the recently approved Cedar Hill Mobile Home Park owner) who has actually been willing to commit in wdting to providing affordable housing. He has said he is also the only developer to date who has been asked to provide 15%. Library Site- The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) currently calls for twe library sites in the development areas north of the City of Charlottesville. One would replace the temporary location of the Northside library at Albemarle Square shopping center. According to the CIP, the other library "would be located in the 29N Corridor". The Community Facilities Plan also calls for a fire and rescue facility and an elementary school site in the Hollymead/Piney Mountain Community. In looking at the recent rezon~ng requests, staff has seen several possible sites for libraries and fire and rescue facilities. Only one site has proven suitable for an elementary school site. Staff has pursued the school site on the North Pointe property. Because other rezoning proposals could provide sites for a library and fire and rescue facility, staff did not pursue these facilities on the North Pointe property. The applicant, however, has made it clear that he wishes to place a library site at North Pointe and recently asked for support from the Library Board of Trustees for the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library. Each North Pointe proposal has shown a library site which, to this point, has not been supported by staff. Knowing that the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library supports the North Pointe site and also seeing a North Pointe design which better integrates a library into the development, staff now supports a library at this location. ACTION BY THE COMMITTEE Staff asks that the Committee review the conceptual plan to see if it achieves the goals previously set by the Committee. If it does. staff asks that the Committee endorse the plan, with the modifications identified by the staff. We also ask that the Committee review the other issues discussed in this memo and provide guidance to staff and to the applicant. It is hoped that this meeting will conclude the work of the Committee and that the Committee's recommendation can be made to the Board on March 3, 2004. There is additional work that must be done pdor to a Board of Supervisor's public hearing. Staffwill be working with the applicant to address those items necessary for completion of the project. Enclosure 3 Dnvid ~ Bowerman Kenneth C. Bo~d Dnds~ G. Dottier. & COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board Of Supervisors 401 Mclniire Road Charlottesville, l~rrginia 22902-4596 Iz!.341 296-584~ FAX 434) 296~5800 March 4, 2004 Dennis S. Rooker SaIIF H. Thomas David C. W!~anr Mr. Barry A. Price 1211 Richmond Drive Georgetown, SC 29440 Dear Mr. Price: I am in receipt of ~our letter which was forwarded to me by Mayor Maurice Cox of the City of Charlottesville. While I do not want to give you the impression I am "passing the buck; road signs of this nature you have requested which for dedication to the 116th Regiment of the National Guard, 29m Division, must be approved and provided by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 1 am by copy of this letter requesting that Mr. James L. Bryan, our local VDOT Resident Engineer, initiate the process of creating these s~gns as you have requested. In rewevang this matter with my fellow Board members, they are very receptive to requesting that VDOT implement your request. Should you need to contact Mr. Bryan, his address and telephone number is as follows: Mr. James L. Bryan. Resident Engineer, 701 VDOT Way, Charlottesville, VA 22902. Finally, want to thank you for recommending this tribute of honor to these national guardsmen. LGD,Jr/ec cc: James L. Bryan, w/cepy of request Sincerely, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Chairman Printed on recycled paper 01-03=34P10:46 RCVD CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE Office of the Mayor P.O. Box 911 · Charlottesville, V~rginia 22902 Telephone: (434) 970-31 I3 Febmary26,2004 Mr. Barry A. Price 1211 Richmond Drive Georgetown, SC 29440 Dear Ivlr. Price: Thank you for your recent letter requesting that the Charlottesville City Council dedicate the road on which the National Guard Armory is located to the 116th Regimem of the National Guard. I am Sure that all of Council would be happy to consider this request honoring one. of the National Guard companies t~om our community. However, the road on which the Armory is located is in Albemarle County, not the City of Charlottesville, and we have no jurisdiction over that roadway. I will pass your letter on to the Chairman of the Albemarle'County Board of Supervisors, but you may also want to follow-up with a letter Or telephone call. The contact information is: Mr. LindsayDorrier, Chairman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, County Office Building, 401 Mc/ntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902. Telephone - (434) 296-5843. I wish you the best of luck in honoring these most deserving citizens. Maurice D. Cox Mayor j Cc: Lindsay Dorrier City Council t211 Richmond Drive Georgetown, S.C. 29440 February 13, 2004 Mayor Blake Caravati and Members of City Council City of Charlottesville P.O. Box 911 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Mayor Caravati and Members of Council, As I am sure you know, on June 6, 1944, American forces stormed ashore on the coast of France and breached what was called "The Atlantic Wall of Fortress Europe." Of all American forces engaged on that Iong ago day, no division suffered as many casualties as the 29t~ Division. Of the regiments and other components which made up the 29~, the 116~ Regiment suffered the greatest loss. The 29~ was a fighting force which had originally been made up ofnational guard units from Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. The 116~ Regiment was composed ofNatiomal Ouard eompanieg which' had come from Virginia. One of those companies came from yourcity, Afrer two years of intensive training in England, this body of men wastruly a crack force. On D-Day, many thousands of men did their jobs and gave their all to establish that beachhead. What is worthy of remembering especially for you is that the men from YOUR hometown were among the veryfirst to reach the beach, under some of the heaviest fire encountered by any American troops anywhere. Atter Normandy came the hedgerow fighting, followed by the assault on St. Lo, the taking ofBrest ag0iast some of the most rabid Nazis in uniform, the sweep into the Low Countries and on to the aucient cityofAachen, before these men nearly froze as the Battle oEthe Bulge raged on their flank. While others can recount ~r better than I the record of the men who flied the ranks of the 29~, let me remind you ~hat these men earned four presidential combat citations by April 1945 and were in almost daffy combat until peace had been won. The men t}om your home town who survived than dreadful morning olD-Day and the eleven months thereatter returned home and rejoined the world they had so long ago leit behind. Now, those few who are still lett remain among you. It is my suggestion that they be remembered in the twilight of their lives in some small way. Specifically, several other eommtmities in Virginia have been contacted and efforts are underway to quietly recognize our 116m Regiment heroes of'44-'45. If you are willing to participate i~ the project, it is requested that the portion oftha highway along which you~ National Guard armory is located be dedicated to these men. All that will be required will be perhaps two small roadside signs facing each direction, reading something such as This portion of Highway __ is dedicated to the men of Company .~ 116m Regiment, 29m Division, who participated in the initial assault on Omaha Beach, June 6, 1944. In my research of this matter, it has come to be my understanding that a veteran of the 29m Division who today appears anywhere in Normandy is treated much as "stars" are in America. Strangers bring out their children to meet these men and be photographed With them, restaurant owners fi'equentiy will refuse all' offers of money, 0Id women wave their handkerchiefs and even today weep in their presence - so great were the deeds these men did. May we, as younger members of the same great country which produced these liberators of France and all of Europe, not at least offer a small portion of gratitude? A fine date for doing so, in my estimation, is June 6, 2004, the 60m anniversary of the invasion. Perhaps a ceremony, with the veterans as honored guests, could be held as welt. Presidential Roosevelt during the War reminded the American people that the ' struggle was for many thing, inclu~ug the famous "Four Freedoms." These were "Freedom From Fear," "Freedom From Want," '~Freedom of Religion," and "Freedom of Speech." These freedoms were assured i~ no small part by the men of your city - who were and s~ill are. heroes. In closing, as news of the invasion swept across the face of that unfree continem, a little girl who had been for months in hiding confided to her diary her prayer that the liberators would be successful and that, the next year, she might be able to again go to school. Ann Frank of course was in time scm to a eeneentration camp and perished there. Had she survived, I am ee~ain she would be among the first to join in this tribute m the deserving veterans of your city. Thank you for your consideration. (843) 546-0114 bapriee~Coastal, edu WM. POINDBXTER Moo~E JR. 14o IVY DRIVE APT. #2. CI-IARLOTTESVILLE~ VA Z~903-5035 August 19, '03 Limdsay G, Dottier Jr,, Esq. Chairman - Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road "8-2T~?EcaS?}~- Charlottesville, Va. 22901 Dear Lindsay: Just yesterday I?learned of the death of Mas. Demas T. Craw, long time resident of Albemarle County. "Vickie" as she was known To many long time res- ident of the county was an activist if there was ever ane. At the time I was serving on the Albemarle County Planning. Board and for a while as Vice Chairman, she was most helpful. As you may remember we were struggling to develop and encourage the Bd of Super- visors to adopt a ~oun~y::cwide-Zo~ingr,.~an:r ~ good old conservative Albemarle County, this was a radical idea for it took away from property owners the right to do with their own property as they saw fit. Perhaps in retrospect they were right. ~oweve~ Mrs. Craw and several of the organizations with which she was affiliated helped the Planning Committee with ideas and material and studies. ~ Board passed the Zoning Plan unanimously! Vickie was not ~nly helpful in this instance but was involved in many other projects and efforts ~o make Albemarle a better community for everyone to live in. I am writing to you to suggest that you use your i~fluence to have the Board of Supervisors pass a resolution ack- nowledging her contributions To the county and noting her passing as a good citizen. Thanks. Cor ~tl~ly, ~